Swapping out aircrews/personnel with aircraft remaining deployed...and ships

[jamnww]

VMM-263 will be returning to the states without their Ospreys

Thats not surprising, 53's been doing it for a long time now...I can't imagine any of the other airframes not doing it save the Jet guys...

 

[Lawman]

Thats not surprising, 53's been doing it for a long time now...I can't imagine any of the other airframes not doing it save the Jet guys...

The Air Force does it with their jets. Just makes sense to not put all that unneccesary airframe fatigue on a plane just to fly it from one part of the world to the other.

 

[VetteMuscle427]

The Air Force does it with their jets. Just makes sense to not put all that unneccesary airframe fatigue on a plane just to fly it from one part of the world to the other.

What about the difference in fatigue when you're flying daily combat missions in a harsh environment with field maintenance versus stateside routine w/ stateside maintenance?

Seems to me you could develop a large discrepancy between non-deployed and deployed aircraft. Makes sense to me to have all your aircraft about the same point in their service life... wouldn't that help with large scale upgrade efforts and replacement by lots?

 

[Lawman]

What about the difference in fatigue when you're flying daily combat missions in a harsh environment with field maintenance versus stateside routine w/ stateside maintenance?

Seems to me you could develop a large discrepancy between non-deployed and deployed aircraft. Makes sense to me to have all your aircraft about the same point in their service life... wouldn't that help with large scale upgrade efforts and replacement by lots?

Yes but you put how many hours of flight time and burn up how much jet fuel just for the sake of flying a dozen fighters from one end of the world to the other and replacing them with a dozen more. It just makes more sense to just leave a set number of aircraft in theatre and rotate personel through.

 

[HeyJoe]

The Air Force does it with their jets. Just makes sense to not put all that unneccesary airframe fatigue on a plane just to fly it from one part of the world to the other.

Flying high in airways for extended periods (for jets, that is) does more to prolong life than shorter sorties.

Yes but you put how many hours of flight time and burn up how much jet fuel just for the sake of flying a dozen fighters from one end of the world to the other and replacing them with a dozen more. It just makes more sense to just leave a set number of aircraft in theatre and rotate personel through.

That's just one benefit countered by harsh conditions and OPTEMPO that wear aircraft down ahead of projected life AND maintainers sometimes treat aircraft differently if they know they won't "own" them for more than 6 months.

 

[Harrier Dude]

It just makes more sense to just leave a set number of aircraft in theatre and rotate personel through.

Harriers do it all the time. Terrible idea.

IMHO it erodes the sense of ownership in your jets. It always takes a month or so on each end receiving the other jets, getting to know their persistent gripes, decoding the passdown books, and un-assing what brand X has done.

Squadrons tend to really wear out their jets the last month or so prior to the turnover. Very little TLC. Nobody ever admits it, but in a month or so, it isn't their problem.

Then you get back home, get you jets from brand X, and find out that they, too have worn the crap out of them getting all of their predeployment training done and left them in a stinking heap on the flightline.

It's a watseful strategy, although it sounds good on paper.

 

[mmx1]

Harriers do it all the time. Terrible idea.

IMHO it erodes the sense of ownership in your jets. It always takes a month or so on each end receiving the other jets, getting to know their persistent gripes, decoding the passdown books, and un-assing what brand X has done.

Squadrons tend to really wear out their jets the last month or so prior to the turnover. Very little TLC. Nobody ever admits it, but in a month or so, it isn't their problem.

Then you get back home, get you jets from brand X, and find out that they, too have worn the crap out of them getting all of their predeployment training done and left them in a stinking heap on the flightline.

It's a watseful strategy, although it sounds good on paper.

Anyone ever think of doing an empirical study (comparing logs or whatnot) and putting the "good idea" to rest?

 

[Harrier Dude]

Anyone ever think of doing an empirical study (comparing logs or whatnot) and putting the "good idea" to rest?

You mean prove The General wrong? With facts to back it up? Generals just looooooooove that!

It's cheaper in the short run this way, which is all they care about.

I know what you mean, but it always comes down to expediency.

 

[Flash]

Harriers do it all the time. Terrible idea.

IMHO it erodes the sense of ownership in your jets. It always takes a month or so on each end receiving the other jets, getting to know their persistent gripes, decoding the passdown books, and un-assing what brand X has done.

Squadrons tend to really wear out their jets the last month or so prior to the turnover. Very little TLC. Nobody ever admits it, but in a month or so, it isn't their problem.

Then you get back home, get you jets from brand X, and find out that they, too have worn the crap out of them getting all of their predeployment training done and left them in a stinking heap on the flightline.

It's a wasteful strategy, although it sounds good on paper.

I heard the same thing about the whole grand 'Sea Swap' idea with the Navy, where they turn over a ship at 6 month intervals to different crews. A grand experiment that the brass seemed happy with but talking to a few of the sailors that took part, lots of buffoonery when it came to maintenance.

I believe they want to make that standard with the LCS's, if they ever come on line.

 

[jamnww]

What about the difference in fatigue when you're flying daily combat missions in a harsh environment with field maintenance versus stateside routine w/ stateside maintenance?

Seems to me you could develop a large discrepancy between non-deployed and deployed aircraft. Makes sense to me to have all your aircraft about the same point in their service life... wouldn't that help with large scale upgrade efforts and replacement by lots?

They rotate aircraft in and out of theatre, just not entire squadrons at one time...more like one or two at a time. Besides the a/c in zone are actually in decent shape since they are #1 pri for parts and maint is pretty constant...

 

[nittany03]

I heard the same thing about the whole grand 'Sea Swap' idea with the Navy, where they turn over a ship at 6 month intervals to different crews. A grand experiment that the brass seemed happy with but talking to a few of the sailors that took part, lots of buffoonery when it came to maintenance.

I believe they want to make that standard with the LCS's, if they ever come on line.

OK, devil's advocate here. How has the SSBN force managed to do it with Blue/Gold crews for so long then?

 

[Harrier Dude]

OK, devil's advocate here. How has the SSBN force managed to do it with Blue/Gold crews for so long then?

Not an expert on submarines, but I would say because they have no choice.

The "swap out" plan will work, just not as well as en bloc replacement.

It's a matter of best practices rather than work/won't work.

 

[HeyJoe]

OK, devil's advocate here. How has the SSBN force managed to do it with Blue/Gold crews for so long then?

Apples and Oranges. Blue turns over to Gold and then turns back over to Blue. It's a Yin and Yang so if you turn over trash, you'll be meeting same guys on your rotation. Air Force and "Naval" service rotations aren't "port and starboard" so like Harrier Dude attests, you can turn over trash and move on. You do it in a sub and you'll learn true meaning of "What goes around, comes around". You know youll be seeing that same sub coming back at ya.

 

[hscs]

Only swapping a couple a/c out works pretty well -- HCS has done it that way...no reason why it can't work.

 

[eddie]

I believe they want to make that standard with the LCS's, if they ever come on line.

I still don't understand what that thing is supposed to bring to the fight.