More Clarity, or Added Confusion?

Am I missing something? Check out the second half of this Navy Times story and tell me what you think.

Aviation readiness isn’t tied exclusively to the budget, Navy officials said.

“A combination of factors, not just funding, impact readiness and capability, which we closely monitor. Gaps in maintenance funding have the potential to place more workload on the fleet to move equipment in order to manage readiness and cannibalization rates,” said Lt. Paul Macapagal, a Navy spokesman.

The capability rates the subcommittee evaluated are below goals, due in part to operations in several theaters at high op tempo, a changing emphasis from Iraq to Afghanistan that lengthened supply lines, as well as other factors, said Capt. Mike Kelly, the force materiel officer at Naval Air Forces.

Additionally, the data the subcommittee is using isn’t the best tool to assess full mission capability, Kelly said. For example, an electronic attack aircraft might be in a carrier hangar, in great shape, but isn’t equipped with a jamming pod. For every half-hour it sits without that pod it technically doesn’t count as “fully mission-capable,” he said.

It’s better to consider whether the aircraft is ready for a certain task, Kelly said.

“Do I have the aircraft? Do I have the mission sets? Do I have the required equipment? Do I have the required crew?” he asked. “We send each and every strike group with a complete set of assets. We’ve been solid doing that, and I can’t think of any shortages when we’re sending them to sea.”

Where did Rep Forbes get his information? From the Navy. That means the Navy is who says that an electronic attack aircraft in a carrier hangar without a jamming pod for over a half-hour doesn’t count as “fully mission-capable" even if the aircraft is otherwise just fine?

But if the jam pod is broken and that is why the electronic attack aircraft doesn't have a jammer, doesn't that mean the aircraft isn't fully mission capable, and suggests the aircraft would have to cannibalize a jammer off another aircraft in order to perform a mission?

Seems to me that if the Navy is measuring by that criteria, the Navy is measuring correctly. That would then beg the question why the data the subcommittee is using isn’t the best tool to assess full mission capability if indeed the data used by the subcommittee (and even in the example provided by Lt. Paul Macapagal) effectively assesses full mission capability?

The Navy is saying "but the aircraft isn't broken" while Forbes is saying "fix the jammer" before you pat yourself on the back. I get it things won't always work right, but when the target is 60% full mission capability and the Navy is only able to get 45% from the entire fleet, I'm thinking Forbes is making the right point.

I'm not sure if the new information adds more clarity or more confusion. Am I missing something?