Clark Griswold

Related to the topic: A Viper with Sidewinders: A Unique Look at the AH-1Z’s Retired Air-to-Air Capability. and AH-1Z's employing Stingers against air targets (flares) at the 0:40 mark NG's site on the Longbow radar says it has a 360 sweep and an Air Targeting Mode, can it detect and cue its own missile?

Good return if you give me the number and code I will Leeroy Jenkins that telecon with reckless abandon... Glad to hear you don't think they will go full retard I'm an airplane junky and will always want us to have more of them. There are too many good jets and turbos out there made in 'Merica we can buy right now with or without mods to get the job done. Buy, fly, repeat.

I just tell your mom to get it for me

Copy that with resignation.... CRM, Mobility Mission Fundamentals, Experience in managing a crew, executing a mission, flying a more complicated jet, Multi Engine non-centerline experience and just more flight time, etc.. there is a certain amount required to be safe, effective and ready to fly the big iron. This topic in other threads has come up (deleting most or all of Heavy track Advanced Trainer Phase III in SUPT) and there is a reason why (written in blood unfortunately) that the FAA and other Aviation Authorities around the world require a certain amount of time to hold certain certificates to exercise privileges, you can't just get a few hours or even 100's in a good high performance ASEL and then with minimal training go to a Transport Category AMEL and be truly safe and ready to learn to fly those aircraft. The experience acquired in the T-6 is good but not the same as acquired in the T-1. You need experience in a jet modified to simulate somewhat the maneuver performance of a large jet, has most of the systems (albeit at a smaller scale and lower complexity) of a big jet and time with a simulated Co-piglet IP running checklists, keeping track of all the parameters of your mission as an AC (timing, fuel, WX, objectives, ORM, etc..) and synthesizing all that simultaneously, continuously to get the mission done well. There's no IFF for heavy dudes but just my two cents the Mission Fam phase of my T-1 time was valuable to introduce us to AR, Heavy Formation, Basics of Low Level with simulated Aerial Delivery, etc...call it our IFF and if yours truly were empowered I would expand it for NVGs, Short and Unprepared Field, Dry contact AR, simulated Mobility Multi-Ship Missions and the planning required for it, etc... This would mean you believe the purpose of SUPT is to produce quality, strong aviators and AF officers prepared to begin careers executing and learning to lead the Line of the Air Force and your acceptance that this will take time, money and patience. Not holding my breath for this based on what this thread is teaching me about the forthcoming plans for SUPT... I'll accept that but it still doesn't change my belief that the MAF deserves a quality product. If AETC wants to deliver that product thru the T-7 and and going back to UPT I'm fine with that or if they want to keep SUPT and refurbish the Tones to squeeze more life out of them or get another jet, I'm fine with that. What I am not ok with and what I believe every Heavy Aviator who gives a shit should be mad as hell about is the apparent attitude rearing it's fugly head that our jobs are so un-challenging compared to fighters that we don't need a robust and established Advanced Trainer Program following Phase II. To hell with that and any GD bean counter and his evil minions trying to screw Heavy track students.

How the hell does this get past GOs with a Mobility / Big Wing ISR or C2 background who went thru the T-1? Is there not any fight in these dudes to say hell no, we have a huge appropriation 120.69 billion or so, we can afford a heavy trainer and will get a replacement for the Toner, full stop. Now that heavy advanced trainer program could be different than the traditional model I grant you, consolidated to 1 or 2 bases, flown by AF IPs in COGO aircraft for instance or vice versa for shits and giggles but still something, don't just roll over take it.

So heavy dudes will have none or almost no advanced trainer time?

I hear what you are saying but we need to step back and look at what UPT (whatever variation of it we are on Next, 2.5, SUPT, etc.) is really supposed to be doing: namely producing strong pilots with a base of experience to begin their aviation careers, sorting & assigning said officer-pilots into communities where their demonstrated skills and abilities will allow them to serve the needs of the Air Force and winnowing the classes as appropriately between those who can and should serve as pilots and those who should not. I don't like that last point particularly but I know it is a necessary evil, I went to the dreaded 89 ride and passed thankfully but it was nerve racking to say the least. I hate seeing those who want to fly and serve being told this is not for you but it has to happen at some appropriate rate to ensure the team is strong. Not every lesson at UPT may have a direct practical translation to an MDS but the fact that the student demonstrates the ability to master that task, skill, body of knowledge and apply it consistently probably means they will be good at the truly required events they will have to perform in their assignments flying the line. Antiquated skills that require physical flying ability, on the fly mental agility and the ability to recall knowledge relevant to said tasks are not perfect filters or tests to ensure that UPT always will produce strong pilots and capable aviation leaders but they work to some degree. Treating UPT as only a pilot training program and how to get that program to produce more widgets faster at some absolute minimum level of skill required misses the point that it is a filter and forge, we may be setting ourselves up for a worse problem than a pilot shortage in the short/medium term for a long term problem of a potentially weak cohort in our operational and leadership roles of the Air Force. Just the two RMOs of a grumpy old man.

I think @matmacwc would have liked this bit of history, this is something that was right about the AF: The Army’s only air to air kill since WWII was done with a .50 cal in Vietnam From the article and showing the best traditions of the Air Force: However, two legends of USAF combat aviation in Vietnam were more than happy to initiate him- then-Colonels Robin Olds and Daniel “Chappie” James, known affectionately as “Blackman and Robin.” “I actually knew both of them,” Lee recalled warmly. “Colonel Olds would meet me on the flight line and pick me, and only me, up and take me up to the debrief room. He would have a case of Bud iced down and I would give him targets that I had been working on in Laos the week before. So he was not a stranger. He was a very warm and personable man. I respected him and he knew it. I was not afraid to just sit and talk to him.” Upon hearing of Lee’s hushed victory, the two Colonels demanded a celebration.

On the Information Front: China falsely telling Arab world U.S. behind coronavirus They're still pushing the bullshit that the International Military Games and the visitors to China were the source of it, no. If the US, doesn't push back as hard as hell this crap will take root in the developing world and they get off scot free for royally screwing over the world

Meanwhile south of the border, this is pandemic is having another effect I fear, weakening the government of Mexico by giving the cartels more opportunities to build more tolerance/support for them via their distribution of aid/gifts to the local populace: https://news.trust.org/item/20200416225321-17fmm and in Syria: https://news.trust.org/item/20200416092024-5lsgm So it looks like the developed world is starting to get its feet underneath it again, likely in two weeks we will generally be reopening and if all goes well, probably in two more months we are still doing mitigation procedures but probably back to "normal" now what do we do to help the developing world? Not being a bleeding heart by any stretch but a grim realist, the next mission is to get ready for responding to refugees, outbreaks in slum/shanty towns, weak states failing, etc... I don't want us to get overextended but we will likely be needed if the excrement hits the fan to prevent a bad situation from getting worse and spilling its banks. So... preemptively meet with allies and develop plans for likely AORs, negotiate with govs for intervention if conditions arise necessitating it, etc..?

A-29 news: https://www.moody.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2152452/moody-set-to-host-nigerian-af-training/

You're probably right about not combining light attack and light / liaison airlift but both based from a common platform is a COA (which will never happen) IMHO which could could give enough business for a vendor(s) to make it worth their while to produce a new platform... From the depths of Google: CV-10T Bronco vaporware. Based off a concept Bronco that never made it off the drawing board but if a CV-10T and an OV-10X could be had, goal of 65% parts commonality (WAG): Love the Air America logo on this one. Windows and a ramp for @Lawman Figure 75-100 Light Attack versions, 75-100 Utility versions with architecture for pods/sensors for ISR/ELINT/COMM/Weps and cargo being the main configuration. 300 tails is the number I have heard is when it makes sense (economically) to build a new type, could probably get more with FMS and sales to Public Safety orgs with aviation fleets.

Yeah I should’ve put a trigger warning on that but on that subject of light attack and light cargo delivery if the AF wanted this and wanted light strike, a new OV-10X would / could do this. FAS article on it: https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm BL - about 3k stuff or 5 pax/2 med litters Cargo bay would limit what could go but no different than adapting a GA turboprop that doesn’t have a ramp/cargo door option. Liaison, Light Strike, RPA hunter, ISR, Sentry platform for sensor/comm, etc... this is a good jack of all trades platform and mission set for the ARC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only one truck with escort vehicle could compete with a plane for this kind of quick direct delivery... But seriously I hear your point, when I started this thread I would not say I was skeptical but I didn't see a clear requirement justified with historical data and reasonable projections of future ops, still it is/was intriguing to me. I don't think it is a matter of it being done on the cheap but timeliness is the desired main delivery characteristic. We've gotten used to long sustained operations and we naturally look for efficiencies versus conveniences, there's a place I suspect for quick, peer to peer delivery of small pax/cargo but likely regionally focused and paid for by the using GCC / UCC. We have/had C-12s that basically fill this role in specific theaters, just a variation on that idea. Copy your point on assets that don't support the big fight but this one (if acquired) would support just not directly in the fight like most Air Mob / Utility platforms, some portion of forces will always be based out of the WEZ of long range fires or at the edges of it, this guy would be there to shuttling stuff to/fro behind. Valid reason Since you brought up Light Attack and this is a Liaison Aircraft thread, combine both. Cargo pod for a Light Attack platform, boom done.

