Military Aviation News

Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 8,850

What's wrong with his article? I found it rather well written..
Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 3,106

What's wrong with his article? I found it rather well written..
The issue with Axe is twofold: what he writes mixes few solid facts with heaps of speculation and pure B.S. Second, he poses as a journalist, yet does not follow the basic tenants of journalistic integrity and standards. He starts with his bias, finds sources that lack credibility, then formulates a conclusion that distorts, or goes well beyond what is supported by the few actual facts he provides. His articles are the worst type of junk food for the brain, complete with flashy title that is usually misleading. He can pull this off because "john Q Public" is generally ill informed and willing to buy into sensationalism about military spending and procurement. Those who are: in the military, professionals, or have a base of knowledge on the topic dismiss him as a joke. People do not discredit his tabloid journalism approach to military matters because those who are educated ignore him anyway, and his target audience is largely ignorant of said topic.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 2,602

USAF Issues RFI for F-16 SLEP Effort
(Source: IHS Jane's Defence Weekly; published Jan 19, 2016) By Gareth Jennings LONDON --- The US Air Force (USAF) is moving ahead with a service-life extension programme (SLEP) of its fleet of Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon combat aircraft, with an initial sources sought notice being issued to industry on 14 January. The request for information (RfI) posted on the Federal Business Opportunities (FedBizOpps) website seeks to determine the level of industry support for a SLEP for up to 300 of the service's 1,017 Block 40/42 and 50/52 C- and D-model F-16s.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/170547/us-air-force-issues-rfi-for-f_16-service-life-extension.html Is this due to F-35 delays? In anticipation of a possible reduction in USAF F-35 procurement numbers?
Profile picture for user FBW

Member for

7 years 10 months

Posts: 3,106

USAF Issues RFI for F-16 SLEP Effort http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/170547/us-air-force-issues-rfi-for-f_16-service-life-extension.html Is this due to F-35 delays? In anticipation of a possible reduction in USAF F-35 procurement numbers?
Not associated with cuts to the F-35. The air force has been exploring the F-16 SLEP for several years. Due to the protracted development of the F-35, they will face a shortfall unless the F-16's can be extended beyond 8,000 hours. Even if the F-35 is bought at the 80 per year projected, it would be 2030 before the numbers would approach the F-16's currently in service. Hence a 4,000 hour ( 8 year) extension. The RFI has been issued now since Lockheed has finished the feasibility study- http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/lockheed-martin-completes-f-16-durability-testing-milestone.html The question at large still, "how extensive will the F-16 SLEP and upgrades be". As the AESA program has been stalled due to funding, it's unlikely to be resolved any time soon

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 2,602

Not associated with cuts to the F-35. The air force has been exploring the F-16 SLEP for several years. Due to the protracted development of the F-35, they will face a shortfall unless the F-16's can be extended beyond 8,000 hours. Even if the F-35 is bought at the 80 per year projected, it would be 2030 before the numbers would approach the F-16's currently in service. Hence a 4,000 hour ( 8 year) extension. The RFI has been issued now since Lockheed has finished the feasibility study- http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2015/november/lockheed-martin-completes-f-16-durability-testing-milestone.html The question at large still, "how extensive will the F-16 SLEP and upgrades be". As the AESA program has been stalled due to funding, it's unlikely to be resolved any time soon
I think I've got it. Because the F-35 program is so many years behind schedule good ole Uncle Sam is looking to fork out $$$ to extend F-16 service life and to pay the architect of this problem $$$ extra. Love it!
Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 5,198

um, The F-35 is only 5 years behind it's development & IOC schedule. The bigger problem is the production ramp-up and the annual build rate cut that took place very early in the program.

