Last Fort Worth F-16 rolls out

a reply to: TonyS

And there won't be. They'll upgrade the existing aircraft to at least AESA radar, and possibly up to the V standard, but there won't be any new orders from the US.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

And per Wikipedia they will be replaced by the F-35. Hope that works out for them.

a reply to: TonyS

He Who Won't Be Named decided after Desert Storm that the Air Force would only buy stealth aircraft for the fighter and bomber fleet, but regardless of that, the F-35A is now cheaper than an F-16, and is far more capable than even a V.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: manuelram16

There is one particular wire on the nose strut (I'm not sure if it's on all three, but we only ever checked the nose) that, if it breaks puts the antiskid system into fault, which usually causes blown tires and towing. However, and this is the fun part, it's a very very very small wire, placed where you can't see it directly, and direct light can't get to. So you need a mirror, magnifying glass, and flashlight to do the inspection.

Stories like this remind me not to cuss when working on my Cutlass, it has a similar tiny POS wire that likes to break in the Anti-Theft system leaving you where ever it happens to break. It wont leave you skidding across the tarmac into a potential fireball though, it just wont start the car.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

They are not buying more F-16s for the US to use in Afghanistan, or anywhere else.

I know they were harriers, derp. They just stationed 6 more F 16s in Afghanistan, so yes there was an order.... lol.

The point is they based more F 16s there because Afghanistan is heating up, again. It is a hell hole, has always been a hell hole. Afghanistan, where empires go to die.

The more arms they need there, the more blood and treasure we sacrifice in endless war. In Afghanistans case going on two decades, the longest conflict in American history. They need 18 F 16s, shows how little we have learned, how stubborn we are and how expensive it has been to mop up a few 'bad guys'.

We aren't very good at what we do apparently, despite trillions wasted proving otherwise. A whole squadron of Fighting Falcons can't defeat some goat herders ?

Those 18 falcons have been busy. They dropped over 700 bombs on Afghanistan in september alone. For What!!!

For brain dead militarists.

googled

a reply to: intrptr

I know they were harriers, derp. They just stationed 6 more F 16s in Afghanistan, so yes there was an order.... lol.

When the US deploys aircraft to Afghanistan, they don't make new planes.

When the US deploys an aircraft carrier, they don't build an entire aircraft carrier and use it once.

When you fly in an airliner, they don't fly it once, then build a new one. I'm surprised I have to point this out to you.

The last USAF F-16 was delivered in 2004, a block 50 example, but production slowed to a trickle around 1995.

www.f-16.net...

No matter how hard the USAF flies the F-16, it's extremely unlikely they will order another one, especially when the replacement aircraft is nearing full-rate-production.

In any event, as always air-power alone can not win a war. But the US deploying F-16's to Afghanistan has absolutely nothing to do with moving the F-16 factory, we're way off topic.

For brain dead militarists

lol

a reply to: C0bzz

When the US deploys aircraft to Afghanistan, they don't make new planes.

W'ere not making "new planes" anymore, to replace an ancient fleet of anti-Soviet Warsaw Pact WarCraft?

When the US deploys an aircraft carrier, they don't use it...

...to project democracy farrr away, right?

Whats carriers got to do with Afghanistan? F 16s are Airforce, not Navy. And yes, they deployed 6 more Falcons there in September because we don't have anything else, right now.

I guarantee you it won't be enough. As if Gunships, B1s, B 52s, Drones, and MOABS couldn't do the trick, 6 more F 16's will.

Global Research

a reply to: intrptr

W'ere not making "new planes" anymore, to replace an ancient fleet of anti-Soviet Warsaw Pact WarCraft?

Aircraft are usually not produced for a specific deployment. If the US deploys 10 or 20 F-16's to Afghanistan, they don't build more, they use the ones already made, those which are available for deployment.

It's almost as if aircraft can fly more than once!

Yes, the aggregate of many deployments, and training will over time wear aircraft out, and all aircraft will eventually become obsolete. But as the F-16 fleet is replaced, they are not replacing them with more F-16's, they are replacing them with something else. No more F-16s for the United States will be built.

That's why the USAF deploying additional F-16's has nothing to do with this factory. If you want to complain about the defence policy of the United States and somehow tie it to this story, then at least get it right. The factory will produce planes for other nations, or in other words "arming the world" or "profiting from war" or whatever you want to state.

I want to tailor my posts to you because you seem to have some trouble understanding them. Is English your first language?

a reply to: intrptr

No, there wasn't an order, not for new aircraft, which is what's being discussed. There was an order for existing aircraft,already delivered, to move to Afghanistan.

a reply to: C0bzz

I have not argued the point of the thread: "no more F 16s are being produced". Others are claiming I am as a talking point to deflect away form what I originally said.

I've said it enough times, done here.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: intrptr

No, there wasn't an order, not for new aircraft, which is what's being discussed. There was an order for existing aircraft,already delivered, to move to Afghanistan.

The Order came from the highest echelon. And every good militaristic (Minion) follows orders.

a reply to: intrptr

So now we're going from production, to following orders. Yeah, ok.

originally posted by: intrptr

F 16s are Airforce, not Navy.

The US Navy have operated F-16s on and off since the 1980s. Still currently operating them.

www.navair.navy.mil...

a reply to: intrptr

And the point of the thread is F-16 production, which none of your posts have anything to do with.

originally posted by: tommyjo

originally posted by: intrptr

F 16s are Airforce, not Navy.

The US Navy have operated F-16s on and off since the 1980s. Still currently operating them.

www.navair.navy.mil...

High mountains and steep valleys make the agile F 16 best choice for CAS.

CAS has nothing to do with what the Navy uses them for.

POST REMOVED BY STAFF

I see that yet again you don't bother reading anything but titles. It was never once mentioned that the last one was produced in the US, and I clearly said in the OP, that they were moving the production line to another US location.

a reply to: Zaphod58

CAS has nothing to do with what the Navy uses them for. [

Besides being on another US military base occupying another sovereign country in violation of International law, generally...

...In Afghanistan, Close Air Support is all they are there for.

a reply to: intrptr

Can you, maybe, possibly read what is posted instead of going straight to your usual posts?

CAS is not what the NAVY uses them for. There are no Navy F-16s anywhere outside of the country. They are all in California and stay in California, unless they move them to another base in the US for training.