Clark Griswold

Not certified and why? Lack of GO support, belief that the mission is not part of the core AF mission(s). I could go on, heard as an anecdote a two star deride the AT-6 back in the 2016-17 timeframe with a “who’d wanna fly that” comment while at the Puzzle Palace. If a GO can’t imagine himself flying it I think they just play along and kill it later, same with the C-27J and other small fleets. Anyway… they’ll continue shenanigans and kill the program eventually. FWIW, if a person is lurking here with the ear of a decision maker, we’re gonna be suppressing insurgents, criminals/pirates, and all manner of rabble at the periphery of the Free-ish World from now till the end of time… Reapers and other UAS are good but round out the team with a capable, modular, purpose built platform, the Scorpion. Don’t overthink it, just acquire it.

Big Air Force to AFSOC:

Concur with that idea that if we acquired a seaplane platform it would have to be right sized in terms of platform and fleet size, with that in mind if I was asked in the matter I’d buy an existing one, pretty much the US-2 seaplane or maybe the FF72 ATR based floatplane I would not call it niche but optimized light-medium long range utility for the maritime environment Here’s where I’m guilty of putting the cart before the horse in this idea, I could see having to or choosing to buy specialized or new equipment to be transported by this hypothetical platform vs what we have now, especially if this platform didn’t have a ramp cargo door system. This would be to get more out of it, especially when doing resupply to remote and austere locations. That makes you question the rationale for it in the first place. Not managing the jenga puzzle of requirements/budgets/compatibility/constraints, it’s easy to just yes to cool seaplane, details later but reality always kicks in… If the price could be better; AFSOC, AMC, USMC, USCG & interested Allies could negotiate a mass buy, one configuration and each buyer tailor their planes as desired. Keep it right sized but enough to get Shinmaywa interested AFSOC gets a maritime lift/strike/ISR/CSAR platform AMC gets a long range mobility and probe/drogue tanker Other services would probably use those two configurations WAG fleet size (all users) 100-125 tails Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The official end of Liberty Lifter https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/07/09/darpa-ends-cargo-seaplane-program-eyes-new-uses-for-tech/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur, everything will need to have high MPG to be relevant I wonder if a technological capable non US user (looking at you Israel) has already worked this out and we could just buy their mod? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

T-7 Thunderbird

Good video and explanation from Pako on the COCOM demand / no feedback problem. As to the A-10s and replacing it, my druthers would be to ask for as many EXs as possible to replace the retiring Hawgs. Make it simple enough that Congress can understand it and end up with more 4+ long range modern fighters while beginning to consolidate the AF to one type of 4+ gen fighter, the EX.

Fat Amy’s been on HGH apparently

Get both, the exotic unconventional and the regular unconventional (no paradox intended) That’s the deterrence we want, not only will your military be blunted but your economy and society will be destabilized Don’t even try it But to the seaplane, I’d argue generally it will give more bang over more missions with more flexibility in basing vs a water based ground effect platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, there’s truth in that but if the shift to the Indo-Pacific is real, if we want to be able to sustain forces after destruction of bases, runways and docks, if we want to project power on multiple axis to complicate China’s problems we have to begin to look at unconventional capabilities The problem is money mainly as usual, to do this a bill payer would have to be found, changing out our tactical air mobility systems seems to be where to start.

Yeah but they are moving on something where we seem to be navel gazing a bit when I comes to the new logistics platforms we keep saying are gonna be necessary for runway independent ops Along with 69 other projects, it’s time to get the USA a modern seaplane Military, Coast Guard, Aerial Fire Fighter all from the same platform. That can get a bit of economy of scale and get the price per tail to something reasonable. Money for anything but the shiniest and pointiest planes is not easy to find but a plus sized version of the US-2 is probably feasible if the money could be had.

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-mysterious-sea-skimming-ekranoplan-seen-in-full-view

Yes https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/06/why-the-u-s-needs-200-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-not-100/ So what’s the bill payer if no plus up ?

Why can’t you have both in a platform, BACN and AWACS, links boosted and an additional sensor feed from a radar(s)? This plus the C2 for UCAV & UAS. This might / probably would push the capability to a platform that can comfortably operate in the high 40s but go big or go home Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF? Why? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure this has been posted in the thread but Victory Aviation in a modified Thrush 510 doing AR https://www.victoryspecialmissions.com/military Is there any proposal or capability to do this with the OA-1K?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nor sure her motives, could be the economic footprint of supporting a smaller platform or could be legit performance concerns Didn’t catch all of her comments but if I were a staffer or mil liaison working for her, I’d make the argument for an E-7 not just for the combat C2 mission but for long range patrol and monitoring, peacetime to contingency planning. Air and surface surveillance. The Arctic, maritime regions and maintaining a watch on long range patrols and joint ops occasionally being conducted by the Russians & Chinese are all examples of how not just in WW Taiwan how a long range multi sensor capable platform fits into the team. Just dreaming and if money grew on trees… Develop a MAX 7 based platform, the MAX is not a NEO but worth it for domestic considerations. Referencing the defunct E-10 project, develop a GMTI capability plus long range EO/IR. Develop this with the Israelis, leveraging their capes into a domestic modern platform (if not using the G550 based platforms) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy and understand, I believe @ClearedHot mentioned in this or another thread the Israeli AWACS based on the G550, same platform for the new Compass Call, I could see that as a selling point for logistical support and their jet has some very high end capes True, I’m just thinking the politics factor can trump the military capabilities factor here if not addressed Just as emotions often over power logic, it has to be considered https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-cancels-e-7-wedgetail-citing-survivability-and-cost-concerns/ From the article: During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concerns that the E-2D might not be able to match the E-7’s capabilities, and cited prior statements from Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein that a space-based capability wouldn’t be available until the early 2030s. “We just haven’t heard, in my view, sufficient justification for the cancellation of such a critical program,” Murkowski told Air Force leaders. Jobs, money, prestige, etc… politicians want their constituents to have their fair share plus whatever else they can get. I want my Congressman to do the same, I think trying to meet her plus other politicians half way on this while developing the orbital systems is the best way.

Yeah if the Bobs change their minds and continue supporting a manned/unmanned aircraft a smaller plane might be better / more budget friendly Probably could acquire more, plug more gaps as required, support more CAPs, possibly ACE employ, etc… I think the 73 for admin/legal/acquisition/political reasons just might be more likely to happen with less drama If Boeing and the ABM career field really want this aircraft to happen, methinks going forward they need to show how viable/useful the E-7 LOS C2 of unmanned systems could be, that’s a new capability plus the traditional C2 that makes the platform relevant IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid points from the article but wondering if this is a case of thinking only about WW3 when there are other levels of conflict on the spectrum where an ad hoc C2 would be useful, unless the space based option is truly global coverage 24/7, atmospheric and space weather resistant, defensible to ASAT weapons, robust comms. All that could be asked of a manned or unmanned aircraft but before I put all my eggs in one basket I’d keep a back up option. Anyway, I’d keep it real, get the 73, minimum mods, learn from the Aussies.

Not force structure per se but more composition… https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/27/us-air-force-to-retire-all-a-10s-cancel-e-7-under-2026-spending-plan/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X-32…

Yeah, it was not a shock that he was retired Army, methinks he believes divide and conquer, more smaller branches mean easier pickings for the… Army. We need reform but not disestablishment. I hope there is a retort in the works.

Yeah, good point Just thinking there was a way to throw a flag on the field Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk