Clark Griswold

Triage or publicly ask Congress for supplemental funding for reasons a, b and c… this is how we got here, here’s what we want to do to Make UPT Great Again and here’s how we are going to do it. I suspect Triage is going to be the answer Congress would approve so honestly I’d look for where operational risk is possible and reprogram money It would likely be a vertical cut versus horizontal to maximize savings, so much old iron has already gotten the ax we’re getting down to the family jewels Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we’re starting to get to another point CAF wants one thing MAF (maybe AFSOC, AFGSC) might want something else in their new pilots Points expressed here are singular data points but enough of them become useful data clusters Is the single advanced trainer useful to try to bring back or go to in the everyone goes to T-7s after civ training model? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha, I share that same reservation on going from a Baron to an afterburner The SGTO has to be a truly random sample rather than the cherry picked, not saying something you don’t know but for the thread… This doesn’t have to be hard (sts) or risky… 1 - basics in a civ program, intro to mil flying in a turbo that has a performance range to transition into aerobatics, form, low level then track… T-7s for some, T-54 for others… 2 - basics in a civ program and an extensive program in a PC-21. Assignment to follow. 3 - extensive civ program with 3 different phases, then T-6. Assignment to follow, good luck. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool I can see that and the tactical mindset is what I want heavy crews to get too. This is how I see to get there. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can take ribbing but I’m not calling for something not flying or exotic I see MX experience beyond what we have now as desirable but the idea that anything beyond basic serving is unrealistic, just my opinion Pilot training when I went thru did a good job but looking at the future and comparing the two, I think additional phases and expanded training into non-traditional areas will pay dividends Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I just threw that in for fun but honestly if the AF gave me the keys and all these kids were going to get was the civ time in a program then go to a supersonic capable, 7G jet… I’d give them as much seat time as I could Would landing a seaplane give directly translatable experience and knowledge to handle a T-7? No but it would be more aviation experience handling multiple factors in 3 dimensions requiring strong fast response cognitive skills interlinked to hand/eye/seat of the pants that would likely lead to faster neurons in most students. Probably would only take 2-3 weeks and the guys would likely wanna do it But yeah it would be a very tradeable part of a good pre mil flying program for me, cool but not necessary Icon A5 in Florida with weekends off. An enjoyable phase of training… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How is it that the AF so broke that it can’t afford a one for one swap out of existing iron or a new version of UPT incorporating some civ time that seems feasible to produce a graduate generally deemed to have an equivalent amount of training that UPT historically has been given? What math are the Bobs throwing out there for all of this? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that More time is better than phoning it in If the AF wants to go to only one trainer so be it, don’t agree but if so then buy a sizable and diverse civilian training experience to develop them before going to a high performance jet… Basic, acro, multi, seaplane and STOL by contract with mil oversight during training 0.1% chance for that much pre mil training flying (if the straight to T-7 COA happens) but one must post what one thinks… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure @hindsight2020 is IPT just pass/fail or graded on a scale? Included is n MASS then? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I fear trying to “save/fix” the world makes you destroy yourself I hope a generation of leaders figure this out soon Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Heard something similar to that also, that an upper deck was not cargo conducive and would have probably ended up as wasted space Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Point conceded but I thought his skewering of the minerals deal with the allusion to the Versailles Treaty was prescient and rightly kinda called us out a bit, I’m for helping them and ourselves to an extent but we really can’t be just another evil great power Doesn’t mean at all we continue on as Uncle Sucker selling out our own country but we have enough margin to better Still Europe has got to belly up and stand on their own, this is 80-90% their deal long term Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vapor F-55 Orca https://foxxy2.artstation.com/projects/X1zrn3

Good discussion from Bronk on Carroll’s channel Not in full agreement with Bronk but he makes good points, mineral deal sounds like a shit burger we probably should reconsider.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let’s say it’s 70k instant off load at 500 NM, without going into too much detail that’s a relevant amount from say the Northern PI to a nearish Taiwan CP, just my opinion. But to step back how do you wanna pass gas or will need to in a future fight against an opponent that can actually fight back? My suggestion is a three part strategy: Strategic tankers with 1500+ NM offload capability, at least 50k at range. Operational tankers with 500 NM offload capability, at least 50k with an hour loiter, ACE capability. Tactical tankers, manned and unmanned, reduced signatures or built to operate with supporting EW to maintain stations or additionally provide those capabilities within 200 NM of a GBAD. Offload at least 20k. Strategic gets you or supports assets across the tyranny of distance, operational can fight from allied countries near the fight, tactical is part of the strike package launching with. To return to the KC-390, it may not be yet flying but it is close, the 46 will have to fill the strategic and get working on manned / unmanned tactical tanker duo. MQ-25 is probably good enough and if king for a day I’d probably adapt a 5th gen to a manned tanker with an automated boom system.

It was 2011, 157 majors got the ax because they hadn’t hit 15 years of service when their records met the RIF board https://nation.time.com/2012/01/03/air-force-firing-for-effect/ As Gates said wisely the DoD has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur, in the case of AF/A1 it’s a dinosaur that’s drunk Sorry if this happens and good people get RIF’d Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is NATO has morphed into Team America European Edition America backing two different European mutual defense systems I think would work The eastern project would have American forces deployed in each country as they face the greatest and closest threat. The western project would have coordination, exercises and infrastructure to support reinforcing if the security situation warranted it Bisecting our European security strategy would get unnecessary and recalcitrant cooks out of the kitchen, allow us to focus on the defense of those nations facing direct daily territorial aggression without having to convince 20+ other countries not facing that to do something about it. I’m not talking trash about any of them but I find it hard to believe countries with low mil budgets and populations that seem indifferent at best to military service, actions would suddenly go all in for collective action. I think America would be somewhat skeptical too but more likely to go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that but it’s using IAE V2500 motors, just a guess as the drag is different from the Bus but methinks 6-7k per hour but that’s just WAG Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha I’ve only got open source on the web info The amount of fuel even if it’s not much more than 79k is still a relevant amount IMO because of the expeditionary capability of the aircraft and the additional booms in the air They could do cyclic ops between big wing tankers and tracks / anchors closer to the fight in addition to small austere field ops. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think so, I found the info CH relayed, it’s in the Tactical Tanker thread: CH posted: Before modification in the previous baseline configuration with three aux tanks it holds of 77,000lbs of gas. That number has gone up greatly after a big weight reduction mod and increased fuel tanks. I could see this tanker being detailed out as a direct support element attached to det or deployed wing versus centrally planned allocated. My two cents is that smaller, cheaper and agile is worth it. That it’s not Boeing is another plus.

@ClearedHot Has Embraer released any projected specs on the boom equipped KC-390? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha, Cleared Hot mentioned another time in another thread that with the engineering done for a KC-390, that 50k off load was way higher, I haven’t seen anything publicly released but it seems like a number that would be very relevant to a bomber, 4 ship or mobility platform The short, austere field capability alone makes it relevant IMHO with the reactivation of remote small Pacific bases Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What heavy is gonna refuel at that altitude? No specifics here but there’s a sweet spot for most big jets and it ain’t that

Honestly I don’t fret about them going nuclear weapons capable, doubt they would target us and I doubt they would develop their own capability that would not be entirely regionally and tactically focused all on Russia. It would be a strategic capability like Israel’s, relevant but small. Theres just too many Swiss cheese holes to line up and inconsistency in our relationship. They want to do business with Iran but still have us deter Russia and look the other way while we confront them in the ME, they offer vague maybes to supporting us in a Taiwan scenario but again demand not just a back but front stop every day against aggression. Alliances are made for reasons and when those reasons change so should the alliances. Whatever alliance Western Europe would form after a NATO dissolution would not necessarily be a for or frenemy by default.