Clark Griswold

My guess is no.

Yes, I’d recruit CFIs, Army WO pilots, prior rated Es, cast a wide net but be discerning on which fish you throw in the cooler… It would be a reasonable commitment (less than a commissioned officer) but they would have the same aero rating, that’s the kicker. Now while they are instructing they wanna get a degree and at the end of their commitment apply for an ARC or AD billet, more power to them, if they wanna punch and separate, thank you for your service. There would be some commissioned IPs still flying T-6s, supervisors and such, but the bulk of the IP cadre would be WOs. This would solve some manpower issues for the AF and fix the inconsistency in instructional quality described in the UPT Next thread.

This is where I see WOs fitting into the Line well. WOs recruited from aviation programs and with a specific initial career track, along with others. Basic flight instruction handing off to commissioned officer instructor pilots. UPT split into three phases: Flight screening. Contract CFIs and mil check pilots, PPL with INSTM rating, military only program, contract IPs only fly mil students, focused and consistent instructions. Basic phase. USAF WO IPs instruction. T-6 syllabus then a 30 hour ME course in a T-54. Advanced phase. Commissioned IPs in the T-7, track after formation phase. Fighter/bomber on to the T-7 and IFF, Crew/heavy to a 737 type and sim course.

News TWZTurkey’s ‘Fighter Drone’ Teamed With M-346 Fighter-Traine...The demonstrations put Turkey among a small group flight-testing advanced crewed-uncrewed teaming as air forces race to field collaborative combat aircraft. The demonstrations put Turkey among a small Noteworthy IMO for the rapid progress of Turkish indigenous tech / mil industry

Pressure tends to focus the mind, with the US and Western Europe growing apart I think they will probably get something going. Really they have the industrial base but it’s the will and willingness to keep it realistic, focused and with enough of everyone’s core requirements met to keep it on track. This was a good pod on the matter and what went sideways, spoiler alert: the French aren’t easy to work with. https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/whats-next-for-the-luftwaffe-after-fcas-collapse/id840308131?i=1000772925372

If they want a credible nuclear deterrent they need also nuclear armed TBM or cruise missiles and a secondary strike capability, a nuclear sub. Basically mirroring the Israeli nuclear capability (allegedly), 100-150 weapons. If the Euros want their own deterrent, pooling resources, agreeing to sharing technology and buying common delivery systems could make this feasible. Also keeping the requirements tight and focused, i.e. not trying to deter anyone other than regional aggressors, weapons yields and delivery ranges focused on that. All nations agreeing to a minimum capability purchase and maintenance, also declaring these capabilities are in addition not in lieu of conventional capabilities. They could probably make this work within their political and philosophical boundaries: declare no first use, no threat of first use and no deliberate targeting of civilian population centers unless their civilian populations were struck first by a WMD.

The scale of rot in the governing quarters of the UK staggers the mind https://notthebee.com/article/op-ed-the-sentence-that-should-shame-a-nation?from_social=twitter The grooming gang report was released and the royal family releases this, they really need something to happen there, sometimes you have to abandon the approach, it’s too f’d up and just go around https://notthebee.com/article/the-royal-family-is-touting-its-efforts-to-curb-sexual-violence-in-africa-and-the-middle-east-the-comment-section-is-approaching-regicide?from_social=twitter Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-32 + F-35 mash up

Yeah, I’m curious as how the T-7 will work as a trainer, without having an intermediate high performance trainer when this training paradigm comes to fruition I swapped fleets and went to the Bus and FBW / advanced automated systems are awesome and a better jet but they can make you complacent and atrophy certain flying skills. A jet that requires a certain amount of attention just to fly it properly has its advantages as a trainer but time will tell….

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.

Boeing pulls out, sts The War ZoneBoeing Drops Out Of Navy's T-45 Jet Trainer Replacement C...The field of competitors to design and build the Navy's next jet trainer has narrowed to just two teams, and both are putting forward twin-engine designs.

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

It’s not my supposition, it’s Bronder’s words. I’m not opposed to the A-1K nor it being expanded to missions other than Armed Overwatch, I’m just saying that for some of those other missions another platform would be better & worth the effort. If the resources aren’t there make do with what you have then.