Clark Griswold

Just another shameless plug for the Scorpion... Controlling drones from a manned platform: https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/10/interesting-video-of-the-textron-scorpion-cockpit-in-manned-unmanned-teaming-demonstration/

A missed opportunity... Indo-UK made new Hawk combat aircraft looks to take on China IIRC, Scorpion was offered in 2014 to the IAF and about 2016 to the KSA, we should have pushed them hard as hell to buy offering a discounted FMS price, with us buying a first lot (probably around 100 tails) and then leveraging that into other potential customers in SE Asia, Africa, South America, etc... I still can't believe we let the right one get away..

From back in the day... CF-5 rage over Canada.

Knowledge gained... One more vaporware that's a Photoshop mod of the A-29.... Bears a passing resemblance to a P-38. Add ER saddle-bag tanks like the MC-12/KA350ER, take the fuel tank out of the backseat for a CSO station, keep the cannon in the nose but upgrade to a 25mm like the Rutan Ares concept had, integrate an MX-20, etc... and you have a good medium attack / ISR platform... probably would need to grow some for that wish list but it's worth it...

I thought the guy building the model might have thought the same thing also (exhaust over the wing for IR masking) but I'll be a contrarian and will push for a tail ducted exhaust but over the horizontal stab for some masking and keeps a large IR source away from the crew in the event of a MANPAD engagement. Harriers in Gulf War 1 had a relatively higher loss rate due to MANPAD shots hitting the plane center mass due to the larger IR signature from the engine/exhausts and getting more damage in when they fuzed. You might be right that having it masked over the wing would be a better overall design, more to preventing a hit vs. mitigating the damage one could do. No disagreement that the long nose is a forward visibility problem and better engine placement would be better but some long nosed aircraft have had good records in the Attack mission set, ref the F4U Corsair in Korea and Westland Wyvern in the Suez Crisis used by the Royal Navy (cockpit seems raised and the nose tapered for vis, that could mitigate some forward vis problems). Point taken though that more have a shorter nose than a schnoze Not exactly what I envision for this never gonna happen idea but conveys the general idea.... would need to be larger to get the range and/or endurance I think a Medium Attack / ISR aircraft would need to make it worth the while. 600 NM combat radius with 2 hours on stations with an SCL and only one external fuel tank. Yup, I doubt it too (damn it) but one can hope...

If we're gonna dream about resurrecting old iron with new bells and whistles... it's a repeat post but this modeler guy had it just about right (would have made it a two seater, you need one for the COIN/LIC mission)... Methinks the exhaust should've been routed to the tail but whatever, it's vaporware... Sidebar from actual light attack aircraft... as we dream about larger aircraft than the two offering currently being "considered" by the AF, is it that the AF has been sitting on the pot so long that the original requirements that were used to solicit proposals (sts) are no longer valid? That is the fight(s) have moved on from the combat of Iraq circa 2004-2009 and Afghanistan 2001 to now? The Joint Team needs an ISR/Attack platform now that has greater range, payload, survivability, etc... but still be more economical than a 4/5 gen fighter? It doesn't need a tanker to execute a typical mission profile and would ideally be in the $2500-5000 range per flight hour? About $30 mil per tail... but we plan on the USAF being the principal operators of this Medium Attack Armed Reconnaissance aircraft, if Allies or PNs want/can afford it, great, but BPC is not a mission for the aircraft, maybe the program but we select the platform for this ISR/Attack mission set to fit into our way of doing business first... I don't know, if the USMC can somehow Jedi mind trick Congress into thinking flying VSTOL jets is a good idea and get away with that for decades, I don't see why we can't convince them to let us resurrect the A-1, update it and field it. I mean really, is buying a proven design updated with modern systems to fill a role in the doctrinally called for mission sets really as crazy as an VTOL fleet to operate from mini-carriers that have major performance limits in VSTOL profiles or just in the cost of having VSTOL in your design?

I wish I could refute that... Why the hell can't a COCOM be a pseudo Force Provider?

WTF? 3 Year tours, 35k bonus with no 365, ARC will bite...

This. I have disagreed with @Vertigo over other topics but the man (assuming) is honest, borrowing a shit ton of money to boost GDP, is a Polish Blanket trick, no offense to Poles...

Big 2 on that... Fleet number is something that gets overlooked, the number of sustainable CAPs and tails for flexing gets overshadowed by the capabilities of individual tails.... Attack is a spectrum from inside the WEZ of an SA-400 to inside the WEZ of an AK-47... remember your roots AF and support the door kicking 20 something in Turdshitistand... And just buy one... Honest question to AFSOC and ACC types... if both want this type of platform (I think ACC types would particularly want this on their ALPHA tour) and both are such big dogs in the force supplying world, why the hell can't y'all just get one? I can't believe with all the money sloshing around out there that even with sustainment cots figured in that these MAJCOMs couldn't find the money to buy one of these in the 100 to 200+ range...

