Clark Griswold

Yeah but light a candle vs curse the f’ing darkness. It’s a long shot but maybe a staffer, CODEL, SES, O6, GO, etc… lurks on these forums and maybe you’ll cause one shoeclerk to pause and think, you gotta try… Yeah I see your point, non problem in the short term sense to shoe clerks but leaders have to be strategic thinkers, 3 moves ahead and multiple permutations, if they allow this BIT issue to go unaddressed vs using it as a chance to build a cohort of inspired and trained Os for the AF then we will have missed yet another chance to better and break the trend of an inevitably less and less varied flying training. If we are serious about getting out the stagnate paradigm that 20+ of GWOT has left in the mindset of the AF then this program could be one part of it. They have to see it’s not about bodies but the quality of the bodies, in mind, body and martial spirit. These people want to be military pilots and leaders, keep them going in that direction not sitting on their hands starting in their careers building up resentment.

We need this and we need retirees trained in it in case we need to fly a mission to the USVI… Seastar for training and little missions

If this training backlog from UPT to FTU is forecast to last for years (3 or more) then why not use their time wisely, develop the skills of your pilots and seed a large pool of your rated officers with exposure and training in missions they may not get a chance to later when they eventually go to their MWS FTU? There is money, it can be reprogrammed and we have resources for a Graduate Pilot Training program to absorb UPT graduates to develop the Line of the Air Force. Just as LFEs are not to train any one person, they’re there to train the overall force, this program would be basically the same thing. Build it to handle 300 to 350 students a year, list it as an assignment for the students to rank with their choices and let this program be the accumulator to help the training pipeline. Course length about 1 year. 4 different aircraft in the program based at 2 different bases, geographically separated, east coast and west cost. Train, support ops and participate in exercises to support the Joint Force. Some of this would take the place of what contractors do now, not much but some. West Coast Base X gets AT-6Bs and Cessna SkyCouriers. Light Attack, ISR, Light Air Mobility with ACE training and experience. East Coast Base Y gets Scorpions and T-1s. Aggressor, target simulation and light fighter training, Light Air Mobility support for passenger, cargo and courier services. This would not be cheap but not unaffordable

Yeah I could see that particularly with our rated officers, I hate to say it but there is a competing tension between developing a high skill and knowledgeable aviator in whatever MDS/Mission and developing an (eventually) strategic leader I’m not sure the AF culturally would accept open acknowledgment of this and allow during the foundation period of an officer’s career them to achieve a reasonable level of demonstrated competence (aircraft commander, 2 ship lead, etc…) and then focus on demonstrating their competence at leadership at the higher than tactical level (operational, theater then leading to strategic) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That checks with what I’ve thought, it’s a GO officers arms race

Get a lawyer

Concur, most GOs I met/worked for were ok it seemed and didn’t exhibit glaring intellectual flaws but I suspect the warping effect of CODELs and HHQ staff give us what we see now Yeah, I’m not sure our current “system” of leadership observation then selection/grooming is working. It starts winnowing way too soon and limits the pool before you really know what you have.

Gotcha but I thought the OP was saying 38 grads are getting delayed B course dates after SUPT graduation so my comment was advocating letting these newly minted graduates continue flying on their own dime if they want while waiting Banking could happen also, banking was over when I was commissioned then winged but if it came back then being the broken record I am, the AF should pay for at least 30 hours a year in GA aircraft while slaving away in a cube farm at some base It’s been a minute but didn’t our SUPT ADSC start the day we were winged?

Let them take PTDY, use GI Bill, go fly and get CFII, seaplane, tail dragger, etc… at school of their choice unless the AF has a cockpit to put them in after graduation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True but he was saying it was cheaper and still working at the time the Bobs fixed the glitch. I would add that the 38 fleet is old and not getting any younger, the T-1 came about to give breathing room to the the 38 program. Killing it was not going to make anything better. Divesting the T-1 before the 38 was replaced or in the process of being replaced was utterly penny and pound foolish. It amazes me how incompetent the AF has become of late, while it was not an insignificant cost but not an onerous one for sure, divesting the only multi-engine training aircraft you have was not going to make anywhere near enough money to fix other problems. Divesting it also was not going to radically increase production of students who met the time tested minimum requirements to then wing and send to FTUs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Repost of the original article from WOR arguing for a light fighter / unmanned aircraft team https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/the-light-fighter-is-the-air-forces-manned-unmanned-team-solution/ From the article: What Is a Light-Fighter Aircraft? It’s easy to confuse this term with others, such as light attack and light combat aircraft. Indeed, all refer to aircraft that benefit from being smaller, more cost-efficient, and easier to produce than current fourth- and fifth-generation fighter fleets. For our purposes, the main distinction is that a light fighter is turbine powered, whereas light attack is propeller driven. The intent has to be affordable capable mass, we can’t afford the legions of new 4 & 4.5 gen fighters but 4.something light fighters / CCAs we probably can. It’s not a panacea for all that vexes us right now (cost, availability, sustainment, etc…) but it could solve a lot of it. Built with the capes to carry all the latest weapons to make them legit threats to Su-30/35s, J-10/15s and GBADs and in the network with the other players, you have what the AF and I would argue what the Navy needs to be able to cover the range of commitments. The Tejas having a CTOL and CATOBAR flying right now from not yet but close to being an ally is worth the effort IMO.

Yeah, I think for the AF the last system(s) you could say were homeland first away game second in design priorities were the F-89/101/102/106 integrated with SAGE & BOMARC That’s a few but back when the homeland bomber threat was real and we OT&E’d to meet it, the long range cruise missile/drone attack I would say is real and a light fighter capability could be one of the systems used to meet it here and OCONUS, to my knowledge though no one in the staff or at MAJCOMs has suggested it for NORTHCOM Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Had a thought, is there a bias against a USAF light fighter because it’s seen (institutionally) as a defensive oriented fighter mainly and we as an institution think air power should really be mainly offensively focused? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might be right, looks like the Navy got rhinos at just under 65 million a piece (bar napkin math 1.1 billion / 17 jets) but still under my 65 million threshold https://news.usni.org/2024/03/22/navy-makes-last-planned-super-hornet-buy-secures-technical-data-packages Still a bit much IMO but there you go. Mixed buy would be fine too with the right mix of 4.5 gen, light fighters, CCAs, UCAVs and 5th+ (6th gen might be a bridge too far). I would argue still for a light fighter and specifically as both an independent platform and one strategically designed for as part of net centric family of info sharing fires supporting platforms, bought in numbers. Really the manned light fighter (if acquired) would / should be the centerpiece of a scalable integrated family of systems to meet and complement ongoing, emergent and major contingency requirements. Manned light fighter, light C2, light tanker/air lifter, UCAV, SHORAD and localized small UAS defensive systems. Basically a mini Air Force with an organic GBAD system. This would be the reinforcement or augment to the AD big hammer.

My only two not requested cents would be that light fighter also means light on the pocket book, the 5th gen light fighter concept looks cool but if it gets pricey (say above 65 million a tail) then it’s too expensive to buy, maintain and fly in quantity but too pricey for the amount of capes it brings per million versus an F-35. It needs to be cheap enough (but still relevant) to buy, fly and man at a significant multiplier to the heavy fighter (3 x sounds right) to bring a massed and concentrated capability to meet heavier and more capable platforms when need to fight in WW3 but as it was procured in quantity it can be dispersed to meet our diverse and world wide requirements (Europe, Asia, CENTCOM, etc…) Tejas Mk 1 comes in at around 37.5 and 4k an hour to fly, not sure about Mk 2 but just say 20% more to buy and 10% more to fly so that’s 45 mil a tail and 4.4 to fly, that’s affordable in the ARC to buy in quantity (500+) and fly and crew sustainably. Couple that with reciprocal buys of US equipment and further develop ties with India.

Knowledge Thanks

As the Guard (Air and Army) are technically independent militias could they not implement this policy on their own thru legislation of their own state legislature? Need a lawyer lurking on BO to answer this… Funding then would be the key / crux but really there’s a middle ground… It would be a Goldwater-Nichols level legislation but allow Guard units and their States to redesignate themselves as strategic only forces, self funded by their state and OTE’d in coordination with DoD (negotiated not directed) This would principally be done IMO to have mass available if the feces hit the fan and we needed a lot of platforms of relevant capes but also affordable at scale to deliver fires/effects/deterrence and a large conventional ground force to reinforce a more robust force AD has new shiny toys and high speed low drag dudes, ANG/AG has a lotta good toys and capable troops kept at a simmer who can reinforce, deter and in theater conflicts defeat independently some threats (contingency in Venezuela, European regional assurance mission as an examples) leaving AD with less to budget for and an affordable back up to call on This force or construct would also take on roles the AD may not want and keep those capabilities ready if called on: Light Strike Armed Recon, Light Air Mobility, Pilot/WSO training, etc… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JF-17 cosplaying as an F-104 Good livery IMHO Switching gears LM stealth tanker concept

Concur again The Russians and Chinese have it right, you’re always at war/conflict it’s just a matter of how much at any one time - info/economics/espionage to grey zone to kinetic to nukes - all or some of it ongoing all the time While I get the idea the practical implications are not possible I’d rather see outsiders breaking into the political system with military experience try to make the chattering and administration classes uncomfortable with a modernized draft for basic military and infantry training with a period of eligibility of call to service and mandatory musters / drills / exercises Not AD service unless needed but required to train and be eligible for call up I think that has a chance of being enacted (low) and would accomplish the intended effect of putting all of society into the situation where the real question of whether or not a mission is worth it would be debated along with also seeing the costs in their yearly taxes Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur I think I get the sentiment of the proposed bill but the reality of our force structure makes this a nonstarter The bill itself really only refers to the national guard and I think you can infer the intent as no more national guard for long term stabilization missions but if it were actually enacted I think the ANG would get roped in Still the idea of raising the bar to make overseas adventures to filter out poor choices by politicians is intriguing My 2 cents would be to make all overseas operations of the US military funded explicitly by a set formula on individual tax returns with a progressive tax rate, $0-50k at 1% of your AGI, above $50k to 150k at 1.5%, etc… the problem is that feedback mechanism of actually seeing and feeling the financial costs have been negated by intermingled money (revenues and deficit spending) by the federal government Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saw this on Breitbart https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/08/14/tim-sheehy-backs-bill-prevent-national-guardsmen-being-deployed-fight-foreign-wars/ If passed which I think it would not would cause the ANG to be questioned why it is needed then as its capabilities it has would be very difficult to access Thoughts? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We’re probably free-ish now but trending in the wrong direction, they (the UK) are in the stick shaker we’re just a few knots above it, Jan 6 rioters and MI militia dudes entrapped by FBI would be some of our examples of not right what they were doing but Fed LE made it worse / exacerbated it Freedom is sometimes a shit sandwich you have to eat when you see people you disagree with / personally despise doing / saying lawful but awful things you hate but it’s better to eat that turd sandwich than the alternative Choir preaching complete Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is the UK still a free country? Disregard any opinions on Paul Joseph Watson but just consider the fact of a FB post not calling for violence getting you jail time, IDK but if the mother country of the Anglosphere can become this horribly culturally mutated I think we have reason to fear

Airplane porn, PC 21 in USAF colors