Clark Griswold

Gotcha - legitimate concern. Option 4 (Mixed replacement with 15C divestment) seems the best overall COA. More operational iron available for a contingency immediately and over the course of replacement/divestment while getting a mission relevant platform with a unique capability to enhance the fight the 5th gens bring.

Yup. At least 8 if possible.

Could be a very interesting summer for the F-35 program: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28421/heres-the-pentagons-roadmap-for-booting-turkey-out-of-the-f-35-program Also two other good F-35 related articles: https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/f-15ex-and-f-35a-the-future-of-american-air-superiority/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/06/f-15ex-the-strategic-blind-spot-in-the-air-forces-fighter-debate/ Article by Orgeron (F15EX and F35A Future) was interesting in the COAs he provided, particularly exchanging F15Cs for F35As (Option 3). He doesn't seem to really think it is a great option but offers as COA, got me thinking could you optimize an F35A for air to air? Not thinking something that would break the bank (further) but anything that could reasonably done without basically building a totally new variant of the F35? Updated/modified weapons bays to get 2 more internally carried AAMs, conformal LO weapons pod that doen't interfere with existing bay doors, slightly modified airframe for more fuel or drag reduction, etc... With enough money, almost anything is possible but as there has been reservation expressed on buying a new 4th gen build and re-starting the 22 is a no-go, can you modify the 5th in production now for an optimized air to air mission?

9 ship water drop and a view from the flight deck of scooping

nothing is faster than that.

Can not duplicate - works on my interwebs... Gizmodo page of the flyby: https://gizmodo.com/watch-the-pilots-view-of-the-craziest-flyby-ever-5809436

Low fly by from two perspectives, HUD and dudes jumping out of the way:

Probably but you can make that same case for most AF problems discussed on BO . Net You have to argue and hope someone empowered is lurking on this forum and will be persuaded by your brilliant posts... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The concept is nice but to fix it for reality it should be: The Air Force We Actually Need and Can Afford. Effective (not necessarily nice) coaches cut players from the team when the time comes rather than holding on, the old players have played well but their time is past and it is time for the team to move on for new talent. Same applies to aircraft fleets.

Army loves fixed wing aviation programs... until they get the bill. If Congress gave a Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack program to the Army, it would get cannibalized by Big Army like the C-12/C-26 recapitalization efforts were. - Break Break - The AF is the best branch to take the Manned Fixed Wing Light Attack concept and make it a real program, it just doesn't know it. Repeating unsolicited talking points in case someone at HAF is reading: - Retire 5-10% of the oldest/brokest 4th gen fighters to get the money and initial cadre. - Distribute Light Attack Squadrons for multiple training opportunities (conventional, special, foreign customers) and options to ideally retain members considering separation by differing locations (West Coast, Mountain West, Southeast, East Coast and 1 European base). - Offer light attack cross-training opportunities to Mobility/Reconnaissance aircrew. - Keep it 5 to 1 deploy to dwell. - Buy a robust platform, not just one that can meet the requirements set in the mid 2000's; the fights will be at greater ranges, require the platform to grow and adapt and be self-deployable.

Can that hard point carry a better/bigger pod than the Sniper pod now? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But there's gotta be some leveraging of the stealth rotor-wing capability that is sorta openly known.

Not bad. Like everything modernization or acquisition these days, it's all coming due at the same time and starting with a virtual UCAS opponent might be the only cost effective way of starting on this now. The beat never stops, Dark Sword & Sharp Sword (Chinese LO RPA/UCAS) are flying now, Russia will soon be flying its Hunter RPA/UCAS, and this is not just for the AF, the whole Joint Team is going to be defending against these (eventually).

Not saying this LO UCAS would be only for Red Air but using this mission to develop & learn how to build a combat capable LO UCAS seems like a feasible building block approach to fielding the first autonomous/remotely directed UCAS. If king for a day, I’d approach it with risk management in mind and develop an air vehicle first to give a kinematically challenging target. Develop robust links for active control via ground and air stations in this first spiral. Once that’s proven, I’d work on integrating a self-defense capability this would be the spiral to begin testing autonomous and semi autonomous operations. Next active / passive sensor integration and try to further develop autonomous capabilities. Just one dude’s idea. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not directly but I've heard it's a great process that's logical, direct and free from undue political influence. Why do you ask? /s Behold the insanity of the Puzzle Palace's Plinko Machine of buying stuff... so I know my proposed LO UCAS would not get all FUBAR with this simple process. Copy that it doesn't exist and inventing it would be a climb up Mt. Frustration but I think the military requirement is there and a first mission in operational development as an LO sparing partner for the 4/5 gen force is valid. Ditto for AWACS, ADA and other detection/defense systems, our enemies and competitors will develop this or something like it as it could give them an asymmetrical advantage and then entire Joint Team will have to defend against it, not just fighters. Just my two cents, but this seems akin to just doing basic research in any of the fields of science. You do it because you don't know what you don't know. Without that experimental, risk taking approach where we don't know the outcome but we will invest/risk an appropriate amount of resources to learn something new, we will keep getting better at fighting yesterday's battles.

How much to develop? Billions potentially or maybe less if we could leverage off the MQ-25 Stingray development The why IMO is to develop TTPs and experience using manned platforms vs in manned, develop TTPs for manned & unmanned teaming and in general research this mission in controlled testing/training environment. Is it possible to have a UCAS under direction in a contested (physically and electromagnetically) space? Is the link to the UCAS a signature source we can mitigate or exploit? How do the algorithms if the UAS is untethered do with sorting/targeting? What type of tactics actually work best for and against a UCAS Force? This just seems like an opportunity to add to an advanced adversary capability as it comes online Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that. If money only grew on trees... on this subject of 5th Gen / LO aggressors, why not bring in LO UCAS aggressors now to this effort? IDK if a system like that exists or not yet but seems like the next threat to be dealt with as the Russians/Chinese are in development on them. LO UCAS aggressor system supersonic capable, decent agility, fused sensor suite, etc...

Agree that if exclusion is a possibility it would be a gradual tactic and not applied immediately & unexpectedly; I hear your point on managing a relationship with a difficult, changing ally and that is a good point on ceding the ground to him (Erdogan) with his domestic political efforts that we (the USA) object to.

Maybe but if you don't stand up to Biff you'll do his homework for the rest of your life. An alliance with the Turkey he is making is not worth it, Turkey of today is not the Turkey of yesteryear. As Turkey is expelled from the institutions and looses access to Western markets/finance, it will decline economically and hopefully that would greatly lessen or change the course of Turkey back to secular stable republican democracy.

Are these aircraft still on the 2B software? Hearing about this (good idea) reminded me of another wrinkle I remembered in the F-35 saga from a couple of years ago: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28685/f-35s-unfit-for-combat/ The Pop Mech article said there were 108 A models with the 2B software that would need upgrade to 3F software and hardware, the article was updated (no date on the update) that said the AF was going to upgrade all jets to 3F but that sounds a lot like the check is in the mail. Is this a happy coincidence? Save money by not upgrading some and getting a unique aggressor training capability? On this same idea (high end LO aggressor force) - would it be overkill to take some of the Raptor fleet not combat coded or potentially not combat capable following the Tyndall / Hurricane Michael disaster and have a Raptor aggressor?

Potentially but we have to push back against the slow moving Islamo-fascism of Erdogan and the "Freedom & Justice Party" in Turkey slowing erasing Ataturk's Turkey - secular, mostly tolerant and a reasonable actor in the region, situation with Kurds considered separately. Demonstrating to Turkey by withdrawal of support and inclusion in the institutions of the international West (NATO, EU, etc...) is the only tactic IMHO that will change / dissuade non-democratic, rule of law, minority rights respecting, threatening behavior. I think we should press-to-test and see if Erdogan really wants to change the strategic alignment of Turkey to Russian & Iran, my two cents is that he would blink first.

Probably so then remove those assets and get tough with Erdogan

Valid concern, it would take an AF leader who recognizes it is platform divestment vice mission divestment or ambivalence that is required now and that the mission of a manned Light Attack / Observation platform is NOT the same as Persistent Tactical ISR / Strike. Don't see any GO singing that tune so not holding my breath. Not without historical precedent, after Vietnam, the US decides it will never get into LIC / COIN again and it decides to focus on major conventional operations / capabilities and let atrophy the systems and knowledge gained in the last painful, arduous LIC / COIN fight only to get it another one and the cycle repeats itself.

Probably - I don’t know if the AF is just doing Kabuki theater to keep Congress at bay and/or if they are worried about the USMC being interested in Light Attack and wanna keep some involvement in it in case it grows legs do they can control or influence it. That’s a bit conspiratorial honestly but... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about both? https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/ and https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this? Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.