It is interesting how different the maintenance concepts are between our two countries.
NAVAIR does it's best to "dumb things down" with regards to our Organic maintenance practices and repair capability. Generally speaking, in recent years, we have invested heavily in Built-In-Test capability and Prognostic Health Management software for each T/M/S. This translates to our Enlisted Technicians being able to rapidly Diagnose, Fault Isolate, and Remove/Replace faulty Weapon Replaceable or Shop Replaceable Assemblies (i.e. swap boxes), then perform Functional Testing and get a Go/No-Go indication and sign-off. Having a high BIT confidence in our platforms also translates into confidence of design/test integrity (i.e. being able to diagnose ALL faults without having to procure additional SE or Test Sets to test for undetectable faults). Generally, it also reduces overall footprint and acquisition costs.
So in short, the requirements we impose for our systems acquisitions enable an organic maintenance concept (since we are talking Squadron, or O-Level maintenance) that allow complex systems to be maintained and troubleshot by technicians with basic training, systems knowledge, etc. coming out of CNATTU. Not saying that our wrench turners, et. all aren't smart people... but I am saying that the idea of folks being "Artisan's" or master craftsman is becoming less necessary due to our maintenance concepts. Meanwhile, our AMDO's are overseeing aircraft production commiserate with operation/mission needs, technical qualification/training of the Enlisted, maintenance programs IAW NAMP, etc. i.e. our Managerial, or administrative role...
