Turkish Industry Takes Off In Support Of F-35

Ten Turkish companies participated in the Lockheed Martin F-35 Industry Recognition Event during the IDEF tradeshow today. Turkish companies are major contributors to the current international production of the F-35 Lightning II and the advanced Turkish SOM weapon in development to be used on the F-35 and have resulted nearly a thousand jobs for Turkish industry. Murad Bayar, Undersecretary for Defense Industries (SSM), was recognized for the role SSM provides in the form of leadership, vision, and the commitment of Turkish industry as a best value contributor on the F-35 Program.

“Lockheed Martin values the partnership we have established with the Turkish government, military and industry during the past quarter century with the F-16 and the C-130,” said Steve O’Bryan, vice president, F-35 Program Integration and Business Development, Lockheed Martin Aeronautics. “That relationship continues to flourish as every F-35 delivered has Turkish components.”

The ten Turkish companies supporting the development production of F-35 the future operational capability include:

• Alp Aviation has been supporting the program since 2004 and currently manufactures F-35 production airframe structure and assemblies, production landing gear components and production F135 engine titanium integrated blade rotors for the engine.
• Aselsan is developing manufacturing approaches for advanced optical components, which are part of the F-35 Electro Optical Targeting System. They are also working with Northrup Grumman on the F-35 CNI Avionic Interface Controller and will initiate full scale production activities in the near term.
• Ayesas currently is the sole source supplier for two major F-35 components – missile remote interface unit and the panoramic cockpit display.
• Fokker Elmo manufactures 40 percent of the F-35 Electrical Wiring & Interconnection System (EWIS) and will also deliver and support TAI with all center section wiring systems. Fokker Elmo will also develop the EWIS for the engine, for which a major share is produced in Fokker Elmo Turkey in Izmir.
• Havelsan has been supporting the F-35 training systems since 2005. Additionally, Havelsan has been instrumental as the Turkish lead for developing the construct of the future Turkish F-35 Integrated Pilot and Maintenance Training Center (ITC) and associated training systems in Turkey.
• Kale Aerospace has been supporting the F-35 since 2005. In conjunction with Turkish Aerospace Industries, they manufacture and produce F-35 airframe structures and assemblies. Kale Aero also supports Heroux Devtek as the sole source supplier for all three variants landing gear lock assemblies. Additionally, Kale Aerospace has also established a joint venture in Izmir with Pratt & Whitney to manufacture production hardware for the engine.
• MiKES has been supporting the F-35 Program since 2004 and MiKES has delivered F-35 aircraft components and assemblies for British Aerospace Engineering (BAE) and Northrop Grumman.
• ROKETSAN and Tubitak-SAGE are the Turkish joint leadership team who strategically manage the development, integration, and production of the advanced precision-guided Stand-off Missle (SOM) which will be carried internally on the 5th Generation F-35 aircraft.
• Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) has been strategically supporting the F-35 Program since 2008. Currently supplying production hardware that goes into every F-35 production aircraft. In conjuction of Northrup Grumman, TAI manufactures and assembles the center fuselages, produces composite skins and weapon bay doors, and manufactures fiber placement composite air inlet ducts. Additionally, TAI is strategically manufacturing almost 50 percent of F-35’ Alternate Mission Equipment (AME) including Air-to-Ground Pylons and adapters. In 2011, TAI and Pratt & Whitney signed a strategic agreement to pursue options for future F135 FACO and MRO capabilities for Turkey. TAI has also been assigned to represent the organic depots of the Turkish Armed Forces within the Autonomic Logistic Global Sustainment (ALGS) system.

The F-35 Lightning II is a 5th generation fighter, combining advanced stealth with fighter speed and agility, fully fused sensor information, network-enabled operations and advanced sustainment. Three distinct variants of the F-35 will replace the A-10 and F-16 for the U.S. Air Force, the F/A-18 for the U.S. Navy, the F/A-18 and AV-B Harrier for the U.S. Marine Corps, and a variety of fighters for at least ten other countries.

National Defence expected to lose some F-35s before all 65 delivered

National Defence scientists predicted in 2011 that the military would have almost certainly lost several of its brand-new F-35 stealth fighters before all 65 were even delivered, Postmedia News has learned.

