Clark Griswold

So this guy wrote a paper about an idea I had but expressed it about 369% than I could: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Mills-Deterring-Dragon/ Had this same idea too, if everything you're doing is not working, try doing the opposite like Costanza did for a while and it worked out (sorta) So instead of them instigating provocation after provocation and thus driving the direction of changing the facts on the ground to their favor, we take the initiative and return the favor driving it to at least maintain the status quo Obviously the risk is there but not as high as letting the situation deteriorate further to their favor where we will not be able to meaningfully respond if they decide to take swift decisive action and initiate aggression against Taiwan and preemptive military strikes to keep the US out of theater or capable of using our in theater forces for likely for a month or more. Thoughts?

Thread restart: RB-8 proposal: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship New Russian jet: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41618/russias-checkmate-light-tactical-fighter-is-officially-unveiled

Make that 2 weeks No one ever wanted to admit what we were fighting after the initial defeat of the Taliban and in country elements of AQ / HN, the hyper conservative Islamic central Asian culture of Afghanistan that we found repulsive and wanted to eliminate and replace with something that practiced amenable values to Western societies (the treatment of women, minorities of various types, the ending offensive cultural practices, etc…) The majority of the country does not want what we want them to be, sure Kabul and some other urban areas might be ok with a much less restrictive interpretation of an Islamic society but they will always be the minority and always under siege The end will be ugly but inevitable, let’s get it over with. Whose values are practiced at the end of a conflict in a given territory are the ultimate form of victory and we will have to accept that ours will not be practiced there not because we didn’t try but that what would be required to implant them we were and are not willing to do, nor do I think we should, namely to absolutely obliterate the country even more than it already is and purposely target the fighting age male population for near severe culling. This is the only way you could then remake them as you willed, not advocating this just is so. Germany, Japan and South Korea worked out as they did because we had a clean slate to work from. My guess is that this is the last nation building attempt we will see for 20 or more years, maybe we’ll get sucked into another impossible situation like a post collapse Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwea, etc… I hope not. If so, I hope whoever is POTUS then is honest enough to say this will take several decades, cost billions and may not work but I think it is that important enough for these reasons to commit the USA to it on my watch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In related news, the Tiger and Dragon are getting into more aggressive postures towards each other India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move | Financial Post

Could be both simultaneously, they’re not mutually exclusive What was and is really bad about CRT at the USMA and mil in general is that it is indoctrination being presented falsely or defended as by leadership as education When you walk into a briefing, presentation, class etc and are told you are this because of this with no objective examination of said theory it’s political / cultural indoctrination Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41142/an-air-cushion-patrol-seaplane-was-once-in-the-works-with-the-u-s-and-japan Air cushion seaplanes

Culturally the democratization of fires is the last thing the CAF will ever support, just said for context and discussion but I agree the targeting problem forced on the enemy, the potential introduction of new long range weapons when the platform options expands and what I think would be good for the Air Force, every platform a potential shooter This is isn't that revolutionary, the Navy is seriously looking at distributing fires to traditionally non-combatant platforms https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/07/12/desperate-for-more-war-fighting-capacity-congress-asks-about-armed-logistics-ships/?sh=6d47408a1384 and the USMC are already adapting the Herc for short range fires ala Harvest Hawk No, not a flaw just a risk. Like most things in life if used properly it is a benefit if not a hazard. Probably a mix of the two ideas at some appropriate ratio is the right answer and adjusted as conditions change is least bad solution.

Would that lead to or how would you prevent hoarding?

True We’re in a business / operations model likely to not work in the cyber environment we’re seeing develop now with also the threat of long range non nuclear (fingers crossed) ballistic and cruise missile capes Also to your point of the leadership being selected for process efficiency optimization skills vs strategic & operational military judgement I concur 25+ years of steady state operations in CENTCOM have put us into a cultural rut that is not easy to escape Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with that but so do our enemies so they will and are planning for ways to deny us them in the way we plan to use them now so we probably need to plan to do them differently to make it harder for them to destroy that critical support and primary mission capability. Looking at us now (the AF specifically), we are primarily OT&E'd to deliver the range of Air Mobility missions thru large and manned platforms, making the targeting problem relatively simple for the enemy to plan to eliminate it, maybe not execute it but plan to and threaten that force thereby affecting our planning and training to use that force. Changing what we have and how we intend to bring those missions to the fight(s) will make the adversary's targeting and denial strategies / tactics more difficult and or more costly, ideally bolstering our deterrence against aggression or if a fight starts a more survivable force for him to contend with. If we are serious about delivering Air Mobility into contested environments with growth in capes our two likely and capable opponents have now and likely in the future we need to increase the number of mobility platforms to complicate the targeting problem, introduce and field unmanned mobility platforms for some of the high risk and conversely for some of the low risk routine/repetitive missions, develop multi-mission capable manned Air Mobility platforms similar in some ways to tactical platforms now if we want the capability to deliver Air Mobility into some contested environments and for the mass movements of people and cargo into relatively safe MOBs as a contingency happens we probably should rely on CRAF, contractors and military versions of civilian air freighters for maximum efficiency & reliability. That's a big change from how we do things now but if we don't realize that our enemies pay attention too, they have watched how we do business for the last 25+ years and will never allow us the advantages our last few enemies we actually fought could not threaten, we will regret it.

Concur Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about. MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max. Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression. It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process. From the interwebs so caveat emptor: Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess. Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it.

Single engine F-23 concept https://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/tenji/tenjif25.html

Gripen with F-107 influence

60s covered in the 80s...

True as to complexity, cost, risk, etc... but just my opinion the juice is worth the squeeze. The water based ops capability is more of a have to rather than a default mode of ops. R3Y Tradewind was seaplane only and needed the docking skirt for amphibious operations, just seems like an Achilles' heel and LIMFAC, prepositioning these could solve that but seems to be counter to the intention of independent maritime / amphibious distributed ops (if required) due to land base attack / disruptions. R3Y historical video for background and info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHo5R4DJTGU US-2, AG-600, CL-415, etc... all are amphibious seaplanes with to my knowledge no known extended gear water accidents and in all likelihood this platform would spend most of its operational life operating from land with water ops as required. That begs the question if this capability is really worth it but my two cents is yes but be thoughtful in how much you need as it ain't cheap to buy and maintain. Buy enough to deliver direct in a contingency a force about the size of a MEF if ISO a conventional / grey zone fight, that's a fleet size to more than support SOF. 60 tails at 25 PAX plus gear and cargo (assuming 90% availability rate) gets you some localized combat power into theater quickly. Make it happen Congress. Float plane stuff: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/was-this-huge-wwii-floatplane-going-to-deploy-mini-subs-1715138166

No worries as to shit giving, it’s the fertilizer to make threads grow That is amazing that this is seriously being considered by the powers that be but when you consider the ballistic missile capes now and in the future, traditionally land, fixed base forces are gonna have to seriously consider concepts and systems that can mitigate / avoid that threat at least at the onset of hostilities Curbing my enthusiasm a bit and really thinking about what is feasible from a resource perspective the Japanese US-2 or an improved version of it (AR, more cargo, defensive & offensive capes, comms & links, etc) seems the best / shortest route with likely the lowest development risk A flying boat or float Herc would be awesome but the chance of it going development FUBAR methinks is high, maybe not but as there is already a modern seaplane available now capable of military missions, why reinvent the wheel and waste years in development? Rhetorical question as I saw “The Pentagon Wars” aa a lad but occasionally we do the right thing. Looking at this as an outsider: - Strategic or Tactical asset? This to me is about range primarily and would drive the discussion to a large, medium or small platform. I’d define strategic as the ability to launch from US territory / waters and deploy nonstop to the Indo-Pacific, with or without AR. My vote, this is a Strategic platform, size matters and distance is tyrannical. Get at least a 3000 NM range without AR. - Multi-role or Focused role? If you want it all in one plane be prepared to put all your money in one plane. My vote, figure out what’s really important and the next thing and if those two things are similar enough call it good and KISS it. - Loaded with options at delivery or base model with the capacity to accept options as they become available or affordable/needed? My vote, base model with the space and power to get the new toys. Tech moves fast and acquisitions doesn’t, having the space but not committed to one architecture/system keeps you from being locked into the best tech of 5 years ago Just thinking Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Article on seaplanes being discussed and potentially considered, not sure if this is the new light attack platform being "considered" but enjoy: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40694/amphibious-mc-130j-transport-is-on-special-operations-commands-wishlist Ok, would this really be useful or just damn cool or both? Expeditionary logistics to remote islands or ships at sea, long range maritime CSAR, ISR, Patrol & Attack, probe and drogue AR (helos), etc...

https://avherald.com/h?article=4e74b6e5 That’ll buff out Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the subject of dollar devaluation.... thinking some on this and I don't think we (the USA) can devalue our currency as we are currently doing via money printing and I've come to the conclusion it erodes moral credit, moral standing, our own morality. I thought about it this way, if a friend borrows your car and returns it in the same condition it left, with a full tank of gas and basically clean, you have a good friend who is trust / credit worthy. If you loan your car to that friend and he returns it dirty, low on gas and with a few new scratches and dings, you don't have a trust worthy / credit worthy friend, you are associated with a user who took advantage of you. I realize that international flows of trillions of dollars, yen, pounds, etc... are complex but fundamentally when we borrow money from others and we pay them back in less worthy dollars via consciously devaluing it, it is an immoral act. Morality at its most basic level being the control of one's personal appetites and extendable to countries / nations. Other countries devalue their currencies and stave off the wolf until the next crisis but we are supposed to be different, why we are the leaders (for now of the some what free world). Just my thoughts, worth what you paid for them but to stir the pot. This position would involve some discipline / sacrifice but worth it in my estimation.

Then.... As @texancrier said 2.5 still has plenty of flying in it so that's good. Real flight time is invaluable, you just have to have a certain amount to be trusted at the controls or have authority in certain fields. As you said, sim time can be as expensive as flight time and then you're still in the same boat. For me it, if the AF wasn't so reactionary and was more strategic at an enterprise level it would pose to the mid and senior level members of the heavy rated community an opportunity for feedback and shaping of the process if there was/is to be a major revision to Heavy / Crew Track Phase 3. What is it you (AMC, AFSOC, ACC, etc...) want in your Aircrew (not just but mainly pilots) graduating from the last, advanced phase of their training before earning their Aeronautical Rating? If I were asked that and naively believed my feedback had a prayer of making past the spam filter on the email address I sent it to, I would answer thusly: 1. Initial ME experience. 2. A moderate amount of cross-country, strange field experience in multi-day trips managing and planning missions, logistics, details, etc... initial training and experience to lay the foundation to build a competent and trainable co-pilot in their initial assignment developing soon into a competent, experienced, common sense driven aircraft commander 3. Initial experience and training in the mission sets of Air Mobility and ISR/C2 platforms. The latter would require new resources and training events in SUPT but just my suggestion.. 4. Experience in a training system(s) that has multiple levels of automation; adequate communications, navigation and mission management systems to train a student in prioritization of tasks, general and procedural knowledge and use of systems with other crew members in coordinated and regular ways to safely and effectively accomplish the mission. 4a. Experience in challenging maneuvers, approaches and landings in ME aircraft to both train and evaluate aviation skill and aptitude. 5. A syllabus that is challenging and robust, requiring an individual with above average intelligence, skill and character to successfully complete. No swipe at those who did not or will not graduate but there must be a high enough bar to clear that this portion of the LAF is composed of strong swimmers only. I think we have that now and that is what I think I went thru back in the 00's but I fear the AF is looking at the civilian world and rationalizing itself into a training idea that will likely not save that much money and deliver a product it may not be happy with, requiring an even more expensive after the fact fix. I know but it won't even pay for the next set of software patches and spare parts required for an FY for either of those...

Yeah, I should have suggested those two smaller models Those would be fine and better sized Shooting the moon I would want a PC-24 The main thing is to not phone it in with Phase 3 no matter the track Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk