By: FBW
- 21st January 2016 at 15:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Spitfire9
- 21st January 2016 at 16:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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 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
By: Spitfire9
- 21st January 2016 at 16:49Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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 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!
By: Spitfire9
- 21st January 2016 at 18:19Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
By: bring_it_on
- 21st January 2016 at 18:21Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: SpudmanWP
- 21st January 2016 at 18:54Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
By: Tango III
- 21st January 2016 at 20:57Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
By: MSphere
- 21st January 2016 at 22:15Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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..
New
Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot
- 21st January 2016 at 23:59Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 21st January 2016 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What's wrong with his article? I found it rather well written..
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 21st January 2016 at 15:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 21st January 2016 at 16:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 21st January 2016 at 16:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 21st January 2016 at 16:49 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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!
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 21st January 2016 at 17:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 2,626
By: Spitfire9 - 21st January 2016 at 18:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
Posts: 12,109
By: bring_it_on - 21st January 2016 at 18:21 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 5,197
By: SpudmanWP - 21st January 2016 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 21st January 2016 at 20:56 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US State Department OKs $2B in F-16 Weapons Sales to Iraq
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 21st January 2016 at 20:57 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 21st January 2016 at 21:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Oil price, weak currency challenge Norwegian F-35 buy
Posts: 5,905
By: TomcatViP - 21st January 2016 at 21:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Luke F-16 crashes in Arizona
Source:
http://www.af.mil/
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 21st January 2016 at 21:07 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US clears more weapons for Iraqi F-16s
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 21st January 2016 at 21:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Israel gives green light to F-15I upgrade
Posts: 25,376
By: Tango III - 21st January 2016 at 21:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
USAF Issues RFI for F-16 SLEP Effort (excerpt)
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 21st January 2016 at 21:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Reviving F-22 Raptor production a non-starter
Posts: 3,337
By: BlackArcher - 21st January 2016 at 21:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
US Marines presumed dead in CH-53E crash
RIP.
Posts: 8,850
By: MSphere - 21st January 2016 at 22:15 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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..Posts: 3,156
By: hopsalot - 21st January 2016 at 23:59 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No, it is an accurate description of what he writes. He is a garbage writer, the Gawker equivalent for defense issues.