Clark Griswold

As long as your link(s) are resilient yes. Just my guessing, but if I were a PLAAF officer analyzing Operation Cluster Fornication the Russians are currently executing, one take-away would be the lack of effective EA in disabling C2 links of the Ukranian Air Force's UAVs, the PLAAF in preparing for a fight with us will not be caught deficient in the capability. Anything we deploy that is unmanned or capable of being operated unmanned against a capable foe will need to be operationally effective with or without link back to an LRE/MCE. Maybe not as effective while under control but not a liability. But as the size of an aircraft increases the value of unmanning it decreases as the percentage of mass dedicated to crew for control and sustainment decreases as a percentage of the total mass of the aircraft, it has a diminishing level of return on gain in performance in some areas (endurance, range). You get some more space, power, weight but the profit delta between manned and unmanned starts to diminish as the vehicle gets bigger between manned and unmanned. You may still get some more fuel, cargo, stores, equipment whatever onboard but it may not be enough to warrant the cost of unmanning it. Might.

Net Assessment episode on subject https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/net-assessment/id1437812041?i=1000584195554 Good discussion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ex USMC Harrier dude arrested in Australia and to be extradited for maybe too much helping https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ex-marine-corps-harrier-pilot-who-worked-in-china-has-been-arrested Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Defund the Police Seattle Councilwoman Wants Police Protection After Feces Thrown at Her Home To whoever did this

My work here is done Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't argue with that, probably time for a Goldwater-Nichols level defense reform Copy all and as you noted I'm intentionally stirring the pot. If king for a day, it's a mixture (not an even mix) of both. We need the strategic assets to assure all allies we can get to them in mass and the tactical assets to assure the near to the threat allies we can get to them and operate to free them or ideally deter aggression in the first place. What that mix is, is the 69 billion dollar question. Even more so to that, where do we explicitly define, we will intervene immediately / deter directly with prepositioned forces? The world as we know it now is expensive to maintain and we're approaching the point of having to actually live inside of our means, that's gonna force inevitable prioritization and somebody's gonna be below the line. We in the West+ (Japan, South Korea, India maybe, etc...) need to be explicit in who's responsible for what and to what are their responsibilities to keep it free and/or developing. Enough of that tangent. Referencing @Lawman and his point on we haven't figured out or have drifted from an overall joint strategy, this platform could be a point to begin the discussion or reinvigorate it as to who has the strategic, operational and tactical missions / responsibilities for X contingency and in X theater(s)? Back in the weeds and more on the actual requirement potentially driving the acquisition for this platform, if I were a staffer at the Puzzle Palace considering this, I guess it's a matter of questions if you have decided that yes you need it and no nothing you have now can do it (sts). How much gas do you need in the air at most at any one time? How far do you need gas in a relevant quantity to be available for receivers? How many AR orbits do you have to support at most any one time? How long do you have to maintain your max effort AR mission? How much in logistical support does it cost to sustain your max effort AR mission? Can the logistical support network sustain your tactical AR capability without detracting from other missions unduly? Other considerations? The SCS and Taiwan scenario is front and foremost in considering this but looking west from Australia, the Indo part of the theater is looking like it will need some of both very heavy strategic big wing AR and tactical AR to give options for other shenanigans (Iranian or Pakistani adventurism, aggressive Chinese operations from HOA, etc...) Big wing enables / supports Tactical over the tyrannical distances, Tactical supports inside the WEZ of A2AD. Probably only support on initial ingress or as able after the A2AD bubble has been shrunk but it's part of the plan(s).

I know but a proven road warrior is what I think we need to go with the theoretical KC-390 This would be an augmentation to the existing and more logistically needy fighter fleet (not a swipe at them) How to afford all this new iron? Divest H model Hercs, oldest F-16s and probably the A-10s (don't taze me for that) but if we wanna get ready to fight the next fight, we're gonna have to sign up some new players and retire others, we're not gonna get more appropriation

Can his handlers do a better job with creepy grandpa? New video of Joe Biden inappropriately touching a girl - TheBlaze