Good stuff, I was googling to see if a single engine ramp equipped turbo STOL capable aircraft existed, didn't think one did but ask google see what happens, it brought back the PAC 750 in the search query Read the brochure and I was impressed, some good videos of the airplane getting into some challenging dirt strips in BFE. It was the first low wing STOL back country aircraft I've ever seen. That aircraft (along with others like the Otter, Caravan, Kodiak, EA500, etc..) is probably what a good modern Liaison Aircraft could/should be, just my two cents. Skycourier is a good light airlifter, might be more than a Liaison Aircraft but could probably be the light airlifter @Lawman said would be worth the effort to acquire in capability. If it had a ramp capable of airdrop like the C-145, combined with its fatter fuselage for containers, winner winner chicken dinner. Only thing, the bigger more capable the aircraft the more it undermines the case for a Liaison Aircraft being an inexpensive, simple asset to be used by a Wing to move odds/ends. An aircraft simple enough that Dual Qual is feasible, to me an aircraft in civil use that doesn't require a type rating is probably what should be for a mil Liaison Aircraft. Some of the types we have been discussing are probably outside that scope but to be worth the trouble/cost, would a modern Liaison Aircraft need to be just that much more in capability? More plane porn: Extra EA-500 would give some speedier options... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-500#Specifications_(Extra_EA-500)

More grist for the mill: Pacific Aviation P750... https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-750-xstol/description Light, simple, capable and cheap for the want / requirement (light cargo, small pax parties over relatively short distances in permissive/low threat environments). Circling back to the above ref article shitting all over the idea of a manned fixed wing liaison aircraft, I was surprised that the authors didn't suggest a rotatory wing liaison platform then. Granted cheap and helicopters seldom go together but something like the LH-72, R66 or MD600 for the liaison / very light airlift could be affordable, still not as cheap as fixed wing but way less than sending an Osprey to deliver a few Pelican cases and couple of dudes from MOB X to FOB Y.

Concur - I am somewhat skeptical of the performance cited as every number depends... high/hot/shitty conditions likely making rosy numbers provided by vendors somewhat off the mark. I also found this somewhat over-promsing: But, in a word, their value is utility. They can perform all of the historical roles of light airlifters, light-attack aircraft, and liaison aircraft, and do it from either a hover or without a runway. Again, what loads, configurations, conditions, ranges, etc... but where they have the most valid point, secondary costs for standing up a new squadrons/training/mx/etc... is where they miss the point, the liaison aircraft will be to the max extent possible organic, sharing the resources of already existing flying units. Yes, some cost will be associated with it but the point is to not waste the time and opportunity by tasking a valuable asset with a mundane mission that obligates an asset that could be used much more meaningfully elsewhere, it will pay for itself then. As to the theoretical requirement you set out to make a dent in the log chain, that might be beyond this proposed platform, would just depend how much the AF would be willing to invest, likely nothing unfortunately. Another platform to add to the list that would fill this role well methinks: Twin Otter Guardian 400 https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-versatility/special-missions Light Airlift, ISR, Sensor platform, etc...

You've got to give the Devil his due... Intelligent article undermining the position for a renewed light fixed wing tactical airlift capability: https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/the-future-of-tactical-airlift-is-here-and-it-is-vertical/ Sidebar: After reading it and finding some of it's points valid, still believe in a manned light utility fixed wing requirement exists, I did start to wonder if the AF is not considering the changing operational environment and is missing a capability that will be required in the 2030 fight and beyond, namely a medium/heavy rotor/tilt wing vertical flight capable Air Mobility platform capable of operating in low/med threat environments... Thoughts? Is this a replacement for the C-130 (no hate at all on the Herc) or a compliment to it? Or vice versa? If the future is fighting without a large close ground footprint, platforms that can operate at distance from MOB/FOBs very far to avoid long range fires will be necessary (Pacific theater with tyrannical distance for instance) this seems like where the AF should take the lead role in a heavy direct vertical Air Mob capability

First option if I were the decision maker. They are a quasi national institution / symbol of American pride, culture, business, capability, etc... letting them go under would not be acceptable, now taking the entire corporate board out to the woodshed at the same time the US Gov saves them and sending them to the house with as little or ideally no bonus or exit compensation is what I'm thinking. Fix the 46, don't buy anymore than you've ordered, change & rebuild Boeing leadership. Partially agree. You can't ignore your own industrial base no matter how stupid, greedy, short sighted and corrupt. Use the legal / buying power of the Fed Gov to enact changes to fix these critical industries. Buying some 45s would be fine but the mainstay of our tanker fleet, negative.

One more thing for the Israelis to fix without the blob of DoD and Boeing to get in the way: The Air Force's Troubled Boeing KC-46 Tankers Leak Fuel Excessively

I hope you're right and I agree on the importance of teaching a man to fish / firing a hellfire into the right truck is one of the missions we (the USAF) need to perform with a light attack aircraft, I'm just a hopeless believer that we need our own advanced light attack aircraft to prosecute missions ourselves when we need to do the job ourselves. Our requirements are likely to be higher than our partners and hence our platform would likely be more expensive than a single engine turbo we would train them on and perhaps use in some other missions (training, some ops, testing, etc...). Being the broken record I am, the Scorpion is the best example I've seen for this requirement I believe exists but no COCOM is stating exists, damn it... Now really venturing into shit that will never happen, a modified Gripen would also be a candidate to fulfill this hypothetical requirement but yours truly would change it ala how the the A-7 was derived from the F-8... redesigned wing, different engine, avionics changes, etc... a new aircraft but closely related to the fighter it was modified from. It has some unique attributes that would enable it I think to be feasibly modified for this hypothetical role, particularly the mission architecture, flight and mission functions are separated (like the Scorpion) so you can modify your war-fighting systems without monkeying around with your basic flight systems, genius. I'd change the engine for a non-afterburning higher bypass motor, CFTs for more range/endurance, wing mods if possible for improved endurance / low loiter speeds, avionics/sensors focused on the ground attack / ISR mission but still capable of A2A, principally self-defense, etc... more more capes than a light turbo, way less expensive than a fighter and still has a light foot print for expeditionary / dispersed ops. This requirement has never happened as ACC has never liked the idea for some legitimate concerns and some bullshit ones IMHO. AFSOC has supported the program but doesn't have the horsepower of ACC. So meet in the middle-ish and buy a platform that is more expensive at acquisition but still inexpensive to operate over its service life and is a compromise both can learn to love. AFSOC (by extension SOCOM) gets a platform to deliver ISR, Fires and is light and flexible for their mission and expeditionary needs. ACC gets an affordable, relevant, modern attack platform that can fight in contested environments and is affordable enough to purchase in quantity.

Cool, likely something in the low range of 0.69% for what General Clark Griswold would want (Scorp with some upgrades like rough field mods, capability to hold a mil radar for the nose/ install a fixed AR probe / RWR & ECM if threat requires it, BLOS, Link 16, etc..) but make your case where you can. I'm thinking that Grey Zones are going to be where COIN / LIC conflicts will be in 20's and beyond. Russia, maybe China throwing their weight around in proxy fights to stymie Western powers when they intervene. Venezuela, further Libya adventures, Eastern Ukraine, Africa, etc... as examples where state collapse, semi-governance with VEOs, Proxy Militias rising and requiring suppression before the fire gets out of hand Platforms (manned/unmanned) will need to be able to initially defend / scram if the MiGs, Flankers, SAMs, etc... nearby decide to take it next level.

So for that US Mil asset, would it / could it have a different set of requirements that would necessitate a different / better platform than the Advisor Mission?

Here's some kids I would feed to It https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trending-out-of-control-teens-coughing-on-grocery-store-produce

I hear your point but after nukes were used people asked why we needed a Navy anymore too, those people were wrong and assumed what had happened before would never come again so let's dump all that stuff, we saw actually it was likely to happen again so we better keep what worked, improve it and realize we don't get time off from defending our interests and fighting our enemies. Some GO will have to break the facts of life to Puzzle Palace and the Hill that a lot of the world is completely messed up, teetering on disaster and that intervening is sometimes the least bad option. With the recognition of those three facts, you will need an appropriate portion of your military suitably organized, trained and equipped to fight in such interventions in effective, efficient and sustainable ways. A manned aerial platform capable of ISR and Strike with other attributes such as endurance, flexibility and reliability will be required as part of the military component of a Whole of Government approach. Obviously I have to push for the Scorpion with a propaganda photo because that's my job on BO.net but it's what we really need for this: