Clark Griswold

Pretty good vaporware light attack jet : https://rodrigoavella.artstation.com/projects/YebgAX

But what a way to go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup but I would not mind a few AirPower demos nearby to remind them that the stick is at the ready IDK, how do you undercut a regime that needs/wants an external enemy to rally its population to ignore their oppression/horrible management? Iran, Venezuela, NK, etc will never stop being a-holes as they need to be hated and in conflict with the rest of the world to keep the regime in power. Mow the grass as they say Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wish that would do it but it only temporarily treats a symptom while not curing the disease, don't get me wrong, if required or appropriate a major strike (conventional) even unilaterally is ok but we have to defeat the enemy not just his weapon or project. The enemy is the theocratic aggressive repressive government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, their nuclear program (among other things) is just sone of their weapons, it can be destroyed but like the Hydra, unless you kill the whole monster the cranium you cut off will just grow back. Isolate their economy, deter their military, engage their para-military forces abroad, support their dissidents, aid defectors, show the inhuman brutality of their system and have consequences for those that fund, trade and enable the regime. No one gets to have Iranian oil cake and eat it too, you trade with them you get no deterrence assistance from us.

Honestly what the hell can we or anyone else do to keep them from developing a nuke while the mullahs still run the country and the world trades with them and pretends that they will adhere to the agreement and/or is not clandestinely working on a bomb and the means to deliver it Unless we resurrect Lemay and Harris and bomb the whole place to the Stone Age or the world gets on the same page of the book of realism vs the book of willful blindness they are going to have a bomb or the means to breakout in the next 5 years The Onion summed this up perfectly: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theonion.com/iranian-team-openly-working-on-bomb-in-negotiating-room-1819577235/amp Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Crusader and Hornet love child...

It is a growing tyranny rebranded in some ways. NR had a good article on what I believe is the growing threat: Davos Great Reset: The Culmination of Corporatism | National Review A collusion of economic, government, media and cultural interests not particularly interested in the maddening inefficiency of representative democracy with minority rights. I see your point as to private property and businesses having mask or vax policies, the current corollary of no firearms allowed in restaurant/store X doesn't drive me nuts as to some degree we are allowed to discriminate in our society and professional interactions but like pornography vs. art, you know the difference when you see it. When the government or private institutions/establishments have intruded too far onto the personal freedom & autonomy of the individual citizen. It's a free market only if choices are different or there is an alternative, with the coordination and monopolizing of the last 20 or so years you really can't say it is a truly free market. You can choose not to participate but that is not really different than being banned from the desired or essential service for the person who doesn't ascribe to policy or choice X. Freedom is not the anti-thesis of smartly, fairly administered societies but it is getting to be viewed that way I fear.

They'll use the nudge rather than the shove. Oh you want to fly, let me see your vax passport; well we can't let you into the gov building without a current and up to date vax passport; every fast food joint will have signs: No Shirt No Shoes No Vax - No Service; etc..... Public lists of those without vaccine compliance because you know it's a matter of public safety / shaming / intimidation. The enemies of liberty and personal choices learned the wrong things in high school from the required readings of 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc.. The slow moving tyranny of a python tightening its coils vice a sudden strike.

It sounds good but in reality I suspect it is more of the same from the globalist swamp- sell out your working and middle class by committing to one sided trade deals, deterrence for allies capable but unwilling to put skin in the game and sign on to agreements that others ignore or will never actually meet to win virtue points with the Davos crowd. No thanks. America First is not America Alone. It is a lot of things but mainly it is non-privileged, screwed over for the last 40 years Americans standing up for their interests in a world of aggressive competitors, fickle allies and remorseless players where the elites of their own country use their future as bargaining chips as they are cajoled and fellated by the conniving elites of other nations, particularly China, to sell them out to the false god of globalism. Angry rant complete. As to troops in Afghanistan and the authors of the article to include Mattis, it is face saving at it’s worst. Does anyone with an IQ above 75 think that Afghanistan will be anything different in 10 or 20 years with the mission as proposed continuing to whenever? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you’ve got a background similar to FLEA’s and have an informed opinion from working directly with the Germans (assuming staff/hq experience); myself I only have experience with them at a squadron level (training). I see no effort on their part commensurate with their resources/capabilities and status as a large beneficiary of the Liberal International Order to rise to the part of actively defending and preserving it Why do you think they don’t deserve this criticism? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Burn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So we have to call the Western Europeans on their bluff, if they wish to kowtow to Russia and trust Iran then that's their choice. It's Western Europe that's the problem, they put their interests above collective security (and collective economic interests of Europe IMHO) while expecting the status quo to be maintained, just end it. Whatever comes next will be their problem not ours. We will still shape security in Central/Eastern Europe as they would participate in separate non-NATO security and economic pacts. Just my two cents, a new security organization from Finland to Greece encompassing the countries of Central Europe is a better and more manageable security/deterrence plan for Europe for us. NATO just lacks the outward threat that made it possible to keep it focused, honest and burden at least better shared as during the Cold War; a new security organization with nations truly under threat from Russia, smaller and more culturally cognizant of the actual threats they face is closer that aforementioned more effective version IMHO. All members actually fear Russia (or Turkey), smaller capabilities and economies so they are more likely to defer to the US so it will be easier to lead and we charter the organization to be singly focused on in area defensive kinetic operations and actively defending against non-kinetic cyber, informational and economic aggressions. Not holding breath for this to happen as I think the incoming administration likes bigger multilateral organizations, not a swipe at them but a guess.

With "friends" like these: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/11/21/merkels-germany-tells-trump-not-to-bring-troops-home-from-afghanistan/ From the article: Conservative German MP Roderich Kiesewetter said that the United States is “morally obligated” to rebuild the Afghani military and civil society, saying in September: “A hasty and rash withdrawal would only lead to the collapse of social structures and the return of organized violence of all kinds.” The Germans do not appear to be considering filling the gap left by a potential American withdrawal with their own forces, however. They have the capability, money but apparently not the will for this mission they claim to care so much for. Given the size of our footprint and their resources, even modestly growing their armed forces to just cover this mission or make it their focus is feasible. If NATO is so interested in this, just do it without us. Add this as one more thing to do POTUS, offer to transfer intel, bases and missions to them to continue the Afghanistan Project, do it publicly and hold their feet to the fire. The American and European MSM will either bury it or spin it as bullying but who cares at this point.

Congress wants to stay the course... https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/11/20/nearly-all-lawmakers-at-house-armed-services-committee-hearing-opposed-afghanistan-troop-drawdown/ Just leave, tell them to fly everybody out in 69 C-17s and leave whatever is not classified, a weapon and/or scuttle it as a final F you to the Taliban. 2500 guys in perpetuity to do what? In a landlocked shithole surrounded by unfriendly nations to our causes. There is nothing there for us anymore. #Choirpreach, but just leave POTUS, it's your last thing to do on your watch on the long fight against the Swamp.

Florida Man harassed by the Man... I'm not a Libertarian but really what the hell does the state care if one guy chooses to modify his truck to drive in the water in a way that causes no discernable greater effect than a boat? Anyway, God bless weirdos, jackasses and free thinkers causing consternation to busy body, needling government bureaucrats and their minions.

Related to Force Structure: US Air Force chief’s top modernization priorities aren’t what you think they are BLUF: Nuclear Enterprise, Joint C2 system(s) and Better / Faster Acquisitions. How to pay for that though and what will be divested is the question I have, just to be a broken record there is likely no extra check in the mail so something's gotta give...

Yup - Interceptor not fighter. With the capability of technology (Combat ID, Cross cue, Datalink, Sensor Fusion, etc...) and the capability of modern weapons, this platform would fight with those in mind and eschew situations where it would be kinematically at a disadvantage and avoid the knife fight in a phone booth. Range, Weapons Capacity, Sensors, Speed - in that order. Just my idea on what they need to bring to enable/support the LO deep strike platforms and defend HVAAs over large AORs. Now keeping the cost to something reasonable is the really tall order but likely not insurmountable if good idea fairy is kept at arm's length. Copy on USMC plans. From what I've gathered and my little knowledge of amphibious warfare, it sounds like a good idea for the likely next fight(s) in the SCS and Scandinavian/Baltic scenarios.

Concur. Limiting roles/missions can lead to savings, which can lead to larger fleet sizes, focus on those particular missions, etc... in reference to the Century Series, the proposed XF-108 Rapier would be good inspiration for a long range, long endurance escort/patrol interceptor for the Indo-Pacific and another likely theater with the tyranny of distance, the Artic. Just for a visual: Teamed with a very long range/endurance UCAV, this could be help cover the gaps and deliver fires without taxing the resources needed for shorter ranged assets that will have to also be part of the fight even if the AF fleet is shifted to favor more long range strike. Question for you @VMFA187 - what do you think of the Commandant's plan to restructure the USMC?

Maybe as to defense cuts or really more likely IMHO reductions in the budget increment FY to FY, maybe zero increment. Biden if he becomes POTUS (the most likely thing to happen but he's not yet officially POTUS-elect) will survey the security environment and see we have to pull back or reduce where it's really just because we've been there forever (Germany, UK, Spain, SK) and divest what we really don't need in current quantities or at all. This is not a peace dividend but a reallocation to a combat oriented force capable of defeating peer competitors that have been building systems and tactics to asymmetrically destroy or deny what the US has grown accustomed to having in recent combat operations. True but the appetite is just not there and the Globalist / Neo-cons know this, rather than stir the populist pot again I think they will eschew long term military missions to "fix" things in areas of the world not in our interests (hopefully). A Republican Senate and shrunken Democrat House majority also reduce the chance of pointless missions I hope. This idea of Force Structure change is not just for the AF, all of the branches are going to have change to deter, defeat and shape the missions that we have to and will be sent on by the pols. Holding on to MDSs that were designed to support large scale ground maneuver warfare or the mass movement of ground forces to respond to crises in distant theaters is not where we need to spend finite resources as we would not intervene in those conflicts in that manner (likely after 20+ years of large scale ground operations with mixed results). Our allies and partners can expect warheads on foreheads in support if we deem it necessary but not boots on the ground for the most part in defeating aggression against them, we should configure accordingly.

Good discussion on Force Structure change and the need for it, resistance to it, etc... worth the time: https://warontherocks.com/2020/11/change-or-die/

I would tell you that I agree our debt is looming and in 2024 I believe it was reported considering our current financial vector that interest on the debt will be greater than the currently projected DoD appropriation but it seems like the incoming (assuming no states are changed in recounts) leadership cadre still believe deficits don't matter. That's not my opinion mind you but not what they apparently thing. Reference this article on what is believed to be what a Democrat administration's defense and force structure outlook will possibly be: What Clinton’s Foreign Affairs Article May Mean for the Defense Budget From the article: Clinton notes that “critics will no doubt warn that running up the national debt is itself a national security risk,” but then goes on to assert that “there is a growing consensus among economists that Washington need not be paralyzed by fears of debt.” I think that is wishful thinking at best and lunacy at worst as the more debt you take on the higher risk you become the greater the interest rates your creditors demand, rinse lather repeat and the debt spiral tightens up but if you take this article as most likely what they are thinking, we will probably see DoD budgets around the same size with some significant trimming but not cataclysmic cuts. Going back to the above linked article which touches on force structure, base closures, political ramifications, etc... HRC in her FP article (locked behind a paywall) seems to favor the Deep Strike shift for the AF at the expense/tradeoff of the F-35: From the article: In terms of specific cuts, the program she takes on most directly is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, citing its dependence on vulnerable close-in bases due to its short range. She's not a decision maker but influential in their circles, this shift could happen. IMHO should happen but in a way that keeps the shift towards 5th gen in the fighter enterprise on track. I would revise my earlier statement on 4th gen divestment and say the the USAF should consider 4th gen divestment if it allowed for a best mix acquisition of 4th+ gen and 5th gen, then with the changes/focus listed above. The Indo-Pacific and with a reduced Euro footprint will require more strategic platforms to respond to crisis from the CONUS or well distant from the threat forward bases in theater. Larger payloads, range and with the emphasis on sudden rapid reaction to large conventional aggressions vice sustained support to a COIN-LIC operation. Not exactly paradoxically, an austere field/dispersed ops capability in the AF inventory would probably be worth studying. Another problem for the enemy to solve and likely affordable to give the capability to respond to less than peer conflicts if needed in theater. Insurgency suppression, localized deterrence, etc... probably a combo team of manned and unmanned systems. This.

No disagreement the when the operational environment changes and the AF needs to reconfigure itself, the reasonable discussion about requirements, capabilities and priorities quickly degenerates into food fights of don't kill my MDS, kill the other guy's MDS but it must be had. It will come to that after a formal declaration of requirements, assigned missions and then material requirements to accomplish those comes out. I've not thrown around what I think needs to be cut as it is more important to say what is it we want the military to do, the AF to do and then what do we need to do that so... We want the US military to primarily (in regards to major conventional conflict with peer and militarily capable opponents) deter conflict and conclude conflicts on our terms with minimal US & Allied casualties and minimal collateral damage. The AF's primary role now is to deliver decisive long range strikes destroying aggressing enemy forces and enemy defenses that could impede conflict termination on US terms. To accomplish this the fleet of aircraft, manned and unmanned, will be focused around long range strike platforms, protecting and enabling those platforms and supporting our Joint and Allied partners with Mobility, Attack, SOF, C2 and ISR platforms. Now comes the nitty gritty... grow bombers, design / build arsenal platforms, divest 4th gen fighters to grow / sustain 5th gen fighters, fix the KC-46 whatever it takes, focus on Strategic Air Mobility at the expense of Tactical Air Mobility if required, retain an Attack capability, asses SOF requirements and build out a fleet to support SOF in grey zone to medium threat environments, look at the feasibility of consolidating C2 & ISR to one modular type. Much more would follow but I'm only one dude on the internet. As to whether or not something gets fully funded if it is important I would say maybe, reference the B-2 and F-22. Sometimes you can lead the horse to water but it just won't drink. True Congress has the ultimate authority and should but it will likely take its cues from the AF, unless it means that something won't get built in a district of the Chairmen then just shut up.

That's the 69 billion dollar question... The way to start that ugly debate is not which MDS by how much or how many bases but what capabilities / missions are we prioritizing over others and then seeing how far down the to-do list produced based on the funding we are allocated, how we plan to fight with the rest of the Joint Team and what will be our policy on involvement, expectations of Allies in their own defense and our risk tolerance in regards to casualties. The primary role of the AF IMHO going forward planning for peer conventional conflicts would be to deliver effects at ranges greater than carrier based Naval Aviation or conventional, non-dispersed ops, land based fighters relying heavily on AR (multiple events on ingress) to enable their missions could deliver, other missions that support or enable that primary mission are important but the optimized size and method of delivering those deep strike effects is the first priority. Doesn't mean priorities two, three, etc... are resourced far less but we have to realistically look at how to fund with what we have been appropriated.

Possibly but the size, shape and volume of the 22 and 35 weapons bays are set and relatively small compared to bomber/arsenal platforms. Larger bays will allows new, bigger or just different weapons be developed to deliver better effects. Article on this idea and advocating for greater deep strike capabilities: https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2020/05/04/america-must-build-bomber-capacity-to-compete-in-the-pacific/