Member for

11 years 4 months

Posts: 2,602

um, The F-35 is only 5 years behind it's development & IOC schedule. The bigger problem is the production ramp-up and the annual build rate cut that took place very early in the program.
You say 'only' 5 years behind it's development & IOC schedule. How late does something have to be before it stops being 'only' x years late and starts being x years late? You mention the build rate cut in the program being the bigger problem. That wouldn't by any chance have anything to do with a reluctance to build a larger number of aircraft with problems that would require rework rather than a smaller number of aircraft with problems that would require rework?
Profile picture for user bring_it_on

Member for

15 years 5 months

Posts: 12,109

I think I've got it. Because the F-35 program is so many years behind schedule good ole Uncle Sam is looking to fork out $$$ to extend F-16 service life and to pay the architect of this problem $$$ extra. Love it!
The delay contributed YES. However, at one point the US Congress decided to slash around a Trillion Dollars from the 10 year budget under the BCA. That impacts production schedule, and it also indirectly impacts production schedule right after the BCA caps expire since a lot many other plans have been pushed to the right as well. The F-16 and F-15 modernization plans have existed for many years now and would have happened a few years ago had the money not been diverted towards other priorities. Same with the F-15 modernization plans. The radar modernization is happening at the moment both for the C and the E variants, and the Next Generation EW contracts just got awarded to Boeing and BaE.
Profile picture for user SpudmanWP

Member for

10 years 10 months

Posts: 5,198

You say 'only' 5 years behind it's development & IOC schedule. How late does something have to be before it stops being 'only' x years late and starts being x years late?
The "only" part was to demonstrate that the need to upgrade the F-16s was not due to the delay in SDD for the F-35.
You mention the build rate cut in the program being the bigger problem. That wouldn't by any chance have anything to do with a reluctance to build a larger number of aircraft with problems that would require rework rather than a smaller number of aircraft with problems that would require rework?
Nope, it was budgetary in nature. Proof of this is easy to see if you look at the original annual build rate plan for the F-35A. At the beginning of the program (2002~ish) the annual rate was planned at 120 F-35As but it was reduced to 80 LONG before the SDD issues reared their ugly heads in 2008. There has always been a need to SLEP the F-16s, it's just a matter of determining the extent of the SLEP.
Profile picture for user Tango III

Member for

13 years 2 months

Posts: 25,376

The mission-capable rates for the Air Force’s entire fleet of nearly 5,500 aircraft range from 46.98 percent for the B-1B bomber to 100 percent for the C-21C. Which aircraft are most mission ready

Member for

7 years 11 months

Posts: 5,841

Luke F-16 crashes in Arizona
LUKE AIR FORCE BASE, Ariz. (AFNS) -- An F-16 Fighting Falcon assigned to the 56th Fighter Wing at Luke Air Force Base crashed at approximately 8:45 a.m. today north of Luke AFB in the vicinity of Bagdad, Arizona. Luke AFB officials are working closely with local authorities in a search and rescue operation. Due to the remote location and rugged terrain, the status of the pilot is unknown.
Source: http://www.af.mil/
Profile picture for user MSphere

Member for

9 years 8 months

Posts: 8,850

The issue with Axe is twofold: what he writes mixes few solid facts with heaps of speculation and pure B.S. Second, he poses as a journalist, yet does not follow the basic tenants of journalistic integrity and standards. He starts with his bias, finds sources that lack credibility, then formulates a conclusion that distorts, or goes well beyond what is supported by the few actual facts he provides.
Whoooo, that was a rather fiery response.. Can you point at factual BS, dubious sources and distorting conclusion in his article?
His articles are the worst type of junk food for the brain, complete with flashy title that is usually misleading. He can pull this off because "john Q Public" is generally ill informed and willing to buy into sensationalism about military spending and procurement. Those who are: in the military, professionals, or have a base of knowledge on the topic dismiss him as a joke. People do not discredit his tabloid journalism approach to military matters because those who are educated ignore him anyway, and his target audience is largely ignorant of said topic.
Sounds like you or those professionals you mention should have very little problem to debunk his conclusions..

Member for

7 years 3 months

Posts: 3,156

Whoooo, that was a rather fiery response.. Can you point at factual BS, dubious sources and distorting conclusion in his article? Sounds like you or those professionals you mention should have very little problem to debunk his conclusions..
No, it is an accurate description of what he writes. He is a garbage writer, the Gawker equivalent for defense issues.