The article didn't make much hay about the funding either. Seems there was another agenda more important than accurately representing the situation at hand. Now why would that be?

Had the AF decided to 'find the money' and continue the program would this piece have taken the AF to task for defying Congress' wishes?

Are we missing the whole point of the DoD being charged to be 'responsible stewards of taxpayer money and resources'? I could see this article being written to highlight the AF's efforts to live up to their mandate, doing Congress' bidding and all that.