Clark Griswold

SLEP and strengthen the airframe. Forget STOVL, remove the fan, put in another fuel tank. CTOL only ops. Or turn the timed out B models into the worlds first LO FSAT QF-35s for TTP development against LO opponents.

Just another example of why you want more security (physical and manpower) at the border(s): https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/01/29/previously-deported-rapist-child-molester-apprehended-near-texas-border/ Life is utterly remorseless; defend & protect what is yours or see it taken & destroyed by others.

Maybe but there are airfields everywhere and the need for expeditionary capability is debatable (possible though) for Scorpion or AT-X if the USAF follows thru with acquiring a jet based LA 2020 or beyond (not holding breath). I made a point earlier in this thread there can be an Our Light Attack and Their Light Attack, just like we had our multirole fighter (F-4) and their multi role fighter we sold to our allies (F-5) in the 60's/70s. One much cheaper to buy/operate/maintain. Methinks we should follow that previously successful model for LA. No doubt there are SOCOM missions in wonderful places around the world where an austere, unprepared field operational capability is needed in a light strike/observation platform but that is really a different mission than the "traditional" light strike/observation that Scorpion or like platform would be supporting. The Syrian model is what the pols of the 2020s and beyond are likely to support vice the Iraq/Afghanistan model. Air power, Artillery, ISR, Intel, some SOF boots and Advisory support while our local partners do the majority of ground fighting. Large scale occupations in failed states with high costs in blood and treasure are not likely to be attempted for 20+ years IMO after hard slogs with mixed results in Iraq & Afghanistan. Some US Land Power, Lots of US Air Power is the only thing we are likely to do in the future. That Air Power will need to be able to launch from outside the AOR or at the safer extremes of it and then fly to its mission farther than the small turboprops offered can realistically support. Acquiring systems that can legitimately replace 4th / 5th gen in Precision Strike / Observation (tactical ISR) will be needed to support effectively/efficiently the type of missions that we (the US) will be willing to do, Scorpion could do that, the turboprops under consideration really cannot. Again, buy something capable right now, capable of easy growth/modification and doesn't have a lot of LIMFACs to be solved after acquisition.

Non-Binary Air Warrior

Yup, future warfighters will need a CAS/ISR asset in the stack that has to yo-yo every 30 min.

First, enjoy your vacation. As to the wall, not all locked doors stop burglars but they stop enough of them they are worth the cost. The walls/fencing/barriers/etc... in strategic locations will not stop all illegal crossings but they will stop much of it, dissuade some of it and force others to attempt crossing where they will be unable to cross, unwilling to cross or be more likely to be intercepted and stopped by BP. Walls/Fences/Vehicle Barriers/Sensors/Patrol Roads/Lighting in adjoining urban areas and where LOCs cross international borders, everywhere else is covered as required with vehicle and foot patrols, outposts and aerial surveillance. Pay for it with some reductions in overseas forward based forces in Korea, Japan and Europe to fund a permanent US military mission to the SW and Northern borders to assist CBP and CG. America first. On the wall and your comment that I have a naive belief it will stop all illegal activity I will be more specific about my belief as to the specific benefit of the wall to sovereignty and security, it is there to mainly stop illegal crossing (vehicular and pedestrian) more than illegal immigration/illegal presence in the USA. I am well aware that most illegal aliens in the USA are visa overstay violators versus illegal aliens who physically crossed the border. The wall is part of the solution to assert sovereignty, enhance security and fight crime from illegal aliens, TNCOs, etc... other solutions are needed also (E-Verify, immediate return of illegal crossers, workplace immigration enforcement, etc...). Will dispute your assertion that the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of "the wall". Most polls reported in the media are push polls that ask skewered questions to illicit the desired response by the poller (Do you favor a system of barriers and sensors to prevent criminals from crossing the border? versus Do you favor a cruel wall that prevents refugees and children from being saved as they run from zombies?). "The Wall" (seems like trying to evoke a Pink Floyd like depiction of something evil) is not any different than what other moral and responsible nations do elsewhere in the world to protect their citizens, the first duty of any government. Why did the GOP not fund the wall? The Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party listens to its agribusiness, construction, hospitality, etc... donors who want two things: cheap, non-unionizing, quiet, compliant due to their legal status labor and the pressure of continuing illegal immigration to keep wages and conditions for non-skilled labor cheap and under their control. The various wings of the Democratic Party (ethno-chauvanists, administrative social services, etc...) want members, voters and clients for the services they provide via government social service agencies. The unholy marriage of labor exploiting big businesses and left wing social activists reminds me of the end of Animal Farm, pigs and farmers together at the table and there was no difference. As I have said before, I think you argue in good faith but honestly how much longer do you think this will continue? The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as one side colludes with foreigners to subvert the law and sovereignty of the nation for their own political advantage the other side will eventually realize they are not working with a partner in a real democracy ruled by law.

Legitimate point, if so then Scorpion is still above the competition as its sensor balls can be retracted (sts just to cover my bases) along with a high wing and relatively high jet engine intakes, add the gravel/mud guards on the wheels along with intake doors/louvres and/or vortex dissipators and you probably could operate off dry, compact dirt without major issue. I doubt adding those systems/features would be that difficult. Going beyond that level would be unnecessary IMHO. Damn genius Gump. 450 NM from Sig to Benghazi, 280 NM Erbil to Raqqah, 520 NM PR to Caracas... None of the turboprops offered have that range, right now with no AR capability Scorpion could effectively still operate over those areas from bases 250+ NM away. Buy a LAAR, don't go super cheap and have a platform you don't have to figure out work arounds to make it useful.

My two cents, unimproved field capability is/would be nice but not necessary for a LAAR purchased in quantity for the USAF, SOCOM may have a need for it but for the USAF having a manned platform that can effectively provide light precision strike/ISR without much support required (logistically or operationally) it would not be a must have. I doubt it would be that hard of a capability to have built or retrofitted to a jet, MiG-29 has had it for years with main intake doors and upper louvres for ground and takeoff/land operations without incident to my knowledge. But there are other ways to prevent jets from FODing out that are tried and true: high engine mounting, gravel kits on the 737s (gravel deflectors on wheels, vortex dissipators on engine intakes) also have been used for years by Alaskan operators and some in Africa.

Well it’s a good thing Boeing is not associated with shady insider acquisition shenanigans then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you buy an LA platform with likely low persistence? Even with a mod like CFTs you just end up with a small 4th gen still requiring a lot of AR support for vul times. More survivable in that it could run away faster but compared to a clean sheet purpose built LA design it brings fewer capes with higher costs (dollars and req operational support) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know but one can hope / post on BO forums Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy land if not owned by the Federal Gov. Cost is important but it is affordable. It is not theft if the land is needed for the national security of the USA and appropriated with just compensation. Curious as you have no comment to the subject of the majority of my post, the wall is necessary for its own purpose to stop illegal activity and also necessary for millions of deplorables to see that their government responds to their wants, needs and concerns particularly after a very unexpected political victory/shock to the system. Condescending to them or just blowing them off is a recipe for disaster.

Valid. I envisioned partners like India, Columbia, Brazil, etc... with that comment. Capable of affording higher-end systems but still needing something affordable to buy/operate to go out and mow the grass.

Really? No sarcasm intended. Depending on the particular effects needed by a HN I think either of those platforms could support a FID mission set. Particularly the Scorpion (another shameless plug) with its endurance, sensor flexibility, open architecture and as it is derived from mostly commercially available systems it seems a low risk solution to offer to allies for either potential compromise of technology or giving them too much capability if we are unsure they will not apply kinetics proportional to the threat/provocation/attack. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Acquire by 2020? Scorpion or F/A-259 then Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood and legitimate point(s). I will partially defend the hardliner position on Dreamers and other Illegal Aliens as to amnesty and eventual citizenship but I could support short to medium term visas in exchange for increments of funding for construction and maintenance of an enhanced border security system / policy. Three year visas for X billions in security construction, patrol and maintenance along with immediate return policies for those caught crossing. There are deals to be had, both sides have enough to give to make the other less angry and receive enough to satiate their constituents.

Source? There are many out there so I will counter with another that is closer to reality IMHO: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician BLUF this guy estimates 25 billion in construction, I'm sure MX and patrol costs would come up to a billion or two a year. Worth it IMO again as it asserts sovereignty, security and could be instrumental in lowering the temperature in the cultural war in America. Nationalist (like me) have many grievances against the status quo and the willful maleficence of the unholy alliance of globalists, leftists, ethno chauvinists, and the like. There are one set of laws, codes and policies for some people and apparently another for other groups, even ones who are not citizens of this country when they illegally enter or overstay their legally sanctioned visit. The rage is not against people of certain skin tones, ethnicities or non-maleficient reasons for entering, it is the hypocrisy of those who excuse the violation of our laws and sovereignty, careless disregard for our cultural tradition of rule of law and ambivalence to the deleterious effects unchecked illegal immigration has to our most vulnerable citizens. By tolerating that which is wrong, you ironically destroy what is worth saving: a country whose culture is for the greater part is ruled by laws not by men or the whims of the mob, where the government attempts fair and equal treatment under the law and where the interests of its citizens come first but with consideration and reasonable generosity to foreigners whom we interact with. There is nothing inherently magical or different about the land north of the Rio Grande except the culture, customs and principles to which it attempts to live by. By disregarding them to do what feels good in the short term, you destroy the truly best part of it in the long term. You and I have argued this issue before and I think you come to the debate in good faith, I see this not as just another phase in our history that will be looked back on nostalgically as the immigration surge of the early 20th century is but as that which leads to a decline and potentially painful end to our Union over time if not resolved in someway at least minimally acceptable to opposing sides. Why would you want to remain in union under a federal government led by a hypocritical caste of decadent, greedy, corrupt elites that pervert a legal and economic system while lecturing you about your moral failings to not accept your displacement in the nation of YOUR birth? I do not want to see violence, instability or even worse but civil wars are the result of accumulating grievances, let's stop this one from getting worse while being merciful and reasonable. Secure the border, enforce immigration laws and return to the melting pot of assimilation. Understand the plight of others and walk a mile in their shoes as we implement laws and policy. Both can be done but I feel that those who tolerate, excuse, minimize and thru willful ignorance are the aggressors, you go first and Nationalists will see that as a legitimate cease fire in the culture war, peace can be negotiated then. Otherwise we are on the road to somewhere we don't want to go. Probably but not all of it needs a wall. Walls, sensors, vehicle barriers, patrol roads and air support as part of a comprehensive system. Walls are only necessary in highest traffic, highest population density areas with LOCs or adjoining urban areas. Physical barriers in conjunction with other technology in adjoining urban areas (vehicle barriers, sensors, lighting, drones, etc...) patroled and enforced by CBP. Rural areas would become military enforced sovereignty and law enforcement areas, National Guard permanently posted to patrol and secure. Legal, historically normal and necessary in today's world. Deterrence would be the first objective, arrest and detention next but if force is required, then it would be applied appropriately. Barriers deter and funnel determined illegal crossers into rural areas either preventing their entry or hampering their efforts. If I were designing this system, every effort would be made and directed to assist those in distress in harsh terrain when located also. I don't want them to die or suffer but I don't won't them to illegally cross either, assert your sovereignty but try your best to be merciful and humane while doing it. Interior enforcement and securing the northern border is just as important but first the SWB.

5.7 billion for a wall that directly protects the security and sovereignty of ‘Merica vs 15 billion for what exactly in continuing the Syrian mission? 45 billion per year for Afghanistan? X billions per year deterring aggression for Germany with the 4th largest economy in the world? Spending a modest amount to keep out illegal aliens (some from hostile nations and/or members of TNCOs) is well worth it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Light a candle or curse the darkness We should look at what has worked before if we are unable to make what we have now work Sell the bonds, reopen the gubmint Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That could be true... From CNN: Sell Wall Bonds Who would set the coupon/maturity for this bond?

First one accepted: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25896/usaf-finally-accepts-its-first-kc-46a-tanker-but-the-design-still-needs-years-worth-of-fixes

To be honest, not to my knowledge. The military value/effect of first wave heavy strike would likely matter more than the political/psychological effect. I hear your point but I don't think he built his entire argument on that foundation, maybe half the house but not all of it. I agree with him that a change in force structure and organizational core function focus, etc. is needed but can't follow him on his dismissive view of "short range fighters". A reasonable change not a radical one would be prudent, exactly what that is is the 69 billion dollar question. Yeah, I would agree with that idea, that Deep Strike is independent for the most part of support for the entirety or at least majority of its mission and that it is done before Air Superiority/Threat Suppression is complete. As to lingering in a non-permissive, agree again with you that it is not part of the classic conception of deep strike but methinks it will become part of deep strike & aerial interdiction as some/more strategic/theater (AI or DAS type targets) will be mobile, have decoys and be harder to detect in the peer/near peer fights in the future. Lingering will be required sometimes to find-fix-finish a mobile/evading target, be cued from another platform/sensor or re-attack immediately. Not saying this will be a preferred tactic just that I think it will be required as the targets/threats will present themselves for short windows of opportunity.

Yeah, I'm sure he comes to the table with biases as we all do but I would not completely discount his point. Bio and background info I found on Hendrix to give more context to his article and point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Hendrix https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix Classic argument of airpower, destroy his fieled forces vs. his centers of gravity. Tactical vs. Strategic. I would argue it is possible to do both simultaneously with the right mix of sensors/networks/platforms/weapons now. Deep Strike vs Air Superiority is false choice but his point has more merit than we in the current incarnation of the AF might want to admit. Our enemies have built themselves to defeat us as we are now, a change of course may be necessary in force structure. Makes the enemy spread himself too thin: By attacking or presenting the capability to attack both levels of targets simultaneously we will force the enemy to spread his AF/IADS/A2AD resources allowing for greater possibilities of exploiting a gap or weak point in his forward or rear defenses. A significant Deep Strike capability allows for this ability to "prep the battlefield" by forcing the enemy to posture himself in a way we prefer before we go offensive. We may have to: A peer adversary would never let us fight how we have been fighting over the past 30 years in conventional conflicts with steady build up of nearby MOBs to be followed by a massive air campaign ala Desert Storm, Allied Force, etc... with strike assets supplied and enabled close to the target areas...long range, deep strike with as little strategic or tactical telegraphing as possible maybe the only possibility in conventional peer force on force conflicts in the future with the expanding capabilities of the latest A2AD systems and the inherent deterrent effect of holding all of the enemies targets at risk, not just his forward deployed forces. More done per sortie, capabilities per sortie not possible except in a bigger platform: Another potential advantages of Deep Strike assets vs. Tactical Strike assets and thus an argument to increase their share as portion of the force is their range/persistence/payload inherent in a larger platform. A platform able to linger while searching or waiting to be cued from the network or a partner's sensor, deliver more PGMs over one mission and not require as many (or possibly any) support events (AR, EW support) factor towards the Deep Strike, IMHO. Hard first hit stops an aggressor before the fight gets out of hand: Deep Strike capable assets whether used Strategically or Tactically could deliver an unexpected bloody nose that might stop a fight before it starts also. If in one night, X-hundreds of targets are struck and even if the enemy could still fight, his leadership might give pause... That was just a list of what I think supports part of Hendrix's argument (that Deep Strike is more important than the AF has valued it of late) but I'm not 100% on board with his idea that that should be the focus of the AF either. But in practical terms, buy more B-21s, retire the B-52 & B-1to afford it and consider a survivable, reduced signature stand off arsenal platform to round out Deep Strike capabilities.

Related to the topic of this thread (organizational cultural decline & rot) but worth a read: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/01/28/how-the-air-force-lost-its-way/