In December 2011, the Defence Department’s research arm, Defence Research and Development Canada, published a report in which it said “that the probability of having 63 or more (F-35s) remaining at this time (when the last one is delivered) is approximately 54 per cent.”

Canadian military planners had originally expected to take possession of all 65 of this country’s stealth fighters over a staggered six-year period ending in 2022.

The DRDC report, obtained through access to information legislation, appears to also show how many F-35s the military could expect to lose over various time periods, but that information has been blacked out.

National Defence and the Conservative government have resisted budgeting for extra aircraft at the outset because doing so would push the estimated cost of acquiring the F-35 beyond the $9-billion envelope set aside for the purchase.

Instead, the government has made a vague statement about having “retained the option to purchase, or not, replacement aircraft in the future” — even though the report indicates the military would be short of the minimum required aircraft even before the entire fleet is delivered.

Former chief of defence staff Walter Natynczyk and former Royal Canadian Air Force commander Andre Deschamps both previously said 65 F-35s is the bare minimum required to meet the military’s requirements.

The DRDC report says the reason Defence Department scientists predicted the military would lose a number of F-35s in the first few years of operation is because “the rate of losses for any (fighter) aircraft fleet is … higher at the beginning of the fleet’s service life.”

The report adds that the rate of loss generally drops as the manufacturer learns more about the aircraft and fixes unforeseen problems, and as the Canadian Forces and other militaries learn more and change how they use the planes to compensate.

It adds that the information in the report “could be used to help plan for replacement aircraft purchases or to determine how to use the original 65 aircraft.”

The December 2011 report does include the proviso that the analysis was only based on information available at that time.

Officials would not comment specifically on the DRDC report.

Instead, Public Works spokeswoman Annie Duguay noted that a National Defence update on the F-35 project last year  “estimated that seven to 11 aircraft could be lost over the 42-year timeframe, and the cost to replace these lost aircraft could be in the order of $1 billion.”

“Rather than initially acquiring more aircraft than are required, the government has retained the option to purchase or not replacement aircraft in the future,” Duguay wrote, echoing established Conservative government policy.

Those F-35s already in operation in the U.S. have shown some problems since rolling off the assembly line.

The U.S. air force’s entire F-35 fleet were temporarily grounded in February when a crack was found in a test aircraft’s engine, the second such grounding in as many months.

A scathing Pentagon report leaked in March also identified a large number of problems facing the U.S. F-35 fleet, from radars that don’t work, to blurry vision from the aircraft’s sophisticated helmet, to an inability to fly through clouds.

The Pentagon report also found problems with maintaining the F-35s, with mechanics taking two days to replace an engine that is supposed to take two hours, and difficulties when aircraft is stored in temperatures below 15 degrees Celsius.

And it found the aircraft were not as reliable as expected as many required more maintenance than anticipated.

Despite these issues, the Pentagon declared in December that the F-35 was ready to begin extended pilot training while continuing to iron out the identified problems.

The Harper government pushed the reset button on its plans to purchase the F-35 last year.

This came after years of criticism over what has been seen as the Conservatives’ refusal to fully disclose how much the F-35s would cost, and after the auditor general raised serious concerns about the Defence Department’s handling of the file.

Bureaucrats have been ordered back to the drawing board to again examine what missions Canada’s jets will perform in the future, what threats they will face, and what fighter capabilities are currently available.

The Royal Canadian Air Force is leading the review with support from other federal departments, while a panel of independent experts has been tasked with monitoring the process to ensure it is rigorous and impartial.

While no timelines have been laid out, a final report 

The Conservative government has set aside $9 billion to purchase new aircraft to replace the air force’s aging fleet of CF-18 fighters.

National Defence revealed late last year that the cost of not only purchasing, but operating, maintaining and disposing of 65 F-35s through 2052 would be in excess of $45 billion.

F-35 Costs Driving Away Buyers

The increasing costs of the new U.S. F-35 fighter is scaring off foreign buyers. The latest country to express doubts about the cost and effectiveness of the F-35 versus their current jet fighters (often F-16s) is the Netherlands. Although the Dutch are buying two F-35s for evaluation, it’s already been noted that the F-35 costs 60 percent more (than the F-16, per flight hour) to operate. For European nations, with static or shrinking defense budgets and growing demands to help with peacekeeping operations, more expensive (to buy and operate) jet fighters just don’t fit in.  

 

Initially the F-35 operating costs were supposed to be the same or lower than other fighters (like the F-16, F-15 or F-18). But then it was noted that those operating costs were creeping upwards. Two years ago, after months of contentious disagreement, the U.S. Air Force came around to agreeing with U.S. Navy claims that the F-35 will cost much more to maintain, rather than (as the F-35 promoters assert) less. The year before the U.S. Navy, after nervously watching the manufacturing costs of the new F-35C and F-35B carrier aircraft increase, concluded that these aircraft would also be a lot more expensive to maintain. It comes down to this. Currently, it costs the navy, on average, $19,000 an hour to operate its AV-8 vertical takeoff or F-18C fighter aircraft. The navy calculated that it would cost 63 percent more to operate the F-35C (which will replace the F-18C) and the F-35B (which will replace the AV-8). These costs include buying the aircraft, training and maintaining the pilots, the aircraft, and purchasing expendable items (fuel, spare parts, munitions). The navy concluded that maintenance alone would be about a third more.

 

The differences between air force and navy cost estimates came down to different methods of doing maintenance and calculating costs. The two services have, over the decades, developed different ways to use civilian maintenance services and stockpiling spare parts. Most navy warplanes operate from carriers, which is more difficult and expensive than from a land base. In effect, the navy was forced to become more efficient in order to afford operating expensive warplanes at all. But now the air force and navy have resolved a lot of these differences and agreed that the costs of the "cheaper" F-35 are actually higher.

 

The U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Air Force have also had disputes over how much each new F-35 fighter will cost. The air force insists that it is $65 million each, while the Department of Defense says when all costs are included it will be more like $111 million each. Another number being debated is how many F-35s will actually be produced. The air force assumes 3,162, but the Department of Defense is not so sure that many will eventually be built. Total development cost is now put at $65 billion, which comes to over $20 million per aircraft if 3,162 are built. Development costs for the new U.S. F-35 fighter-bomber has grown by more than a third over the last few years. The additional development costs are accompanied by additional delays. Current estimates are that the F-35 will enter service in another 3-4 years. The Department of Defense believes production and development costs will continue to rise and that the number to be built will decline. Both trends increase the average aircraft cost. Based on past experience, the higher Department of Defense estimates are more likely to be accurate.

 

Like the F-22, which had production capped at less than 200 aircraft, the capabilities, as superior as they are, may not justify the much higher costs. The F-35, at least for the navy, is headed in the same direction. The navy can go ahead with the more recent F-18E and keep refurbishing, or even building, the AV-8. The navy recently began examining the possibility of buying fewer F-35s, in the long run, and replacing them with combat UAVs, like the X-47B. Politics, and lobbying by the F-35 manufacturer, will probably keep the F-35 headed for fleet service, no matter what the cost.

 

The 31 ton F-35 is armed with an internal 25mm cannon and four internal air-to-air missiles (or two missiles and two smart bombs) plus four external smart bombs and two missiles. All sensors are carried internally and max weapon load is 6.8 tons. The aircraft is very stealthy when just carrying internal weapons.

 

Like the F-22 fighter, the F-35 is stealthy and is stuffed with a lot of new technology. Most (about 60 percent) of the F-35s built will be used by foreign nations. The rising cost of the F-35 brings with it reluctance to buy as many aircraft as currently planned. The success of smart bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan has also made it clear that fewer aircraft will be needed in the future. In any event, it's likely that F-35s will end up costing more than $100 million each.

Air Force's F-35 recommendation was missing key information

Report did not have important data on competing aircraft

The Harper government signed a memorandum of understanding in 2006 expressing its The Harper government signed a memorandum of understanding in 2006 expressing its "intention" to purchase the F-35 in the future and to commit a further $500 million to the Joint Strike Fighter program.

The Royal Canadian Air Force trumpeted the F-35 fighter jet to Canada’s defence minister as the best option for the country even though it was missing key information on competing aircraft, according to a Canadian military insider.

Steve Lucas, former Canadian chief of the air staff, acknowledges in an exclusive fifth estate interview, to air tonight, that the military's recommendation in 2006 to their political masters in Ottawa was based on incomplete data.

“With the stage we were at, at that point in time, not only did we do the glossy brochure examination, but we also went to each of the countries, spoke to each of them,” Lucas told the fifth estate.

But the air force report that backed that recommendation, obtained by the fifth estate, reveals that when the Canadian military visited four other nations that were peddling competing fighter jets they were denied classified information every time.

"Indeed, it does say at the bottom [of the report], more information is needed,” says Lucas. "But I guess I would characterize that as an appropriate level of examination for where we were at, at that point in time … knowing that there would be subsequent examination, more detailed examination as we develop the statement of requirements."

Canada’s auditor general reported that the air force’s statement of requirements was only submitted to the federal Public Works department after the Harper government announced it was committing to purchase 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.Canada’s auditor general reported that the air force’s statement of requirements was only submitted to the federal Public Works department after the Harper government announced it was committing to purchase 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.

Despite the fact that the air force review was incomplete and the F-35 was still only in development, the brass recommended in a brief to the defence minister in September, 2006, that the F-35: "provides the best available operational capabilities to meet Canadian operational requirements, while providing the longest service life and lowest per aircraft cost of all options considered."

Based on this recommendation the Harper government signed a memorandum of understanding in 2006 expressing its “intention” to purchase the F-35 in the future and to commit a further $500 million to the Joint Strike Fighter program.

The fifth estate investigation also reveals that, four years later, prior to the Harper government’s controversial 2010 announcement to sole-source the Lockheed Martin-built F-35, the subsequent information Canada obtained about competing aircraft came from the U.S. Joint Strike Fighter office — the very people with the most to gain from selling Canada the F-35.

Canada’s auditor general reported this past spring that the air force’s statement of requirements, laying out what it needed in a new fighter aircraft, was only submitted to the federal Public Works department after the Harper government announced it was committing to purchase 65 F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft. Public Works is normally the department responsible for procuring hardware for the military after it lays out its requirements.

In his interview, Lucas also reveals that he was never keen on a competition to choose Canada’s next fighter jet.

“To hold a true competition, you would actually have to step back from being a partner nation,” Lucas says. “You would actually have to get out of the partnership to be part of a Canadian-style competition.”

Lucas was retired before the government made its decision in 2010 to sole-source the F35.

Cost overruns

The fifth estate documentary also investigates why Canada committed to purchase the F-35 in 2010, two years ahead of schedule, when the fighter program was under siege in the U.S. and in other partner nations for mismanagement and massive cost overruns.

    Former Pentagon fighter designer and F-35 critic Pierre Sprey predicts that when all of the failings of the F-35 have come to light, the cost per aircraft will rise dramatically.

“It wasn’t performing so well, it was late, the costs were running up, international investors and potential buyers and governments were getting worried,” Ottawa defence analyst Steven Staples tells the fifth estate. “So who were their two closest allies on this? Canada and Israel. And those were the two really key countries, I think, that could give some good news. And in 2010 Lockheed Martin was desperate for some good news about the F-35. And Canada gave it to them.”

In 2010, the Harper government publicly announced the cost of purchasing 65 F-35 aircraft would be $9 billion. At the time, the government refused to disclose its own further operating and sustainment cost estimates of $16 billion, which pushed the total cost of the F-35 program to $25 billion over 20 years.

The Joint Strike Fighter program is supposed to produce upwards of 3,000 F-35s for the U.S. and eight partner nations. To date, after more than a decade in development, the Joint Strike Fighter program has only produced 33 planes — all test models or training platforms.

Watch the fifth estate's documentary, Runaway Fighter, on Friday at 9 p.m. (9:30 p.m. in N.L.) for more exclusive revelations.

Former Pentagon fighter designer and F-35 critic Pierre Sprey predicts that when all of the failings of the F-35 have come to light, the cost per aircraft will rise dramatically.

“If Canada is still buying it, they’ll be paying $200 million plus [per plane],” Sprey tells the fifth estate. “Because among other things, the promised quantity will never happen. Nations will drop out, lots of nations won’t be able to afford it and even the U.S. is going to keep on cutting back the buy, and as the buy is cut back, the cost is going to keep going up.”

Lockheed Closer To Tailhook Design Fix For F-35C

Lockheed Martin officials are creeping closer to a solution to problems with the tailhook design for the U.S. Navy F-35C.

The original design failed to snag the arresting wire in early testing owing to two problems: the point of the hook was not sharp enough to scoop under the wire and securely grab it, and a dampener device was not sufficient to maintain a hold on the wire. Essentially, the hook was bouncing upon landing, reducing the likelihood of a successful arrested landing.

Lockheed Martin, the F-35 prime contractor, has redesigned the hook to address those problems. An interim version, which has a sharpened point but lacks the dampener, was tested.

In three of five recent attempts, the redesigned hook did capture the wire; the failures were due to the pilot landing the aircraft too far from the wire for a successful arresting. This testing “was highly successful in demonstrating that when presented the wire . . . it will grab the wire,” says J.D. McFarlan, Lockheed Martin’s vice president of test and evaluation for the F-35 program. He briefed reporters Sept. 18 during the annual Air Force Assn. conference in Washington.

These failures to grab the wire were predicted by models based on where the pilots landed the aircraft, McFarlan says. This, he notes, helps to validate the modeling work done on the redesigned hook.

The tailhook problems came to light nearly a year ago, and redesign work has been in progress since. Company officials hope to test the final version of the new arrest

Boeing Knocks F-35's 'Delays and Delays,' Touts F-18

Boeing renewed its campaign to bash Lockheed Martin's F-35 and promote its F-18 fighters today, as the president of Boeing Military Aircraft slammed the Joint Strike Fighter while noting declining defense budgets here and abroad.

"The F-35 continues to delay and delay," Christopher Chadwick told a group of reporters at Boeing's defense headquarters here. "Yes, the F-35 has all-aspect stealth, but that is used in a relatively small part of the combat envelope."

In a clear signal to F-18 supporters in the Navy, Chadwick added this barb: "With the F-35 continuing to have technical difficulties and to continue slipping to the right, they have to make sure they have the right capability for the men and women who go in harms way."

Chadwick offered his critique of the Joint Strike Fighter in a larger context: "There is a rebalancing we are seeing of the balance between social and defense needs." And that means, quite simply, declining defense budgets both in the United States and in Europe.

One of the effects of that, especially as the US withdraws from Afghanistan, will be a decline in the unmanned systems market (or remotely piloted vehicles, for those Air Force devotees), Chadwick said. Boeing analysts are "already predicting a 20 percent reduction in the global UAS market."

So where will the cuts come? "With the drawdown what you're seeing is the customer starting to define where they really need capabilities. They need it on the carrier deck," he said, and they will need it on the low end of the market. There is also an "unmet need" for unmanned rotorcraft.

To meet those needs, Chadwick said, Boeing offers its version of the Unmanned Carrier Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike System (UCLASS), the Unmanned Little Bird and the A-160.

Another reason for the decline in the market is the simple fact that no one has figured out how to manage the enormous amounts of data already being gathered by the existing fleet of UAVs (RPVs for Air Force folks), the head of Boeing Military Aircraft told us. "What's happened is, the men and women aren't flying, but they are on the ground processing data and no one has cracked the code on managing the data," he said. And the means the services just don't think they need to buy more platforms to collect data they couldn't usefully process.

In other news, Chadwick offered a broad hint that Boeing hopes to be being the prime integrator on the Air Force's next-generation bomber fleet, the Long Range Strike program. Most details of the program are highly classified so we don't know much about it, beyond repeated service declarations that it would probably include an unmanned or optionally manned capability and it would need to be able to operate in anti-denial, anti-access environments, which means it would boast stealth capabilities.

"We plan on being a big player on that," he said initially. I pressed him for more information, asking whether Boeing planned to be a prime on LSR and he went this far" "Our core competency, what differentiates us... is we are a platform builder and a platform integrator." So it would appear Northrop Grumman has some serious competition brewing here.

Finally, no defense story would be complete these days without at least one mention of sequestration. Chadwick said one of the biggest effects of the mandatory budget cuts that would be triggered Jan. 2 by the Budget Control Act is already being felt.

"What we're seeing is the lower-tier suppliers are starting to walk away from the defense business because of the uncertainty of the market and the onslaught of" acquisition process and oversight. I asked for some examples and he said he didn't have any close at hand. But when we hear some, we will let you know. Dear reader, if you know some, please let us know.

Chadwick added that Boeing began planning for the downturn two years ago and has reduced its executive ranks by 18 percent over last three years, its managers by 15 percent and his division, Boeing Military Aircraft, is down in overall numbers about 10 percent.

Pax River F35 Conducts First Weapon Separation Test

F-35B test aircraft BF-3, flown by Lockheed Martin test pilot Dan Levin, completed the first aerial weapons release for any variant of the aircraft on Aug. 8, 2012. Photo: Lockheed Martin/Andy Wolfe

The F-35 Lightning II accomplished the first weapon separation test yesterday (August 8, 2012) on a test flight over the Atlantic test range. The release was the first time for any version of the F-35 to conduct an airborne weapon separation, and the first time a full separation test was performed with a weapon dropped from the internal weapon bay.

The milestone marks the start of validating the F-35′s capability to employ precision weapons and allow pilots to engage the enemy on the ground and in the air.

The test was performed by BF-3, a short take-off and vertical landing F-35 variant, dropping an inert 1,000-pound GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) separation weapon over water in an Atlantic test range while traveling at 400 knots at an altitude of 4,200 feet. Aircraft and land-based test monitoring systems collected data from the successful separation, which is in review at the F-35 integrated test force at Naval Air Station Patuxent River.

“While this weapons separation test is just one event in a series of hundreds of flights and thousands of test points that we are executing this year, it does represent a significant entry into a new phase of testing for the F-35 program,” said Navy Capt. Erik Etz, director of test for F-35 naval variants.

Luke AFB selected for F-35A pilot training

F-35 Press Conference, U.S. Air Force Col. Robert Webb, 56th Fighter Wing vice commander, and Rusty Mitchell, 56th FW Community Initiatives Team director, speak to the media during a press conference announcing the decision for the F-35A Lightning II to be housed at Luke Air Force Base, Ariz., Aug. 1, 2012. The decision culminates a nearly three-year process that included an extensive Environmental Impact Statement that examined impacts on air quality, noise, land use and socioeconomic issues.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley announced today that Luke AFB has been chosen as the location of the Air Force's F-35A Lightning II pilot training center. The base will receive 72 aircraft for a total of three fighter squadrons.

"This is a great day for Luke," said Brig. Gen. JD Harris, 56th Fighter Wing commander. "Our selection for F-35 training ensures the long-term viability of our mission of training the world's greatest fighter pilots, which we've been doing at Luke for seven decades."

The F-35, manufactured by Lockheed Martin, is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft intended to be the Air Force's premier strike aircraft through the first half of the 21st Century. It is a multirole fighter that is expected to eventually phase out the service's F-16s and A-10s.

Aircraft will begin to arrive at Luke between late 2013 to mid-2014, although exact timing will depend on production schedules. Construction on base to prepare for the aircraft, however, is expected to start almost immediately.

The Record of Decision cited several reasons why Luke was the service's top choice, including facility and ramp capacity, range access, weather, as well as capacity for future growth.

"We're the envy of the Air Force when it comes to community support," said Rusty Mitchell, director of Luke's Community Initiatives Team. "While there has been development that's grown out toward Luke, the community has made every effort to ensure that the growth has been compatible with our mission. We cannot thank our West Valley neighbors enough for letting us be part of the community, not just in the community."

In addition to training U.S. pilots, Luke will also serve as an F-35A International Partner Training site.

"The Air Force is committed to training our U.S. and partner nation pilots on this fifth-generation fighter aircraft," said Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff. "Collaborative training on aircraft designed with stealth, maneuverability and integrated avionics will better prepare our combined forces to assume multi-role missions for the future of tactical aviation."

The decision culminates a nearly three-year process that included an extensive Environmental Impact Statement that examined impacts on air quality, noise, land use and socioeconomic issues. The analysis was required in order to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and to help decision makers understand items of interest to the public and other federal and state agencies.

"The Air Force was very diligent in this process," Mitchell said. "It was a very open, transparent and repeatable process that was done the same at all the candidate bases."

Even as Team Luke prepares to open a new chapter, Harris said, the 56th Fighter Wing remains focused on its current mission: Training the world's greatest F-16 fighter pilots and maintainers while deploying mission-ready warfighters.