Copy that Range/Endurance has been the requirement that has been to my knowledge defined (900 NM Ferry Range & 5 hours endurance with 30 minute reserve) but not with the necessary caveats (internal fuel only, two wet stations used for external tanks to get the required range/endurance, etc...) and AR was not on the list of requirements. No argument from me as the costs need to be kept in check but as the fight evolves from mainly Afghanistan with some large airfields/MOBs dispersed throughout the country to other existing/potential AORs that have the tyranny of distance (HOA, Phillipines, Mali, etc...) from MOBs, we might want to invest in a fixed wing platform that is Long Range LAAR+. My suggestion (repeat) would be a military modified Saab 340 MSA or like aircraft... still inexpensive to fly (around $2500 a flight hour) and with range/endurance to not require AR support (9 hours or about 2000 NMs) Give it multiple sensors, links and a mixed PGM capability... less than a Gunship but more than a Reaper. Cheaper than either & would allow absorption of newly minted pilots/CSOs and a good fit for any number of ARC units

Tactics development for LAARs at Pitch Black... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22950/australias-exercise-pitch-black-saw-mv-22-ospreys-escorted-by-light-air-support-planes RAAF PC-9s not really LAARs (article references some mods for training but not a full up ISR/Light Strike platform) but were performing FAC-A role. I suspect the Osprey could potentially out range and out run the LAARs under consideration by the USAF (with a SCL and integrated FMV sensor) so again why buy an already max'ed out aircraft not able to support in potential mission sets? To repeat the mantra, just buy one AF but because we eliminated the most capable of the offerings (Scorpion) we are likely to have some buyer's remorse (better than not having but...)

Military version of a supersonic biz jet... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17039/lockheed-likely-sees-big-military-applications-potential-in-aerions-supersonic-bizjet From the article: By the images released by Aerion, the aircraft looks ideally suited for a weapons bay between the nose wheel gear and the main landing gear—basically where the cabin is located. But even if a relatively tiny set of weapon bay doors or stores ejection system could be fitted into a variant of the type, it could provide a form of regional time sensitive strike capability. And this is a very enticing capability for the U.S. military at this time. Even being able to drop Small Diameter Bomb sized weapons or a single stand-off weapon could provide a flexible and easily deployable quick-strike platform. This is a capability we need, supersonic multi-role with loooong legs. Needs tactical radar, new avionics, new radios, datalink, defensive suite, ELINT/jamming suite, embedded EO/IR sensor, weapons bay, AR mods, e-seats, etc... so that'll be cheap but this would be worth it...

Raptor v. Lighting https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-norway/u-s-f-22-stealth-jets-simulate-dogfights-with-norways-f-35-warplanes-idUSKBN1L01YX

Paywall block but yes show them the door. No stealth for you... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22859/no-stealth-for-you-trump-signs-defense-bill-that-blocks-transfer-of-f-35s-to-turkey

полностью

Yet here we are so we have to play the hand we're dealt. If we do this right (acquire a new design 4+ gen fighter) to compliment and enhance the capes we wish we had in the existing 5th Gens then we have a better overall package (sts). More missiles, more range/station time, more sensors, ea, etc... while not altering the LO of the F-22 or hampering the delivery of the F-35, that camel is about 1 straw from failure... What the hell is it that drives us to buy white elephants? Every time I buy a car I don't demand it has to get mileage 3x better, go 3x faster and be self-aware. Now I get I don't use my car in life or death battles but the point is there, not every soldier needs to be Delta and not every fighter needs to be Firefox.

Whoops... https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/world/spanish-fighter-jet-accidentally-fires-missile-estonia/index.html

Best thing on the Internet for 2018.

Bingo. We can't be the force we used to be plus the new capes, the money is just not there. Ultimately we have to decide what kind of AF we want/need to be and somehow Jedi mind trick Congress into letting us reform into that.

That's a safe bet (unfortunately) but one can hope. I'm not sure if the idea of an all 5th gen fleet has finally impacted with the brick wall of financial reality but it appears to be getting closer. The only critique or input I would offer and it is likely addressed in details in the actual proposal but why not specifically design a 4th gen compliment to the 5th gen fleet and keep the Industrial Base dynamic (can't just all be LM)? That is use the same sub-system, engines, landing gear, tires, seat, etc... as your 5th gen to the maximum extent appropriate to minimize cost for both fleets? Additionally dff load to the 4th gen compliment fighter the capabilities you want in the 5th gen but are too costly too add after the fact, still get them in the strike package just not on the 5th gen aircraft Aerial Warfare is changing but it is not changing so much that we don't have an overriding need for a relatively affordable, new & modern 4+ gen multi-role platform to perform the traditional mission set(s) while being valuable to the new Night 1 fights.

More on F-15XXX... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter From the article: "Still, next to nothing is known about this initiative, including where it came from and what it entails exactly. Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago." Very interesting that this is not the Boeing Good Idea Fairy trying to coax the AF into something but the AF making an inquiry.

New capabilities for the U-2: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22469/usaf-plans-to-test-a-system-called-symphony-inside-an-irascible-pod-on-a-u-2-spy-plane

Yeah they leave a lot to be desired compared to other carrier based jets (max weight at carrier launch) but it’s just the point that a land aircraft design if rugged enough can be made carrier suitable. The Sea Gripen is probably not a bridge too far due to original design for STOL & dispersed basing. What kills them (MiG and Su) in naval ops is the lack of a catapult system.