Clark Griswold

Makes sense on why the plug got pulled. Not to detour too far off from the F-35 topic of the thead but googling more on the Comanche after your comment, I found this Time article here. And these two paragraphs seem particularly relevant to the F-35 saga: They continually piled on requirements by the bucketload and relied on technologies which did not actually exist – so many gadgets that the engines couldn’t get the thing off the ground and so many design changes that the ink never really dried on the blueprints. And then they tried to fix these problems by adding more time and money (see above). Perhaps the lesson is that military tech programs should exercise design restraint, establish strict budget and schedule constraints, and rely on proven technologies to deliver necessary capabilities on operationally relevant timelines. This formula is much lauded among defense acquisition experts and leaders, but was clearly not implemented by the Comanche team. They spent 22 years doing the opposite. As before, the dye is cast for better or worse.

Interesting discussion. Not to just focus on systems, but why not an updated and more robust version of the RAH-66 Comanche? 5th Gen fixed-wing VSTOL may be a bridge too far but a very capable low signature attack helicopter that is survivable in a contested environment (medium threat) could be a financially viable option. FAS reference on the Comanche so take it with a grain of salt but looks / looked pretty capable. 9 years on, with enough effort in development, probably could be better or lead to a better design.

Copy all. Just considering the idea, it would seem that a jet like the proposed Sea Gripen would work well for what the Marines have traditionally looked for. Granted Sea Gripen is just a proposal right now with little or no work done towards it but seems like a good fit for USMC fixed wing tactical needs. But getting the new boats to fly them off is some between unlikely in the extreme to never ever going happen and converting an LHA / LHD to STOBAR flight ops would be pricey to put it mildly.

Question for Swanee: Just looking at the dimensions of an LHD, using the USS Bataan as an example, which is about 850 feet x 105, pretty close to the size of some smaller carriers operated by the French or Brazilians, why didn't the USMC build straight deck pocket carriers and look for a light strike fighter that could do STOBAR operations to keep it simple? Serious question as it would seem a lot less technically difficult and still be Marine owned and operated? Agreed - the dye is cast for better or worse but why did USMC Aviation keep going with the idea of VSTOL fighters after the known performance limitations of the AV-8 and the lift-fan limitations/problems with the B model?

But for the kind of money that sequestration is going to force us to save, it is very likely to be retired along with some others unfortunately (A-10 & F-15C). https://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20130923/NEWS/309230019/ https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/

This could be the first sign of the apocalypse

2 Don't like it but it's the truth.

https://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/17/air-force-may-scrap-kc-10-tanker-fleet-general/ https://www.defensenews.com/article/20130915/DEFREG02/309150004/ Not just the KC-10 but the A-10 and F-15C also... but back to the KC-10, unfortunately it is probably done as I don't think they have upgraded but 2 of the KC-10 flight decks. 777 tanker would make a great replacement but not gonna happen...

I don't think America will devolve into Bartertown run by Master Blaster but I think that a default, either by passing the deadline on the 17th and not being able to fulfill all obligations, not just interest on our debt, would cut the purchasing power of the dollar at least by a third. It would be a default in the mind of the market even if the interest would be paid. The day after for a default would be like others except with a 1000 point drop in the market and credit cards no longer being accepted but debit transactions still going thru. Basically, we're still functioning just operating with less money and credit no longer accepted, I just want to limit the damage that I am coming to believe is going to happen. I watched this movie a while ago, Collapse, and while I think the subject of the film, Michael Ruppert and his theories have to be taken with a big grain of salt, he addressed the idea of survival on the land following the collapse, basically if you're not already there it won't help. As I live in the 'burbs, I am thinking about preparing for the Great Recession part 2 and if it gets to Mad Max, it will be better to be in an area you know with people you know with strength in numbers, but I put the chance of that very very very low.

Thinking of a basket of currencies: Euros, Canadian Dollars, British Pounds, Japanese Yen, Swedish Krona, etc... probably thru an ETF or a foreign currency CD. This is only an ejection seat option as I agree that if we defaulted, it pretty much is the financial equivalent of a zombie apocalypse coupled with a Sharknado and it might only save some value but it might preserve more than just having dollars

I've considered what I could do personally in the event this happens and have come up with a few palatable options but I've started to consider trying to roll a fair amount of liquid savings in dollars to a foreign currency in the event the worst happens. Besides this and maybe putting it into my mortgage, buying gold/silver, or purchasing property; I can't think of any other way to protect this part of my investments. Has anyone else come up with any ideas if they (take your pick on whom to blame) trigger a default?