Good stuff and playing the foil… I guess my next turd in the punch bowl question is can we reasonably expect our existing and coming online 4/5 gen fighters to be able to operate with the tactical tanker at these dispersed austere locations? Gas is only one component of support but parts, mx, ammo, logistics, etc… The tactical tanker is one part of ACE, I’d like to see but as a fanboy of gripen, a new fighter from the wheels up built for austere ops (high reliability, STOL, focused capabilities, etc…) or a USAF version of gripen to go with the tactical tanker along with the whole road show to support to include naval resupply capabilities to get mass fuel, potable water, food, etc… that’s survivable on its own, no escort required This is starting to sound like a second Marine Corps but with their pivot and force restructuring I think the USAF could fill this hole (sts) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As to reasons why it wouldn’t work or I think maybe we don’t need it (just playing devils advocate) are we planning on or we will be able to do a plan to defeat PLAN / PLAAF / Ballistic missile attacks that is dependent on strikes primarily delivered by manned short / medium ranged fighters range augmented by Strategic & Tactical Air Refueling? Is that concept of operations something the Chinese will be able to defeat vice a longer ranged stand off strikes focused concept via upcoming B-21s, B-2s, UCAVs, etc? I think the main argument against the tactical tanker then is let’s throw mo’ money at having a full up modern big wing tanker capability from heavily protected MOBs that are further back the AOR (existing and new locations based in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, Australia, Northern Japan, etc…) as it is lower risk and fits into existing acquisition planning. Again devils advocate just for conversation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Zeihan analysis on Kerch Bridge bombing impacts Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Liberal Enclaves Panic Over Possibility of Migrants Arriving on their Doorstep https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/10/11/liberal-enclaves-panic-over-possibility-of-migrants-arriving-on-their-doorstep/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No fucking shit and concur....

Fuck it, let's see if he has any balls...

Same as to curious but basically I'm of the opinion that we've gotten to complacent lately, disruption is a good thing

So drunk...

Question CH reference the first article at the beginning of this thread of wonder Is there any formal RFP / RFI for this concept? Is this gonna windup being another Scorpion? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They (AMC) might not be the organization to figure this (tactical tanker out then). Rhetorical questions, when does mobility end and tactical begin? When are you enabling the fight and then really a part of it? Based on my experience with AMC, 4.5 years flying the mighty 135 tanker with a short TDY at TACC a long time ago, I'm not sure an organization that is operational but not steeped in the culture of direct combat is the right one. That's not a swipe at AMC or anyone in AMC impugning their character, courage or ability but as you said they see the world differently. They have a huge volume of routine, priority and contingency missions going on all at once all the time so in order to fulfill as much as they can on the to do list, the cost of doing business is very much front and center to them. If you're an organization that is culturally built around preparing for the big one, a big fight with all your forces or most of them brought to bear quickly to win the fight, the long term is not as important, I need to win this sprint, I'll worry about the costs later. Splitting off part of the Air Mobility mission set and giving ACC is responsibility for Tactical Air Refueling and defining for AMC Air Refueling's responsibilities as Theater and Strategic could be a COA. Or it could be the road to hell, IDK... Anyway, not sure if I got my point across and I would worry that if it (tactical tanker) got put into the ACC basket, it would get put on the back burner with resources siphoned off and executed poorly like other red headed step children in ACC. Anyway, another vaporware pic for the thread, the Israeli Smart Tactical Tanker IAI Reveals Tanker Proposal | Defense News: Aviation International News (ainonline.com) G550 based tanker, could operate out of 4000' dirt strip without issue I think with some mods like the PC-24 We need a fly off and two different designs

But what is the requirement exactly? Probably just a bit classified... but are looking to have more booms or more gas on-station? Those are not necessarily contradictory (considering limited resources not just financial but basing capability) but seem to compete with each other somewhat, the right mix is somewhere in between the extremes. My druthers even though I've mused about adapting / developing tankers from larger or different platforms this (tactical tanker) is about not just distributed basing but distributed risk, on the ground and in the air. In the air in that it gives some tolerance for attrition when inevitably some will become combat losses.

To my knowledge no but I’ve been out of the tanker world a long time I think it’d be worth the millions to try it on a 17 that’s approaching fatigue life and saving from just being flown to the boneyard, or alternatively as a joint venture on an early model 400 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With an expensively modified aircraft... KC-390 doing that with it's cargo door/ramp Or alternatively I wonder if you could modify a 400 (very expensively and extensively) under the ramp and add a semi-recessed boom? Seems like there's some clearance under it

Yup, more capacity more money The 400 just has such a limited customer base who want / could afford that much expeditionary capability, where as the 390 is looking way more affordable. Still at the airspeeds the 400 is capable of it's a bit surprising there was never a proposal for boom to be added Coanada effect is cool

Not sure if this story is legit but good vaporware nonetheless on the idea of tactical tankers, like the hard points with missiles, plumb for gas or extra power for ECM pods https://www.airdatanews.com/kai-plans-an-a400m-sized-jet-airlifter/ Gas, missiles, EW capes in an expeditionary capable platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good stuff, knowledge gained Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Probably but... to the extent that you can say has LM proposed a jet powered tanker version of the Herc? All sourced in America as an alternative to the KC-390? or with the straight wing and two engines? Just a bit of engineering to get this done but pods where the outboard engines used to be (simultaneous receivers might not have enough clearance though) but just to stir the pot