Clark Griswold
Supreme User
-
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Yeah I think as shitty as some of the decisions seem to the hoi polloi there are usually reasons why. Some good, some bad, some just odd but reasons why it went the way it did. Keeping the factories open and busy with Project A to enable Project B, valid. I think the money could have been found and still could, just would have to take some risk or do without something assuming no supplemental funding. I guess the other thing or one of several things about watch this UPT thrash is how it has it centered on acquiring the T-7 above all and that is primarily there to train for the fighter tracked guys, that’s about 15% of the pilots in the AF. Don't get me wrong, selecting strong swimmers for that career track and training them well before they go to the F-69 or other jet is very important but you have to not bend the whole enterprise around one thing to do. Other training systems (aircraft, sims, LVC, etc.) could have better trained the whole future force vs. a new, bespoke system geared toward an important but only one part of the line. Just my opinion.
-
Concur - that’s been one of the maddening parts watching this from the outside and seeing the machine do something completely at odds with their purported main goal, make more military pilots faster. Why bet the farm on something new, not in or ready for production when you could buy ready now? When your advanced trainer that you fly now is really ready to be retired, why buy the model that will take the longest to actually get on the line flying? I think it was earlier in this thread someone speculated the T-7 was selected to keep the St Louis based Boeing plant open to keep the door open for the F-15EX and more Superhornets if wanted. Probably was one of the real reasons they went with it, besides domestic supplier preference. I’m actually neutral on that because I see the 3D chess reasoning but again they should have aggressively hedged, argued for an interim solution available now and continued the T-7. Hindsight being 20/20, I would have gone with a mix, 50% training in general aviation aircraft available now flown by military instructors (IA-100 or Grob 120, KA 90) and 50% in a PC-21 or M-345. IFF bound and ENJPT guys would get wings first then go fly the remaining T-38s until the T-7 hit the line.
-
Lotta news lately The War ZoneGermany And Spain Launch ‘Team Gen 6’ After Europe’s Next...The emerging coalition could reshape Europe’s future fighter landscape, but it still needs political backing, lots of funding, and likely more partners. The emerging coalition could reshape Europe’s f
-
The War ZoneFour U-2S Spy Planes Would Be Restored In Bill That Would...Congress is also moving to again block the Air Force from retiring the entire U-2 fleet amid continued questions about capability gaps.
-
-
Bump The War ZoneBoeing "Encouraged" By C-17 Production Restart DiscussionsCongress recently asked the USAF for a briefing on the feasibility of buying new C-17s amid major strain on the existing fleet.
-
Yup https://theaviationist.com/2026/01/21/poland-to-arm-fa-50pl-aim-9x/ Brits also did with their Red Arrow Hawks to give them an operational mission if called upon T-birds can also be made ready for combat ops in 72 hours per their webpage, I’m sure there is an asterisk by that statement but some pew pew could be had On to the idea of acquiring more lighter iron (-50s in this case), the operational case is like the Poles, Gap Filler fighter and Defensive Fighter. Bought in sufficient numbers to give mass and coverage for homeland defense, second line defenses for contingency/combat ops, theaters with limited threats, etc… A fleet of 150-200 is not unreasonable if we believe the late 20s and 30s are going to be as risky as we say they will be.
-
@ClearedHot Do you think the letter released above was a wag the dog tactic in reference to the Belfast attack and proximity to the Henry Nowak murder? It’s interesting reading the letter, the British establishment is still in denial about where they are now and the direction of travel of their country. It’s not good, ours is better than theirs still challenging with our own problems ahead but different. It’s important for them to be a credible and capable NATO partner but power and power in excess to be able to project it for whatever reason comes from security, stability and prosperity at home. Personally, I think they should take the prediction and analysis of Prof David Betz very seriously. https://www.militarystrategymagazine.com/article/civil-war-comes-to-the-west-part-ii-strategic-realities/
-
Not downplaying the threat of Russia but methinks they have other more pressing threats than a Russia tied up in Ukraine
-
True
-
Bump https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-fighters-legal-minimum-wake-up-call-pfluger/ We need more iron pronto, Poland figured out an interim solution, why not just cut n paste, operate until larger more capable iron is delivered then roll the gap fillers to other missions? Training, demo, chase, aggressor, homeland defense, etc… Hedges against tech risk with T-7, allows faster divestment of oldest teen series jets, significant but affordable buy allows presence and support missions for burden shifting, etc…
-
Probably so (as to the desire for more hardware except of the most exquisite types). Yeah, the digital tether is still gonna be there but… I would like to see at least research into an AI assisted, organic PED light capability, dedicated to small independent maneuver units, thinking remote austere missions in Africa and small isolated islands in INDOPACOM theater. Just a thought. The Wolfhound replacement is gonna be interesting, 20 aircraft, the tyranny of small fleets.
-
Cool, my knowledge/ops experience is probably a bit dated and my A-1K is all open sourced so that’s worth what you pay for it. I do know what you mean about manpower for PED from my previous work, the volume of data, looking for the diamond in the rough, enough said. My main advocacy for basically a NG Manned ISR platform acquired by AFSOC that has a bit more capacity (SWAPC plus PAX) is for the ANG mission, ANG units flying said new aircraft. MOOTW, Grey Zone, Consequence Management, etc. could all be met by a right size, right capes platform that also answers a T10 requirement. Probably in a right sized regional or light airlift turboprop.
-
Don’t know Bronder so I’ll just say your point is made. Other missions I see as those missions where more organic, on board cranium power is desirable. Agnostic stations on said platform, in an open system with operators doing the PED, C2, etc… there and directly supporting the customer while also feeding / interacting with the network of other users. Probably CASA 235, ATR 42 or bigger (maybe) but not C-130 size.
-
That will not buff out
