Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Military Aviation News

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (3 members and 6 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • hopsalot
    Senior Member
    • Aug 2012
    • 3166

    David Axe article... you should post a warning.

    Comment

    • MSphere
      Senior Member
      • Feb 2010
      • 8983

      What's wrong with his article? I found it rather well written..

      Comment

      • FBW
        FBW
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • Dec 2011
        • 3295

        Originally posted by MSphere View Post
        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.

        Comment

        • Spitfire9
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jul 2008
          • 2834

          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/art...extension.html

          Is this due to F-35 delays? In anticipation of a possible reduction in USAF F-35 procurement numbers?
          Sum ergo cogito

          Comment

          • FBW
            FBW
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • Dec 2011
            • 3295

            Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
            USAF Issues RFI for F-16 SLEP Effort



            http://www.defense-aerospace.com/art...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/new...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

            Comment

            • Spitfire9
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jul 2008
              • 2834

              Originally posted by FBW View Post
              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/new...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!
              Last edited by Spitfire9; 21st January 2016, 16:51.
              Sum ergo cogito

              Comment

              • SpudmanWP
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • Jan 2009
                • 5292

                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.
                "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                Comment

                • Spitfire9
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Jul 2008
                  • 2834

                  Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
                  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?
                  Sum ergo cogito

                  Comment

                  • bring_it_on
                    2005-year of the RAPTOR!!
                    • Jun 2004
                    • 12480

                    Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                    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.
                    Old radar types never die; they just phased array

                    Comment

                    • SpudmanWP
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Jan 2009
                      • 5292

                      Originally posted by Spitfire9 View Post
                      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.
                      "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

                      Comment

                      • Tango III
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Sep 2006
                        • 25365

                        US State Department OKs $2B in F-16 Weapons Sales to Iraq

                        Comment

                        • Tango III
                          Rank 5 Registered User
                          • Sep 2006
                          • 25365

                          The mission-capable rates for the Air Forces 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

                          Comment

                          • Tango III
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Sep 2006
                            • 25365

                            Oil price, weak currency challenge Norwegian F-35 buy

                            Comment

                            • TomcatViP
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Nov 2011
                              • 6109

                              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/

                              Comment

                              • BlackArcher
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Dec 2010
                                • 4297

                                US clears more weapons for Iraqi F-16s

                                Comment

                                • BlackArcher
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Dec 2010
                                  • 4297

                                  Israel gives green light to F-15I upgrade

                                  Comment

                                  • Tango III
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Sep 2006
                                    • 25365

                                    USAF Issues RFI for F-16 SLEP Effort (excerpt)

                                    Comment

                                    • BlackArcher
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Dec 2010
                                      • 4297

                                      Reviving F-22 Raptor production a non-starter

                                      Comment

                                      • BlackArcher
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Dec 2010
                                        • 4297

                                        US Marines presumed dead in CH-53E crash

                                        RIP.

                                        Comment

                                        • MSphere
                                          Senior Member
                                          • Feb 2010
                                          • 8983

                                          Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                          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?

                                          Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                          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..

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X