Clark Griswold

If they have one we need one... AG600 just made its first water landing: Article on it from Task & Purpose: https://taskandpurpose.com/china-ag600-amphibious-aircraft-landing/

One more article on the 17 Raptors were left to ride out Hurr Michael: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/24442/we-finally-know-how-many-f-22s-were-left-behind-at-tyndall-afb-during-hurricane-michael

Interesting article / interview on flying the Phantom for the RN... https://hushkit.net/2017/07/31/flying-the-f-4-phantom-ii-british-style/

You've got a point but mainly for the US Defense Establishment, our Allies are far more price conscious than we are. Paradoxically though they have mission systems that have a second role as jobs programs too, particularly with the Euros, no slight at them just an observation. This modular system to a light jet(s) fleet might attract buyers from nations with little to no margin for pork. Good anecdote and I see the point relayed to you by the SESs, defense contractors are subsidized in a non-acknowledged but open secret way with some validity to it. The problem is that it has the second order effects of entitlement and complacency that keeps the industrial base alive but not healthy and innovative necessarily. IDK, I've had this discussion or ones like it over my career at various places and vantage points, now with a little perspective as I approach Old Fart status I think keeping the Industrial Base engaged and the AF adaptive and not stagnant we would do better to buy less "Silver Bullet" type platforms that are once in a generation or two purchases. Diversify the portfolio with higher numbers of modest systems to compliment the high end, we say we do this (Hi Lo mix) but it just doesn't seem to actually work out that way. Strategically staggering purchases for the USAF, USN, USMC, USA, etc... could be a method to keep a steady stream of contracts but that's not the trend of the last 20 years or so..

Not saying they are just interesting concept related to the thread subject. The most interesting idea of this (IMHO) is the modular approach to the family of aircraft offered, airframe/engines/avionics are all selectable to try to specialize for roles while simultaneously minimizing operational/logistics costs by specifically designing the concept to have 85% parts commonality among the variants. If they can deliver this feature (unlike what the F-35 program promised but didn't), they could chop those life cycle operational costs, money talks. It's not a bad sales pitch: Fly several of your basic missions/functions with one base model aircraft and customize those tails as you want for your primary trainer, advanced trainer, aggressor and demo teams. Save money on logistics and buying only what you need for each of those tails for their missions. It is an interesting idea but I'm realistic/jaded; unless a lot of investors put up a ton of money then several nations agree to a serious purchase, this will remain vaporware. Probably..

On the subject of Advanced Trainers... Aeralis (UK aerospace startup) is proposing a modular training system concept: https://aeralis.com/ https://aviationweek.com/military-trainers-light-attack/aeralis-envisions-new-british-jet-trainer Basic, Advanced and Aero Team variants based off one airframe, one or two engines customers choice...

Drone threat on the border, small but growing sts. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/drones-swamp-us-mexico-border-but-federal-agents-powerless-to-stop-them

Most likely. Concrete walls, steel doors, build as tough as required. Rebuild; great location, great airspace and another location to launch from if shit goes downhill in Central/South America and 'Merica needs to respond. If another base is needed to spread assets to lower risk, I would expand Klamath Falls in Oregon for training ops with Eagles and positioned for a Pacific response if needed.

Copy that Another reason why I was surprised LM/KAI didn’t win as from their propaganda they demonstrated LVC and as they make the only two 5th gens currently flown by the USAF, integrating 5th gen Training threat/capes emulation for a potential ADAIR version for their offering seemed like another reason to go with them Easiest as they own the systems the AF would likely want to integrate new tng capes into Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was one of the reasons I was surprised by the Boeing T-X win as T-50 has a first cousin that is a light fighter (F-50) with legitimate fighter capes already. File this under never gonna happen but the first F-35As (108 of them according to this article) might become "concurrency orphans" and not get upgraded to combat capable due to the cost being disruptive to the concurrency acquisition model and the models now in the current spiral for acquisition. Instead of making them combat coded, these first gens could be candidates for a 5th gen ADAIR with some operational capability, just not the full on F-35 ALIS based capes. We had F-16As for years with a CONUS sovereignty mission only, add the 5th Gen ADAIR mission with these tails distributed to ARC wings and you have a units that could specialize in simulating J-20s or Su-57s

Couldn’t there be a training mode for the 5th gens to treat a 4th gen ADAIR as a 5th gen opponent? Not a perfect solution but thru software achieve low RCS, low EMCON opponents Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that I can see the risk mitigation value for AR experience in the trainer model before doing it for real sts in the single seat but there is only so much time/events in a syllabus before it grows too much

As for AR in IFF, wouldn’t you want to fight tank fight or do you need the break between sorties for debrief? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What book? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn’t know that and am pleasantly surprised Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting write up from Tyler Rogoway on Boeing's T-X win: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23898/boeings-t-x-win-is-really-much-bigger-than-just-building-a-replacement-for-the-t-38 He speculates on aggressor, light fighter and a naval variant. All possible I assume in later contracts but referencing my earlier two cents (on arguing for buying from different vendors occasionally as it promotes a health industrial base IMHO), I would still argue not for a one airplane to do it all plan... If I ran the USAF and could appropriate money VFR direct for acquisition: T-X for advanced trainer, eliminate T-1 and buy more T-X. IFF in T-X and a multi-engine trainer for UPT grads going to heavies (an "IFF" post grad course to cover crew concept, AR, NVG LL, T/O, Landing, short field landings), probably a C-12 or CJ4 with an NVG flight deck, UARRSI and hard points for pods to allow threat replication for an additional mission in some specialized dets at some fighter bases (as Cobham does for the RAF with Falcon jets). 0.69% chance of that happening. T-50 for aggressor & light fighter (allocate to ARC units tasked with ACA/ASA mission). 1.69% chance of that happening.

All true but a mono fleet also leads to a mono industrial base - fewer companies fewer innovative/different solutions to missions. We have to distribute contracts to give us more options than Big B or Lockmart Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop using common sense and lessons learned over the history of military aviation. Was surprised by Boeing / SAAB's win, seemed LM / KAI had the lowest risk option (jet with years of flying vs. new kid on the block) and from the released propaganda, pretty much all the bases covered for the requirements for T-X.

No doubt. Passed thru Romania years ago and the talent was plentiful. Just a guess but I think that is the runway being not exactly smooth as glass and causing that pitot boom to go bipolar... Skip to the 5:00 mark for this MiG 21 landing (nothing special) and the same thing is happening

True. We've had ad nauseam examples of that but... we still kept up with development and eventually what didn't actually work eventually did. Crawl, walk, run. Start simple, develop the first generation with realistic capes for where the technology is and the actual requirement. My humble suggestion would be to work on a common air vehicle for an unmanned wingman and an RPA capable of operation in contested airspace. Radar or satellite link in the nose, your choice... wild oversimplification but that's the basic idea. Keep it real and don't demand unrealistic capes of the unmanned wingman or RPA versions like 9G load factor, supersonic, etc... but looking at the Avenger concept, a weapons bay for at least 4 missiles/stand off weps, combat radius + 35% of the F-35 to cover egress, etc... useful capes but not shooting the moon on the first gen...

HUD tape of a Split S to a landing in a Romanian MiG 21

Tin foil hat on... check... Yup, the first step in autonomous unmanned air systems, sifting thru the 95% chaff to get the 5% wheat of X-INT feeds, with this AI being done on board the vehicle and only transmitting/cueing when it has good data, thinking of persistent ISR in a contested environment main but I could see that being applicable for Air Dominance also, unmanned wingmen out front of the manned platforms either active or passively sensing and relaying/engaging only when they have something determined on air/ground threats... nothing original in that comment but it is probably that time to start the manned/unmanned teaming to get ready for the next war

Fox 2 (computer voice) https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/19/mq-9-gets-first-air-air-kill-training-exercise-air-force-official-says.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

On basing, there's no need for self-inflicted wounds... Distribute evenly across the CONUS looking for joint basing to be near training partners. For the ARC, same story, look for units/bases with consistent training opportunities. UTAs at those units should be coordinated with customers so a DSG at any drill could fly a solid training mission rather than attending a Green Dot class. Figure a buy of 110 tails: 20 to the FTU/Lead Wing (Associate Unit), 90 distributed in 10's to 9 Wings, 5 AD & 4 ARC.

For my two unrequested cents, I think LA should (if it happens and is beyond a BPC building mission) keep the pre-requisites fairly wide and recruit from the whole of the AF flying community. The U-2 is a good model, different mission and a difficult plane to master with high level of expertise demanded, but repeating that model in LA would keep the net wide to gather talent and has a precedent for success. The aircraft (LA) is / would be inexpensive enough that a full syllabus teaching the attack mission set from basics to advanced could be accomplished, dudes would not have to come with previous experience to lessen the required flight/sim hours in an LA program, IMHO and very scientific bar napkin calculations. Keeping the door open for dudes who have the talent, developed skills, demonstrated ability in their first assignment but their time / scores at UPT didn't set them up for an Attack aircraft assignment right out of the chute seems reasonable. They would likely not be the majority of LA crew but methinks they could be a reasonable percentage without putting risk to a potential LA program in terms of training required to achieve required proficiency. Not familiar with the IFF syllabus but 30 missions at 1.5 hours each and guessing at $1500 per flight hour if the LA is ever bought is the AT-6 or A-29 comes to about $67,500 in flight hour cost, not sure what the expendables would come but guessing $10k per student seems reasonable. Other costs would come in also (range fees, contractor OPFOR support, travel costs for off-station missions, etc..) but I think you could probably train a crew for about $100-125K in a 30 to 35 mission syllabus with AT-6/A-29. Scorpion would be more but worth it... That cost is low enough that if you had someone from a non-tactical background and 30 to 35 flying missions is a lot training, seems to me (from an outsider's view) you should be able to accept a capable student and train to standards, regardless of background. Do you think, would 30 to 35 missions in an FTU syllabus cover Surface Attack, CAS, ISR focused missions, etc... to an acceptable degree for initial quals?