Clark Griswold

Valid critique and suspicious for them to showcase a capability they say they are developing but still indicative of their thinking, marketing ploy for potential customers (China, India, Iran) and/or propaganda also. As to the Chinese, more than pictures are emerging of their Dark Sword LO RPA https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21324/image-of-chinas-stealthy-dark-sword-fighter-like-combat-drone-emerges This could be just a mock up but then again maybe not.

To have a persistent active & passive sensor equipped platform for air to air data / fires, AI enabled wingman, remote arsenal platform, SEAD, EA, ELINT, ISR in contested airspace, etc... The competition is working on this also, it's gonna be a factor in the next peer on peer conflict: https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/25/lets-talk-about-russias-hunter-next-gen-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-spotted-on-the-ground-at-Novosibirsk/ https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22676/Chinese_Unmanned_Fighter_Jet_Could_Have_Extreme_Maneuverability#.XKASMORlI_w

Good article and interesting idea of bifurcation of air domain responsibilities: https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-tactical-air-control/

Syria worked out for them, why not try it in Venezuela... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27143/russian-transport-aircraft-deliver-men-and-materiel-to-venezuela-direct-from-syria

Unfortunately I don't think this will change much. The Dems are Khan, they will never give him up until their obsessive quest destroys them (or the country as we know it or used to)

Copy but it would not need more basic logistics than any other MDS, just saying that the design would have baked into it a requirement for low MX/high availability ala the F-20 or Gripen. This would not be infinite or excessive (this required level of low maintenance or reliability) but would be high enough to give an operational advantage both in cost and ability to execute sorties reliably and repetitively with a low to modest MX cost.

Modern systems designed from the gear up for dispersed / expeditionary basing Gripen is already designed this way but my hypothetical resurrected A-7 or Super Scorpion would need designing. Basing a new, modern A-7 on new proven systems and or civil aviation ones like the current iteration of Scorpion is might be one way to get to higher availability rates There would be a logistical footprint just not an onerous one, shoot for a jet reliable enough that could deploy with 5 to 8 MX per tail Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots of maneuvering room there... From the article: Funding projections in the five-year outlook are subject to change as requirements evolve... LAA [light attack aircraft] squadrons will provide a deployable and sustainable multirole attack capability, capable of performing a diverse array of attack missions, including but not limited to close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction,” according to budget documents. The new aircraft could also fly combat search-and-rescue, rescue escort, and maritime air support missions, the Air Force said. LAA will provide a deployable, persistent attack capability that can be employed with low footprint and light logistical support requirements. My grumbling two cents... I'm getting the feeling we are looking at Light Attack for the last wars not the ones likely in the future. As we go into the next generation of long term warfare in failed states/ungoverned areas (hybrid warfare, grey zone conflicts, COIN/LIC, etc...) a manned light attack platform is part of the air mission but one more robust/capable than we currently envision. Next Generation Light Attack (to me) is precision fires delivered with additional effects (ISR, EA, etc..) organically, capable of moderate mission endurance with little or no logistical mission support (DCA, AR or large ground footprint). Consider a hypothetical mission in a hypothetical failed state called Venezuelastan, where the country's not in civil war but not in stability, military elements of it have split and some are receiving support from outside actors, governments and some direct military support in deployments of foreign military forces. We support one side(s) and there is sporadic fighting where we provide kinetic/non-kinetic support to our local partners and likewise for the other side(s) with their allies. The foreign military forces are not targeting each other openly but could attack each other in about 6.9 seconds if things change. To provide that support with a manned platform and provide the level of effects we want to while keeping the risk at an acceptable level and keeping the costs sustainable, we won't need a platform that can't deliver enough effects and is incapable of defending itself thus incurring an unacceptable cost to enable it and defend it; all the current offerings of turboprop based light attack suffer from that. We will need a platform that is not a liability in itself while on mission, one that doesn't normally need DCA or AR support and is cost-effective enough to fly repetitively in long, slow progressing operations. That said just to be clear is not to discount a light attack platform for a SOCOM type mission (individual or coordinated one time strikes supporting SOF) but for a conventional type mission (major campaign or operation using combined or coalition forces over extended time), this is where a Next Gen Light Attack is needed IMHO. Not to padlock on specific aircraft but something like a modernized/modified A-7, modified Gripen or enhanced Scorpion is what I would envision filling this role. Good Strike Capability, Tactical ISR, Self-Defense Capable, Excellent Range/Endurance with other modern effects capabilities. All that at a modest and sustainable price/footprint. If we are willing to pay $40 million a tail for light attack platform, I think we can/should get more capability.

With Boeing it's not so much a tin foil hat you need, really more of a helmet... https://www.investors.com/news/t-x-trainer-jet-contract-boeing-lockheed-t-50a/ They undercut LM/KAI and Leonardo by over 10 billion so there had to be something else in store for the T-X "franchise" (using their term from the referenced article) - Big B was going to be made whole on the other side of the contract by suddenly finding it was a great fit for Light Attack, Aggressor, Nat Guard fighter, etc... not even Boeing with the huge resources it has on hand could deliver the 350+ T-X jets at that much of a discount compared to the others... The contract is for up to 475 aircraft and mods to the potential extra 125 to light fighter, aggressor or air demo team (maybe) would again give B more business to be made whole again for a ridiculously low bid for the trainers I don't have a problem with spreading the contracts around to keep the whole industrial base healthy, we should have at least 3 major aerospace companies viable in all areas of defense air/space, but do it more honestly please.

LM is not having any of this without a fight it seems... https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/03/lockheed-martin-waging-war-boeings-f-15ex/155598/?oref=d-river

2 - this mission has moved on from the original requirement from the conflict(s) circa early 2000s “Experimenting” is pointless with these two types Light attack development for the 20s and beyond should be to develop a manned/partially manned platform capable of delivering - A2G fires focused on PGMs and a DE system capable of lethal anti personnel / disabling unarmored vehicles effects - ISR with up to 2 organic sensors and/or the ability to carry an Agile Pod plus other mission pods. Provision for BLOS system if desired for an ISR primary mission and/or partially crewed. - Low on mission support requirements either for logistics or operations. AR capable but enough range / endurance it is likely not needed, 2000nm ferry range, 500nm combat radius with 1.5 on station @ 10k with no external tanks and an SCL of 6 PGMs and 2 defensive missiles. Either self-cueing thru multiple organic sensors or high connectivity to net(s) and cued thru by on mission partners - Self-defensive capable to low/moderate threat environments. Can defend and successfully egress from a pop up radar threat, if engaged by an air threat capable of defensive maneuver and a defensive missile shot. 5G turn, with SCL and 600+ knots dash speed - Reasonable signature reduction and mitigation. - Modest acquisition and low operating cost. $45 mil a tail with sensors and $4k an hour or less to fly. - 2 crew but can be configured for 1 on board crew with additional fuel and 1 virtual crew via datalink This is just my ranting but the AF used to be known for innovation, get back to our roots big blue Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another day at the office... https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/nypd-cop-accidentally-recorded-oral-sex-with-her-boss-on-police-body-cam/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry, those two will cost as much each as the original 20, so no under execution problem

Likewise on decisions to defend the US and its Allies so I will still hold Buzz and other CSAFs to some account (and other Chiefs of other branches, DoD officials, etc...) for not building a portion of their respective forces to run marathons versus sprints. No hate for Buzz (or his predecessor Jumper) but legitimate critique IMHO, not saying that his push for more Raptors was wrong in the long-term but that his inability or inactivity in reacting to his boss' number one priority (the immediate fight) caused the rift that put a lot of bad blood between Congress/OSD and the AF, ultimately wounding the AF's long term priorities and not effectively meeting civilian leadership's priorities. Even if you think your boss has it wrong and you've made your case to the contrary but to no avail, you can either quit or come up with a way to execute his priorities in what you think is the best overall way possible. His priorities get met and you give him an acceptable way to let you meet what you think is the long term strategy for the AF, in this case it would be extended Raptor production, likely at the expense of something else but you take action. Buzz was right that we needed more Raptors but was wrong in that he didn't say "I hear you boss, we need to be ready for the future and win the fight today. We need more Raptors and meet the COIN/LIC air mission(s), here's how we do it boss..." We need at least 350+ Raptors, get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability. 60 CAPs, X above our steady state? Need you to get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability. Etc... Life is about choices boss, choose to print mo' money or divest stuff you don't need. As to Light Attack, I think it would have helped if robustly executed to meet the operational need to replace the 4/5 gen in permissive environments and strategic need to keep them training / conserved for the big fight(s). Robust means probably an acquisition of 200 tails and crewed at 3.0 to absorb aircrew, sustain rotations, spread operational experience, etc... It would also mean buying a platform legitimately capable of replacing a 4/5 gen in the wheel, i.e. a Scorpion rather than a relatively short range, short endurance, fixed architecture platform. What's done is done.

Yup - I have since moved on from that idea... The economic exchange between belligerents in war is perhaps the most dehumanizing metric but always relevant. The fact our leaders then and to some extent now keep trying to keep the future at arms length and will not wholly reconfigure the AF when there are multiple systemic problems bordering on failures is indicative we need an outsider, empowered to fundamentally reform to change, not holding breath.

What did you (fighter guys) expect after Buzz would not get with the program (grow, stabilize and mature the RPA enterprise, accquire Light Attack, etc...) and put a greater percentage of institutional focus/effort/comment/resources/etc... on the fight we were in then (still are) instead disproportionately focusing on the next big fight? Particularly after some of the public comments by Gates, his boss? He didn't have to shift the whole of the AF to the counter-insurgency fight at the time but he sure as hell could have shown he "got it" and had a better plan to answer his boss' priorities Not saying that he (Buzz) or any other CSAF should not have that in his cross check but we shift focus at times as required to shoot the pop-up 3m target and then return to the 25m target looming... No particular love for Norty nor strong dislike, could have done better IMHO but the "fighter general" community needed some feedback.

If they had just put a f*ckin' afterburner on the Scorpion would that have made them happy and then we could have bought it?

Sputnik (grain of salt) is reporting the Pakistani F-16 was shot down by a pair of MiG-21s https://sputniknews.com/asia/201902281072828764-india-pakistan-air-strike/ More articles: Indian Navy aircraft carrier sortied with AIS off... Surgical Strike in Pakistan a Botched Operation?

After this and the debacle of Joint Cargo Aircraft big blue is now big blue balls Yeah, I’m really into this it’s really cool ... several years later .... yeah don’t worry about it... but I may be interested later, I’ll let you know... Manned Light Attack / ISR has to be assigned to another branch if the Joint Team wants it as US military capability, after this latest iteration of pump-fake, give it to the USMC as they are doctrinally OTE’d for small wars now would it need to be small deck capable? maybe but that’s another matter... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has AFSOC released anything (openly) on requirements for next gen manned ISR? Only found one article with mediocre Google-Fu: https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/afsoc-plans-next-generation-manned-aircraft-replace-u-28

No. "The Wall" is a device to perform prevention, dissuading, delaying and directing to harsh terrain device to make interception of the determined illegal crossers highly likely, resulting in a far higher level of security that our current rusty screen door with a broken latch physical barriers are. You have to have an imposing physical barrier to prevent crossing then quickly melding/disappearing into adjoining urban areas or difficult to scan/detect and physically intercept rural areas. It is the first step in interception if the illegal crosser is not dissuaded, direct your opponent to where/how you want to fight then finish the engagement. No doubt it will not prevent all illegal crossings but countries still put up SAMs as they know they dissuade and destroy some X percentage of air aggressors. The problem with the detection then interception strategy is the American Legal system coupled with the Globalist Legal / Political / Media Complex. The warping and perversion of the law is incredible, leftists say they want the "smart wall" because they know even if they are detected and caught, that detection and apprehension did two things: used up CBP resources that will likely allow leakers just behind them to get in as CBP will be come saturated and then those apprehended will consume legal resources to prevent removal and again just wear the system down.

Returning that serve... https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/south-bay-news/150-migrants-attempt-to-climb-border-fence-throw-rocks-at-border-patrol-agents Mass gatherings of Fighting Age Males harassing, attacking and attempting mass illegal crossings is nothing to be worried about /s. So let me ask you, if Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, etc... sponsored say 1,000,000+ males on trips to Mexico and then direct them to cross into the USA wherever they could without interacting with a civil authority of the USA you would be ok with that? They have a "human right" to cross any international border when they want, where they want and for whatever reason they want? After seeing the political effects on Europe of the migration crisis of 15/16, I'm surprised our enemies are not exploiting the ignorant and open secret subversion of the left, naive extreme libertarians, the pampered and childish "woke" cohort of America and just flood our insecure borders to destabilize our country even further.

Yeah - the whole sorted history of the JSF/CALF is something to behold. Giving up on the B model as it is now, STOVL, and modifying it would be my choice but as there are foreign buyers and a metric shit ton of politics at all levels this is likely not viable without some proof converting the B models to something else was viable. Take a few of the early B models facing early fatigue life issues and begin the engineering experiment, as they likely will not see full service life the risk and life-cycle loss is relatively low. New fuel tank, structural upgrades and improvements to the weapons bays that the B model had due to the lift fan. Getting rid of all this probably would open up a lot of possibilities for the B:

Agreed - pretending they are really going to be fighting all alone for two weeks is just ridiculous. As for a CAS focused asset to suggest for a revamp of USMC tactical aviation, an attack focused version of the yet to be built Sea Gripen would be my suggestion. Relatively low cost to acquire and operate, still in development so an attack focused variant is probably technically / financial feasible vice expensively modifying an in-production design. About $40 mil a tail and $4k per hour, relatively cheap in the military jet world. Larger canards & loiter flaps , BLC for slower approach to a small deck carrier, more gas, more efficient engine, integrated EO/IR sensor, etc... launch off the boat and recover to it, launch off the boat then land at a captured austere airfield/road as the MEU moves inland from the beach with its STOL capability. Basically a modernized A-7 with some signature reduction and defensive A-A capability.

Yup Why the hell didn’t they realize the obvious after 20+ years of Harrier ops and ask for small conventional carriers and get a 35C capable of operating from a new smaller carrier (non-nuke) with amphib support capability? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk