Clark Griswold

Interesting how it and the vaporware NG released in a commercial look similar Big, sans tail, delta shaped with internal weapons and crewed, like a B-21… Can we leverage the quiet success of the B-21 development into an F-21 quickly? Seems like a direction for NGAD to take to save cost, time, reduce tech risk

Touché but it represents how much faster their blob (acquisition n development structure) works than ours Our tech is great our admin sucks, their tech is stolen and their admin is focused and allowed to move irrespective of parochial jobs interests just something that we should take seriously Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NGAS concept rendering https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/8BmNym

Flying their new toy Santa brought https://www.twz.com/air/china-stuns-with-heavy-stealth-tactical-jets-sudden-appearance

Videos are circulating of the flight just before crash

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite possibly I saw this proposal referenced in this dude’s video on the -57 He speculated the Russians were interested in this deal as a way to expand their overall fighter/military business by partnering in this way with India and as a means of bypassing sanctions now and likely in the future I find that plausible I could see Vietnam, maybe the Philippines, Ecuador, Peru, etc… being customers if they can actually keep the cost around 30-45 mil a tail and deliver some amount of low observable 5th gen capes Russia / India, China / Pakistan, Korea, probably Turkey soon all offering light / lower cost fighters… I think it’s time to start thinking about the USA offering a modern, LO-ish, affordable F-5 successor for not just our historical allies of modest means but some of our traditional allies that are not capable economically of acquiring F-35 or like platforms. The CSAF’s comments on a light adaptable manned fighter in London this year I think gives some room for a requirement to be proposed inside the Puzzle Palace and rapidly validated, sourced and built with some DOGE applied to it I think the strategy we’ve applied with our allies of let’s all buy this jet, system or whatever in the idea that they will fight with us inter-operably might be outdated. We may not need them to fight with us (or much) but to just not be liability requiring us to be there in numbers to defend/deter aggression. A less expensive but capable fighter and CCA system they can and will buy might be better than the F-35 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not directly F-35 news but relevant to light/medium weight LO multi role fighters meant for use/production with partners and allies Russia trying to get the Su-75 flying by offering India production rights https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35-russias-su-75-stealth-fighter-could-fly-india-213508 Who would be the customers for an Indian produced Su-75? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s not some random O-6s or above they could have voluntold to live there? That looked like a beautiful home just worthy of saving because Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thread bump here vs the NJ Drone / Iran discussions but only if an inexpensive capable platform had been proposed that had a lot of capabilities in unsung but necessary missions, like intercepting and investigating / prosecuting low speed small targets economically

T32 DSCA is not as restrictive as you may think but it would have to be a ANG asset / member then a validated RFS thru NJ JFH T10 DSCA I’m not familiar with but if the OK ANG is still flying MC-12s (I think they are), that’s a possibility if routed thru NJ then RFA to OK Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn’t the AF still have a few A-29s and AT-6s? Slow flyers with FMV and downlink, go see WTH is up there Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see it as risky (very) too but the problem is Sunni militant groups… we’re really not ok (Shiites too) with them and having a base and locally dependent populations interested in our presence there to keep HTS in check might be worth a stretch, not to fight HTS if we can help it but to keep Turkey, Iran and Russia from coming back and to keep HTS in the traditionally Sunni areas of Syria and not trying to destabilize/threaten Lebanon, Israel or Jordan. Maybe offer both sides a deal and we get the base(s). Maybe. I seriously doubt we will do anything but the game goes on with or without us, we just need to know when and where to play. I wouldn’t say yes now but not a no either

0.1% chance but an interesting idea… https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/how-the-america-could-takeover-russias-tartus-naval-base-in-syria/

I think a lot of people were low SA as Assad looked like he had won didn’t realize how hollow his forces were https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2024/12/09/iran-makes-excuses-for-failing-to-protect-syrias-bashar-assad/ Russia is out of Schlitz, Iran got its nose broken by Israel while getting kicked in the balls and Hezbollah / Hamas are in self preservation mode, maybe the IC knew it and just kept their cards close to the vest but from the above posted article and the fact that Assad made it out, methinks the Russians cut a deal and had resources in place to get him out. What happens to their naval base is the $69,000 question…

If I were a European politician I’d be in the SCIF right now figuring out how to deal with this likely problem early Europe Migrant Crisis 2.0 Warnings Grow Following the Fall of Assad Regime in Syria https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/12/09/europe-migrant-crisis-2-0-warnings-grow-following-the-fall-of-assad-in-syria/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah it’s 3 years ago so a Fair, getting old … I liked it then still like it now and think it (Bronco X or TAV) has more uses: SAR for CG, Fire Fighting, UAV control and defense, LE support, etc… and the optionally manned feature solves a few other requirements methinks No matter and 99.69% a moot point now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The venerable OV-10 was brought up in the OA-1K thread and I’m not sure if this intriguing vaporware has been posted on BO yet https://www.icarus-aerospace.com/tactical-air-vehicle-tav/ A bit of Stavatti vibes but I think Icarus Aerospace is real

Yup - Navy’s Combat Dragon test Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger that I remember seeing the renders Boeing (OV-10X) floated when the LAAR idea was in the zeitgeist but IIRC the requirement was for 100 tails, I’ve heard that for just about any aircraft type to be economically viable about 300 tails need to be built to give the necessary economics of scale to buy, operate, sustain. Mil aircraft don’t have an exemption to this rule of thumb just access to an almost bottomless pit of money to keep the small high tech fleets possible/flying so we can “afford” 21 B-2s vs the real 100 or so we were really supposed to buy, good thinking Congress… Cal-Fire is a great example of how if we could have thought outside the container and found other gov/maybe commercial partners we could have gotten a capable, modern LAAR done back in the GWOT days but that’s all OBE… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Make South Korea Great Again Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a guess but as it has not been produced since ‘86, with a limited used fleet available for purchase and modification it was probably deemed economically infeasible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rhetorical question then: How do you express that to a GO, SES and CODEL in a way that doesn’t piss them off; gives them a white paper that explains you’ll save money and retain pilots by transitioning to a different basing arrangement, one that is long term sustainable by having a much higher retention rate and high appeal to members transferring to the ARC? My elevator pitch would be to transfer military flying UPT to be colocated with my most willing and interested crew force that would have the lowest turnover and longest continuity. You’d have to add more to the pitch than that namely what are you going to add to the existing base to keep employment at the same level but fundamentally that’s what I’d argue, students train where their mil instructors want to live. Low to no chance of success but you gotta try if that’s what you think. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately I find that argument fairly ironclad I’ll argue pointlessly for the AF to be bold and push for major changes if the long term payoff is there and the operating environment calls for it. I think you could make that argument now and move UPT basing to strategic locations for manning but the juice must be worth the squeeze and an even swap to the CODELs in terms of economic footprint. Money saved by retaining IP cadre being the main argument I see in this case. If you save say 2 mil (WAG) in training costs per qualified IP, how long till that makes it worth it? Long term retention effect in the AD by not having to non-vol X number of pilots to UPT? How do you WAG this? Question- has the pot been sweetened to entice ARC long tour volunteers? 3 year tours with bonus? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk