Clark Griswold

ATR 72 float plane https://aerialfiremag.com/2025/03/25/bridger-aerospace-and-positive-aviation-announce-joint-partnership-for-the-development-of-water-scooping-aircraft/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bridger-aerospace-to-launch-amphibious-firefighting-plane-in-north-america/ar-AA1BEicl

Now you know who sang it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be but our foes fear and hate each other to varying amounts, we may get a coordinated attack from a new axis of evil but I don’t see it right now, they’ll help each other to a degree, by help I mean direct / almost direct assistance but I don’t see them right now acting as the Axis or Central Powers did. Still that would be a thorn in our side and boost their chances (PRC vs Taiwan in a fast action) to try to tie us up in too many places when they invade. Returning to the article, I think the more appropriate question is not whether to forward deploy but what is the purpose of the deployment? Backstop or a primary force integrated to provide daily and continuous deterrence for said country? My 2 cents, Europe, Korea, Japan, etc… it is to draw down to true backstop, enough to matter but not enough to use as your primary fighting force.

Yeah, I saw the author’s point but could not completely buy into his premise. Like Europe, we need some forward presence just less than what we have now as it encourages anti-strategic behavior from our allies. Probably a draw down to half of our forces over a set period then another draw down to something like a third after another period while the RoK builds up seems appropriate. From the article: The directive has rattled officials at the Pentagon and other agencies” who believed whatever had been must forever be, at least when it comes to military deployments. This is the crux… even though time and conditions change, the nat-sec blob thinks nothing should ever change in regards to our overseas presence, this is not a permanent mission of the US or one that is not possible or appropriate to change. We say we are pivoting, people think that should only mean the ETO and ME, it should include what I would call the stable Pacific area. Again from the article: Why spend the money and undertake the risk when South Korea doesn’t need the support? Sean King of Park Strategies opined: “The U.S. should be thanking Seoul for the opportunity to forward-deploy forces and equipment only a few hundred miles from rival mainland China.” However, it is an illusion to imagine American forces using South Korean facilities in a conflict with China. The U.S. Army would have little role in such a conflict. It’s likely they are a liability to an extent in considering the China Taiwan scenario at their current force levels (KFOR).

Read this: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/donald-trump-should-end-americas-defense-welfare-for-south-korea/ Not sure if a forward presence as KFOR is now is the right choice… not saying bring everyone and everything back but food for thought.

You might be right but that time to end that is now. In everything big gov there is an element of jobs program / parochial pork, so long as that percentage is fairly low vs utility / value we can let that be as it’s the grease to make consensus happen. We have to shift the mind of the politicians to not allow obsolete systems to be continued but make them shift to a model where the amount of relevant systems is the trade space, at that point we may have a bit too much of this / that but at least it’s modern, reliable, relevant.

Yup I hate it but if Uncle Sugar is not feeling spendy then I see this as bill payers: Bone, Hog, oldest Vipers, remaining 15Cs, some spec ops 130s, some -38s Not saying I want all these divestment but with Sentinel, Raider and now the 47 there is a need for a lotta money reprogramming This executive administration is a spender if approached correctly methinks, Congress is TBD with what they did with the CR, held the line with no increase for inflation Pushing for a big swap/new iron in the AD and ARC is something they (executive and some congressional members) might go for though A new Air Force almost thru lots of new aircraft, weapons, systems, personnel reforms and structure. Smaller AD but the best toys, bigger ARC with newer iron/missions/responsibilities Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know but something will likely have to give

Gotcha That’s the rub…Boeing…

NGAS might draw the short straw… https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/08/uncertain-future-usaf-ngas/#

Alright here’s the 69 billion dollar question… do you divest the Raptors to get the money to buy the -47? Handling the interim risk with 15EX and 35

God bless them for trying though. IDK, if you really think your ass is on the line you can get better at something really fast. Now that might cause a guns vs butter debate that I think would be hard to persuade their people that it’s time to really rearm and invest in defense but here’s hoping that they would I guess that could spur a philosophical debate, do they (our allies) need that level of capability as that level is really there to give us the option to prosecute the attack, to take the offensive. Do they need to be able to do that? Maybe they can develop something relevant in the 2030 fight, concept son of Rafael

With 6th gen being the new hotness… GCAP model

Concur I wish this could spread to other requirements/acquisitions Good enough is good enough, good enough plus quickly delivered at a reasonable cost is great.

From the ‘tube so caveat emptor but some initial thoughts that are probably in the ballpark of truth… Very stealthy Focused on itself being air to air / tactical C2 Very long ranged Not built to last for super long time, 20 years then on to next gen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk