Clark Griswold

Armed guards for me not for thee… Armed Guards Protect Sonia Sotomayor Although She Rejected the People’s ‘Private Right of Armed Self-Defense’ https://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2024/07/09/armed-guards-protect-sonia-sotomayor-although-she-rejected-the-peoples-private-right-of-armed-self-defense/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Commute worthy on the subject of Asian Pivot Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, legit critique of the added complexity to the whole training endeavor but just a grandiose idea that will never happen Keeping it simple the King Airs would be an ideal solution but I’d still advocate for splitting up ME training Basics covered in a contractor course in a light twin, military and advanced ME in house in a heavier twin with mil instructors but that’s just my opinion

Thinking about this and its long since OBE but why didn’t we consider linking the two main training track platform recapitalizations and plan for them training together in some syllabus phases? The T-38 and T-1 successor systems having training systems that could simulate and interact with each other, possibly non-training assets also for their training/exercises? An integrated training system not classified to avoid that problem as the training aircraft would not always be doing this in SUPT and transiting thru civ fields but one that could simulate with other equipped assets. Would have been a bigger shift to what the syllabi at SUPT for both tracks would have been but I kinda think we missed the forest for the trees, that is that it was not just replacing this platform but what and how we teach in house at SUPT. This probably would necessitate a longer pre-SUPT program to teach more basics there so to adjust the T-6 / Phase 3 training but just a thought Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True I advocate for a partial contract flying to put the stalls, falls and bounces on iron the AF technically would not own or if it was owned was cheaper to fix or replace, the Seminole seems to fit that. The bigger more complicated airplane IMHO would not get a lot repetitive patterns, OEI work, etc… some but not nearly as much as the T-1s took but would be there for formation, cross country to complex airspace (high traffic density class B), etc… but just as the pointy nose community stepped back and said what is it we want our students destined for F-69s to learn or be familiar with prior to FTU, what do we want the crew heavy tracked students to see prior to the FTU? Yeah you can say this or that smart alec answer but really what does the heavy military aviator looking at the next few decades need to learn in SUPT to hit the ground running in FTU? The 46/52/17/etc has gadgets and is networked or will be I believe with other players, the T tails will be also, we’re looking at ACE, heavies going a bit into the threat rings for the peer conflicts of the future, ultimately it’s gonna need to be a Phase 3 and platform(s) that teach that. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True No one is held accountable, there’s no clearing out of bad idea generators just more boondoggles Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur, just buying a new low risk option would have been my choice too but here we are The King Air IMHO would have have been the best straight forward choice to replace the venerable T-1 as a 1 to 1 replacement but if cost is driving everything then the Seminole plus other training is what I would recommend to the Bobs if they asked The Tecnam is cheaper and that’s the name of the game here, even though it’s a recip at lower speeds it’s the flight experience managing all the dynamic variables is what I’m after, it builds the pilot even though the aircraft is way smaller and slower Landing it on short fields, learning new tasks quickly, etc… integrating all those skills together and demonstrating you can do it builds the graduate you want in the 46, 17, 130, etc… Choir preaching I realize but it’s one of the things we do on BO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No doubt there are issues and factors to deal with but you can find solutions, maybe the 73 sim training is not feasible maybe it would be if a provider knew the AF was committing to this or a similar paradigm for training its heavy track pilots but I’d rather try to light a candle than curse the darkness Another transport category aircraft sim then, hell a corporate jet sim or even some flight time again do something If ridiculous, you could not get an ATP with this flight training and be responsible for the lives of X passengers so why should the AF be allowed to take this risk then as that newly minted SUPT grad could theoretically be now responsible with X number of lives in his/her hands as a new co with likely less than 100 post SUPT flight hours? We shake our heads at the Ethiopian Air crash that had an FO with I think 200ish hours in the seat but WTF is that different about what we are talking about here? Yeah I know the AC would be there but what if he/she is incapacitated and it’s now all on that co? And yes I think having at least the flight training or more or something like it would make a difference? Would you let someone operate on you that didn’t finish medical school but was deemed “good enough” at 2 years of training and then sent to a surgical residency? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really it is about air time in controlled stressful training situations to build an aviator who won’t fold or freak out in big planes when the SHTF, also introduces concepts at lower airspeeds and less consequential environments to begin experiencing and familiarization with Air Land / Drop / NVG etc… Copy on 73 tng but still cheaper than alternatives methinks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here’s your solution AF: Basic multi eng tng: New Piper Seminole at about $760k with G1000 avionics, about $420 an hour, a Piper Seminole FTD with control feedback is about $100 per hour. 15 hour simulator and 20 hour flight syllabus, probably 2 weeks academics with some pre study. All contract instruction or traditional mix contact/military Military multi eng tng: Western US AFB for backcountry STOL opportunities, remote field work (NVG work, tactical approaches, etc…). 15-20 ride syllabus in a Tecnam p2012 STOL, fixed gear, unpressurized aircraft with modern avionics and Air Mobility mission simulation systems 3rd B737 type course, add a few sim events and keep flight deck training simple (no flows, just exposure to an automated flight deck of a transport category aircraft), simple culminating event and boom you’re SUPT complete KISS, reliable and you’ll get a better graduate at an affordable cost

With how many total flying hours in your logbook were you doing this? That’s the unbelievable part of this, this is not about phoning in training for studs who have 500 CFI hours and 1000+ corporate or regional now going thru a military flying course, I’ll bet the average stud has about 100 something T-6 hours plus maybe 50 ASEL hours… how the ever loving hell do we not see a huge risk? Keep fighting the good fight and debating on BO but this is crazy, ask yourself USAF, how many other militaries around the world are doing this with their multi engine pilot training? None. So why are you the outlier USAF? Contract on the multi basic part, teach in house the mil specific items and contract the cherry on top modern transport category training and experience.

Yeah, probably so Maybe if the completion payment got into the 150k range after taxes but then you’re starting to negate the cost savings intent of the whole effort At this point, just try something Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha

I agree and would prefer a new AF owned multi eng tng aircraft would be preferable but the Bobs are penny pinching and apparently the GOs at the MAF, etc.. DGAF about their new pilots getting real flight hours after T-6s before showing up at an FTU so finding ways to save money but still getting hours is paramount My druthers for a mil multi eng tng aircraft in these times would be fixed gear, unpressurized and rugged for high utilization and training, Twin Otter mil variant with mil radios, NVG cockpit and a mil tng software system seems right. I wanna contract out the initial basics and the very expensive platform (multi eng with complex flight and automation systems) to try to get all this to fit together in a budget the AF would support Another idea since the AF is not interested in spending a lot of multi eng students why not shrink the number of fully commissioned AF multi eng pilot trainees and start a WO pilot program recruiting from regionals for designated copilots on 3 year contracts? Applicants get a warrant commission, indoc and training program then FTU, complete that and either get the post 911 GI Bill or completion payment (probably 100k+). No upgrade no additional duties, just fly to fill the schedule as required and when done, go on your merry way. This would be a crew force dynamically sized to meet the needs of the AF. They could focus the mil training on regular commissioned students who will have longer ADSCs and would be expected to become the leadership of the MAF, the new WOs would be valued AF members but unless they wished to regular commission would not be expected to serve a career. If they wanted to after serving, a process would be made.

Divest the T-1 sim, save money and just go get them a multi eng civ course plus training The Navy and by extension the USMC & USCG are still giving their guys real flight time, the Army ditto, we should be able to do the same with our 215 billion appropriation. Civ multi engine course, military multi engine course air mobility training & planning then a type course in a transport category aircraft contracted out. Put the multi engine mil course at a base / state where the CODEL will be highly motivated to preserve this mission while affording a training opportunities for what the future likely entails for Air Mobility in the future (austere unprepared locations; threat assessment, mitigation and resilience; working with unmanned assets, EMCON conscious ops and planning, adhoc and dynamic planning, etc…) That’s a lotta shit to get done but as the pointy nose community is kinda merging or wants to sorta merge phase 3 with IFF training the multi crew community needs to do the same. Not merely to produce a better graduate but to change the culture of the MAF and multi crew communities (maybe not AFSOC)

No Equality aside, women occupy a different place in our society and in this knuckle dragger’s value & beliefs system They may be called on to fight but only if it is to stop the hordes as they are over running the last defenses, anything that is not survival requires this they are exempt from unless they choose to go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? The latest version of the Gripen, the E model, brings a lot to the fight. Caveat emptor but in the BVR fight with their full capabilities utilized they do good https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/01/12/over-40-su-27s-killed-by-12-gripens-in-beyond-visual-range-fight/#:~:text=The Su-27 aircraft of,enhance its missile evasion strategies. I’m not a Saab troll nor arguing specifically for this or that platform, truth be told the Gripen E would likely be outside of the target price range for one of the light fighter types I could see being one of the core platforms of this lower cost ARC to bring mass to the fight(s) light fighters, light to medium weight tanker/transport, light attack/arsenal platforms (manned/unmanned/optionally manned), light UCAVs/CCAs, etc… 4 capabilities to build around small mini AFs from individual ARC Wings, figure 8 wings to each of these mini AFs with 2 Wings with the same platforms Because daydreaming is free I’d propose these platforms be selected on these criteria: modern-relevant-reliable-supportable-available-affordable. new or current in production platforms produced by allies that use our subsystems/technology that will easily integrate into their systems and ours while also integrating our mil to mil and industry relationships.

That’s a better way of saying it, high low mix or maybe high capability modest quantity & modest capability high quantity mix is what I’m saying we need / can actually afford The strategy might have to be going forward is 1 major war (China) plus multiple operations (kinetic and deterrence) in other theaters simultaneously (deterrence against further Russian aggression, regional deterrence against Venezuela, NK, pop up NEOs, etc…) Our allies who can afford capable militaries need to understand that you’ll be supported but probably not with the AD high end stuff but the medium forces to augment you when/if necessary, you provide the 85% solution if the Bear comes over the mountain we augment you with the other 15% because we’re deterring or fighting a dragon 7000 nm away from home and it’s taking the lion’s share of our high end forces These smaller platforms could be that 15% if needed if things go hot and the affordable systems for day to day operations Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No not platform specific, not this thing or that but a paradigm shift Yeah I can say this light fighter or that one but really it’s mission bounded by financial reality Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I read this article after seeing it discussed on CW Lemoine's channel: National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage (airandspaceforces.com) Air National Guard Critical Fighter Shortage (youtube.com) and got to discussing it with some buds, retired now Guard and only one still active as an O-6, just to set up context. Not sure why but it got me thinking that maybe the issue is that the world has changed (not just operationally but in terms of what is possible financially) and that we are stuck trying to keep up a model that worked 30 years ago but not really now. That is the ARC as part of the Total Force flying the same (expensive) iron as the Active Duty when we are not willing to spend that much to do that. Maybe it is that the ARC is a twofold, a strategic mass to be fully generated when the big red ballon goes up and an operational reserve to be used when a certain amount of augmentation, capability, deterrence, etc... is needed in theaters / operations not requiring the exquisite and expensive capabilities to be brandished to maintain the peace. We're running 1.7 trillion deficits and as the DoD is discretionary, if you want more bang you gotta come up with more bucks, I don't see a huge increase in DoD appropriation so why not look for less expensive ways to have the right amount of airpower but not so much you can't afford it? Light fighters, light tankers, light airlift, attritable CCAs / UCAVs, organic base defending GBAD, a huge arsenal of less expensive but effective weapons for these platforms, etc... I'm not arguing for a return to the old old days when the ARC flew iron that was 2 generations behind the AD but modern, new iron different from what AD flies but cheaper to own, probably flown / made by allies to further integrate capabilities and security relationships with them (SK, India, Sweeden, etc...) not all of it but some of this new fleet(s) Does it make sense to try to have an all gold plated force?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be careful out there https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/05/27/new-info-related-to-shooting-death-of-chechen-national-who-was-on-army-special-forces-soldiers-property-n2174705

Good discussion but depressing news. Thinking about it a bit maybe the future of the ARC fighter and potentially other communities is to be not exactly the same capabilities as the AD but relevant capabilities kept at a simmer economically to retain the surge / reserve capacity needed if the ballon goes up. That is we need x capability but are willing / have to accept risk by equipping ARC units with light multi role fighters / platforms that we can afford in the total cost of ownership and train / operate with. This capability would be a force (25 ARC fighter Wings) that fly a multi role platform(s) but specialize in mission sets (8 Wings A2A, 8 Wings Attack, etc…) Less capability but relevant with the benefit of accessible, scalable mass Kinda the ARC returning to a semi-strategic capability but not when they were flying aircraft 2 generations behind AD A mix of FA-50s, Gripens, maybe a modernized A-4, etc…