Tag Archives: F-16

Statement of Work for F-16 Depot Level Maintenance

The following Statement of Work for F-16 Depot Level Maintenance was taken from the following posting on FedBizOpps.com:

F-16 Depot Maintenance Services Support for PACAF
Solicitation Number: FA8232-12-R-PACAF
Agency: Department of the Air Force
Office: Air Force Materiel Command
Location: Hill AFB OO-ALC

A copy of the document itself is available here.

Depot Level Maintenance (DLM) is defined as:


. . . the term “depot-level maintenance and repair” means (except as provided in subsection (b)) material maintenance or repair requiring the overhaul, upgrading, or rebuilding of parts, assemblies, or subassemblies, and the testing and reclamation of equipment as necessary, regardless of the source of funds for the maintenance or repair or the location at which the maintenance or repair is performed. The term includes:

(1) all aspects of software maintenance classified by the Department of Defense as of July 1, 1995, as depot-level maintenance and repair, and
(2) interim contractor support or contractor logistics support (or any similar contractor support), to the extent that such support is for the performance of services described in the preceding sentence.

Watchers of the PAF effort to acquire F-16 would find this document interesting for the information it provides about the standards and AF technical orders associated with this procedure. It provides insight into the range of skill-sets that PAF needs to develop to operate this aircraft.

MIL-HDBK-514 Operational Safety, Suitability, and Effectiveness
MIL-STD-882D Standard Practice for System Safety
MIL-STD-1686C Electronic Discharge Control Pgm for Protection of Electrical and Electronic Part Assemblies and Equipment
NAS-410 Nondestructive Testing Personnel Qualification and Certification (Eddy Current, Liquid Penetrant, Magnetic Particle, Radiographic, Ultrasonic)
NAS-412 Foreign Object Damage/Foreign Object Debris Prevention
T.O. 1-1A-15 General Maintenance Instructions for Support Equipment
AFI 21-101 Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management
AFI 21-101_AFMCSUP_I Aircraft and Equipment Maintenance Management
DCMA INST 8210.1 Contract’s Flight and Ground Operations
DCMA INST 8210.2 Aircraft Operations
309 MXSG OI 21-410 Nondestructive Inspection
AS9100 Quality Management Systems – Aerospace – Requirements
DoD 5100.1-R Personnel Security Program Regulation
ISO 9001:2000 Quality Systems-Model for Quality Assurance in Production, Installation and Servicing
ISO 9002:1994 Quality Systems-Model for Quality Assurance in Production, Installation, and Servicing
Technical Orders
TO 00-5-1 AF Technical Order System
TO 00-5-15 AF Time Compliance Technical Order System
TO 00-20 Series Maintenance Management System
TO 00-25-172 Ground Servicing of A/C and Static Grounding/Bonding
TO 00-35D-54 USAF Material Deficiency Reporting and Investigating System
TO 1-1-3 Inspection and Repair of Integral Tanks and Fuel Cells
TO 1-1-691 Aircraft Cleaning
TO 1-1-8 Application and Removal of Organic Coatings, Aerospace and Non-Aerospace Equipment
TO 1-1-17 Storage of Aircraft and Missile Systems
TO 1-1A-1 General Manual for Structural Repair
TO 1-1A-8 Engineering Manual Series – Aircraft and Missile Repair – Structural Hardware
TO 1-1A-9 Engineering Manual Series for Aircraft Repair – Aerospace Metals – General Data and Usage Factors
TO 1-1A-12 Maintenance and Repair of Plastics
TO 1-1A-14 Installation of Practices, Aircraft Electrical and Electronics Wiring
TO 1-1B-40 Weight and Balance Data
TO 1-1B-50 Basic Technical Order for USAF Aircraft Weight and Balance
TO 1F-16CG-01 List of Applicable Publications, F-16C/D aircraft, Block 40/50
TO 1F-16CG-06 Series

TO 1F-16CJ-2 Series

A/C Maintenance-Work Unit Code Manual F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-2 Series

TO 1F-16CJ-2 Series

Maintenance Instructions Manual Series F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-3 Series

TO 1F-16CJ-3 Series

Structural Repair, Structures F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-4 Series

TO 1F-16CJ-4 Series

Illustrated Parts Breakdown Introduction
TO 1F-16CG-5-1/-2 Basic Weight Checklist Weight and Balance, F-16 C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-6-11

TO 1F-16CJ-6-11

Scheduled Inspection and Maintenance Requirements, F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-21-WA

TO 1F-16CJ-21-WA

A/C Equipment Inventory List, Master Guide, F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16CG-23

TO 1F-16CJ-23

Corrosion Control, F-16C/D Aircraft
TO 1F-16C-33-1/-2 Non-nuclear Munitions Basic Information & Loading Procedures
TO 1F-16C-36 Non Destructive Inspection, F-16C/D

Updated assessments of F-16 airframe life

At the turn of the 21st Century, as the USAF found conducting combat operations over Iraq and Afghanistan with increasingly aging aircraft that were leftovers from the Cold War it took stock of its aircraft inventory and came to the following observation


As a system’s cumulative operating time increases, the probability of its failure tends to increase, decreasing the system’s potential reliability. Reliability also decreases when the conditions under which the system was designed to operate change. Many of these aircraft are at critical points in their life cycles. For example, by 2001 many F-16s had reached 2,400 hours flying time, a significant point in an 8,000-hour service life. As these aircraft age and operating conditions changed, the reliability of systems and components decreases, and failures occur more often, which increased maintenance costs. Increased failures affect aircraft maintainability, requiring more maintenance and often increasing repair times when more hard breaks occur. In the case of the F-16, operational usage had been more severe than design usage (eight times more), resulting in the acceleration of its airframe service life at a rate that may not let it reach its expected overall service life.

Also at this point in history, the fate of its next generation stealth combat aircraft, the F-22 and F-35, hung in the balance. It, therefore, became politically expedient to highlight pessimistic projections about the future prospects of the USAF F-16 fleet.

Fast forward to the present day. The F-22 production line is complete, but with fewer aircraft than originally projected. F-35 development is moving ahead, but slowly. Faced with the prospect of reduced capability as a result of the latter aircraft’s delays, the USAF re-evaluated it fleet again, and came to the following conclusions which were published in Aviation Week magazine.


< Edited >

However, the U.S. Air Force, which operates more than 1,000 F-16s of varying blocks, has no plans to procure more F-16s. Rather, the service is exploring options to extend the life of its fleet until the F-35 is introduced into service in enough numbers to handle the suppression and destruction of enemy air defense roles.

Originally designed for 4,500 flying hours, a previous upgrade extended the lifespan to 8,000 hr. But after conducting a monitoring program on the fleet, Air Force officials have found that they are flying the aircraft 15-20% “less hard” than planned, meaning pilots are not flying the jets to their maximum limits regarding such elements as speed or g-forces. This is partly because in the decade since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the F-16s have been used largely to support ground forces or patrol the skies in permissive airspace, missions that do not require the taxing maneuvers seen while operating in hostile environments, says Maj. Luther Cross, F-16 program element monitor for Air Combat Command.

This has prompted the Air Force to calculate what officials call equivalent flying hours for each airframe, just as they do actual flying hours. Using the equivalent-hour metric, service officials are able to estimate the projected life, taking into account lighter use of the fleet in recent years, says Cross. This practice is also being applied to other fleets in the service.

This alone adds “several years” of life to each aircraft, he says. Still, the Air Force is considering a structural service life extension program (SLEP) to the newest Block 40/50 F-16s, with a 12,000-hr. goal per airframe.

The prospects for the availablity of suitable aircraft for the PAF’s needs, therefore, are not as bleak as the earlier GlobalSecurity.org would have pictured.

This article was also published on the following FaceBook group: F-16s for the Philippine Air Force

To discuss the article shared above, see the following Timawa.net discussion.

Preparing for F-16s: “Peace Carvin” in reverse

The Office of the President, Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Philippine Air Force have all publicly declared the Aquino administration’s intention to acquire 12 surplus F-16C/D aircraft from the United States. These are interesting times for the Philippine Air Force, whose prevailing skill-sets are still geared towards equipment that is decades behind the Falcons.

It’s been six years since the PAF had operational fighters in its inventory. Its last F-5A Freedom Fighters, which were day-time-only interceptors, were decommissioned in 2005. Over two decades had passed since it operated true all-weather fighters — its F-8 Crusaders. The 60’s era Crusaders proved to be a handful for the PAF (see the following Timawa discussion for details), and by the late 80s were relegated to a grass field at Clark field, where ash fall from Mt. Pinatubo eventually sealed their fate. While the handful of S211s allows the service to maintain a modicum of competency in jet-aircraft operations, the PAF Air Defense Wing is a shadow what it once was when its aircraft intercepted Soviet bombers in the South China Sea.

If we are to keep the hoped-for F-16s from becoming hangar queens, or become the latest recipient of the Philippine media’s favorite moniker for PAF aircraft: “flying coffin”, its ability to operate aircraft at this level of sophistication must be elevated without delay.

The following is a summary of a Timawa.net discussion that seeks a way to fast-track the upgrade of PAF skills . . . should the request for these aircraft be granted.

How does this exercise seek to accomplish its mission statement and objective?

Learning by example

When Singapore replaced their Hawker Hunters with F-16A/Bs in 1987, they opted to have them delivered to Luke AFB AZ instead of direct to Singapore. Thus the first incarnation of Operation: Peace Carvin began. For two years, from 1987 to 1989, the USAF trained 100 RSAF pilots and maintenance personnel to operate and maintain their new birds. Subsequent Peace Carvins trained additional personnel in F-16C/D aircraft and more recently the F-15SG.

These Singaporean operations can be broken down into the following elements:

Aircraft – the RSAF stationed as many as 12 aircraft at the air base as training platforms
Trainees – these are the 150 Singaporean personnel, including 15 pilots, are that undergo training at the base. These personnel and their families live on-base for the duration of the training cycle

Trainors – these are USAF personnel that are seconded to the RSAF and have operational control of the unit. Personnel management, however, remains with RSAF officers

Budget – Singapore was responsible for the following items:

• Salaries of all personnel involved, to include USAF personnel
• Maintenance and operations expenses
• Ordnance

This training arrangement afforded Singapore access to the full range of training facilities that the USAF established for its own pilots (e.g., bombing ranges, etc.) and maintenance crews (e.g., AFTOs, training mockups). Although the US and Singaporean governments refuse to publicly declare the annual cost of the program, it would arguably be safe to assume that it would be prohibitive.

While some overseas training will be required for the initial batch of pilots and maintenance crews for the planned F-16s, what if alternative arrangements could be made to permit training in advance of MRF delivery?

Peace Carvin in reverse

This proposal seeks to gain the benefits of Peace Carvin, but without the attendant costs.

Key elements of this proposal:

• Task force
• Use of subject matter experts
• Training opportunities

While there is no avoiding sending PAF personnel overseas for training, why not work to build-up in-country training capabilities in preparation of the arrival of aircraft? Training, therefore, can begin well in advance of the actually transfer of equipment.

The “reverse” in this proposal is that foreign training resources are brought to the Philippines, where training can be done all year, instead of sending personnel overseas for a few months at potentially great expense. It will not, however, preclude overseas training opportunities.

Task force

PAF HQ, ADW, and AETC will establish a task force to identify skills gaps related to operating aircraft at the F-16 complexity level, and develop both fast-tracked and long-term training programs to address these gaps. This task force will function as a training directorate that will have overall responsibility for the program.
The mission statement for the effort:

“Create a maintenance, operations, and logistical culture that is conducive to effective, efficient, sustainable use of 4th Generation combat aircraft”

These training programs will be conducted in the Philippines.

Use of subject matter experts

The task force will be empowered to retain the services of subject matter experts who will be responsible for administering key aspects of training programs either as a whole or in part.
These subject matter experts can be:

• Technical advisers seconded or assigned to the Philippines by a foreign country
• Private contractors
• A combination of both

Subject matter experts will be responsible for the following in their respective areas of concern:

• Familiarize PAF personnel with relevant AFTOs or their equivalent
• Impart best-practice information and techniques
• Aid in forecasting

When selecting contractors, preference will be given to entities that are willing to lease key maintenance and/or training equipment, that are relevant for their training programs, to the PAF using a BOT scheme. Contractors can include companies such as Sikorsky Aircraft Services or be entirely new companies that are setup as Public-Private Partnerships.
Whenever practical, the BOT scheme will be used to acquire support and training equipment (e.g., APUs, simulators, training mock-ups, etc.)

Training opportunities

This is the “core” of the reversal concept.

To provide practical learning opportunities for prospective PAF F-16 crews, the task force, in cooperation with the Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) board and the DFA, will work to establish high-frequency exercises with foreign armed forces that operate F-16s.

Having operational F-16 units in-country will provide PAF personnel, who complete pre-requisite training modules designed by the task force, the opportunity to apply theoretical knowledge, and acquire practical best practices information from experienced air crews.

Small-scale, temporary, basing of foreign assets is preferable. Forward-basing for the receptive foreign country results in a training opportunity for the PAF.
The task force will have a hand in selecting personnel who will be sent to the US for training on F-16 maintenance and operations. These personnel will be selected not only for their qualifications, but also for their ability to serve as mentors / team leaders who will then form the leadership foundation for a new jet-qualified work-force.

Other interim training opportunities

Indonesia reportedly takes up a significant amount of Singapore’s simulator resources (see here). Could a similar arrangement be setup with our non-US allies? South Korea perhaps?