Canada Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - now Free

True, after I read it I imagined Canada preparing for a mass influx from Detroit following collapse of the dollar (military exercise), a bit tin foil hat I admit but interesting how that just seems like it could actually happen now...

https://www.telegraph...upt-French.html

There almost was a somewhat low-observable attack aircraft once upon a time... McDonnell Douglas Modell 226-458 Quiet Attack Aircraft Not saying that this is what needs to be replace the Hog but it is possible (if not financially but technically) to have a low signature if not true LO attack aircraft that will give you much better survivability and a dedicated attack / CAS platform but you have to do some horse trading to get it to happen. Vertical cuts is the new line from the corner office, cut a whole MDS and the people / facilities to save much more money than a horizontal across an MDS cut that is less effective, one could make the argument to the Army and Congress that the JSTARS mission can be done cheaper by Global Hawk and cutting one of the legacy bombers, the Buff or Bone. Maybe it would be enough money to develop a new platform or to get a dedicated attack / CAS platform from an existing and in-production aircraft, like a dedicated attack / CAS Super Hornet? I doubt we will do anything but continue to put all our eggs in the F-35 basket, maybe it will work out maybe not but... CAS over a large maneuver force engaged in a force on force engagement, CAS in areas where rotary wing support may have trouble like in Anaconda, CAS over large areas requiring a quick transit time, CAS in contested areas requiring a platform that has at least a fighting chance against a shoot-n-scoot system like a SA-22 is not going away...

A) ROE not REO B) There is someone to work with, the Syrian Military Council, full description here The Free Syrian Army by Elizabeth O'Bagy Executive Summary The SMC has the potential to serve as a check on radicalization and help to assert a moderate authority in Syria. If the SMC can create enough incentives for moderation it will likely be able to marginalize the most radical elements within its structure. To this end, the SMC has recognized the importance of the inclusion of some of the more radical forces, while still drawing a red line at the inclusion of forces that seek the destruction of a Syrian state, such as jihadist groups like Jabhat Nusra. - See more at: https://www.understandingwar.org/report/free-syrian-army#sthash.z4BIxJ9k.dpuf

Depressing to see Kerry today begin to the process of painting us into a corner there is almost no out now to not conducting a strike. Good brief description of the Syrian Air Order of Battle, here, and the Syrian Ground Order of Battle, here. I still think intervention is a heads they win tails we lose scenario but playing armchair general, if we (hopefully with a sizable and unconstrained ROE coalition of allies) do intervene, a strategy could be: - give the "rebels" a sanctuary from which to operate - establish at least over the sanctuary a Defensive CAP and counter artillery batteries - impose an air, sea and land blockade to try to dry up what weapons the government does have - pick out of 10+ factions that compose the Free Syrian Army the least evil, arm-train-fund them better than their rivals to begin to form a cohesive leadership - disrupt communications into and out of Syria to further isolate the regime: no Internet, no Sat phones, no mobile phones, no electronic commerce, etc... - disrupt banking to further erode Syrian currency all of this is something I think we should not do but if you're going play, play to win

Decent article on non-intervention in Syria. https://www.salon.com/2013/05/03/the_real_reason_not_to_intervene_in_syria/ Not sure if no action is the best choice but I am sure that no direct kinetic action should be taken alone or without some sort of international backing.

A lot...

Maybe nothing... not to be callous but this may be something they have to work out for themselves, now the problem of something worse arising in Syria (a new hostile Islamic state for example) is a possibility but there is a low low possibility that we can erase sectarian tensions and strife, encourage a secular society there and extricate ourselves in anything less than 10+ years if we decide to intervene and rebuild Syria, with or without a coalition with us... Ultimately we need a strategy, not tactics for dealing with the ME and Islamic fascism. We just keep reacting to whatever crisis erupts there and we are overextending and wasting our resources (financial, military, diplomatic, etc..) trying to fix that which is inherently screwed up: a large number of ethic and religious factions put together into made-up countries with scarce resources and a long history of scores they would like to settle amongst each other. Again, don't take the bait.

2 But there we are ways to leave the game not lose it... but back to Syria specifically, my two cents only... don't strike with stand off weapons, the damage would not substantially affect Asad's regime and will only give lran and Syria the action they want, the best move(s) right now is to: build a coalition of allies isolate the regime further put together a plan for what happens after Asad is gone a whole of government approach from many governments is necessary if we decide that intervention is the appropriate option but I still think this is not our fight alone, now if all or most of the usual suspects want to help out along with some local help (UK, Germany, Italy, France, Canada, Turkey, Jordan, etc...) then maybe but it just reinforces the idea the "international community" can just call on the US anytime there is conflict and we come to stop it... not a sustainable path...

Different circumstances... a major oil producer and control of major oil supplies was at stake with a clearly definable objective (initially) of ousting Iraqi forces from Kuwait. Syria is a tragedy but other than the vaguely definable objective of thwarting an ally of Iran, there is no compelling interest in assisting the rebels / Islamic extremists in overthrowing the existing regime. These are not necessarily the people we want to help... https://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/25/shock-video-allegedly-shows-al-qaeda-linked-terrorists-stopping-truck-drivers-on-side-of-road-then-executing-them-for-not-being-sunni-muslims/

This pretty much sums up the problem... Article...

Godspeed Misty...