Clark Griswold

Intercept of Iranian civil registered A310: https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/30/rsaf-intercept-a310-sanaa/

Good article On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense From the article: The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II. To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans. During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO. Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint. US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence, USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets. We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice... Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.

3 year order, no loss of ARC affiliation, 50k per year bonus, no 365 remote / would accept one 179 in the 3 year period, duties / position specifically noted in contract - member may terminate at that point if the AF wants something different, one general right of termination by the member with loss of bonus for that FY (keep the cheese to be out of the trap) If they want pilots, right it up as a pilot for hire contract, not whatever pixel pusher in random staff gig they think is critical to fill

Has the AF considered going in with the Army on their Future Vertical Lift program to get a SOF / CSAR variant V-280 or Raider?

Yup If I were king for a day, put them also near established ranges, ideally with GCI and not too far from tankers, off the top of the cranium, LAX-LAS-SLC-DFW-MIA, fit some of those nice to have features. Dreaming probably but all they can say is hell no, propose it and give'em a reason(s) for military aggressors vice contracted red air.

Naval Typhoon concept: https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html Pitched to India which went with the MiG 29K and Boeing is making a pitch for Super Hornets.

Maybe but either way the time to sh*t or get off the pot is well past. The inability to get an aircraft for this mission is a symptom of the larger problem, the lack of desire/interest/recognition by the DoD/Congress that if the US is going to continue to prosecute COIN/LIC & FID/Stability/Advise & Assist missions then we probably need a new UCC from the parts of the existing ones to plan/advocate/execute these missions. I am thinking that if this is ever going to happen, a Joint Force capable of effectively and sustainably executing these missions, it is going to take a new construct, formal commitments from the existing branches and resources reprogrammed (if required) from existing capabilities.

Not exactly on the topic of air to air but a possible encore career for the 15/18 in the German AF: Germany asks for Boeing fighter data as weighs order options Kinda surprised they haven't come up with a Strike Typhoon version yet in lieu of an RFP from Boeing

Gotcha - I should have clarified my point or idea would be for an ARC unit solely focused on the aggressor mission, owning the iron also. I could see the ARC leery of converting a Wing over to this mission only so I would see it more as a squadron/detachment of an established wing, geo separated. Put this in the not gonna happen column and probably not that much cheaper than flying an aggressor modified F-15s but with the divestment of operational F-4s that would probably not need that much mod, buying F-4s from Greece, Germany, Turkey, Japan, etc... might be useful for an aggressor.

Not to be negative but how much more testing/experimenting do we need to do? It just appears to be the same rope a dope then delay then nada. Imminent Fury, Combat Dragon, Afghani Air Force A-29 ops with the A-29, Columbian AF ops with the A-29, AT-802 use by XE, etc... how much more data do we need?

No doubt but this could be a good mission for the Joint Force, NATO, Aussies/Japan/SK burden sharing arrangement, not holding my breath for something like that, but a robust aggressor capability and training is a universal requirement for all the allies. On the AF keeping an organic aggressor mission... seems like a good fit for the ARC: depth of experience in units focusing on that mission, scalable at will for training cycles / deployments / new threats, etc... was it ever discussed to send that mission in whole or part to the ARC? Put the units at or near domiciles and you would build and retain a high experience aggressor pilot cadre.

Copy that. I thought the F-15 might be the preference (disregarding cost) for the performance, radar capability and size/capability for pods.

Copy all. Continuing on Aggressor Aircraft and just seeing how the other side did it sts, found a bit on the FSU's aggressor aircraft and program: https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/soviet-aggressor-program/ Unsurprisingly, not much openly available but grist for the mill. Question for 11Fs, if you could save one of the teen series fighters slated to be retired by the 35 as a "standard" aggressor for military provided training (in some specialized training configuration/mod), which do you think could give better training over the range of Air to Air threat simulation? F-15, 16 or 18? Not phishing from Moscow or Beijing, and if OPSEC allows, informed opinions are appreciated.

Gotcha. One other question, are they talking about aggressor simulators for linked sim mission training or is this already happening in Virtual Flag?

Copy that. On the idea of a T-X Aggressor, article from 2015 but as we are approaching FY18, I wonder if the $220 million that was referenced to be spent 2018 is still there for T-X aggressor kit development? Did a quick pass on the SAF/FM page but no joy.

Purpose built aggressor from a 4th gen fighter: SAAB PRESENTS GRIPEN AGGRESSOR https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-aggressor-targets-uk-us-requirements-441052/ Doubtful it could/will happen but looking at their proposal (just the mock up and the articles linked above), I was wondering why they didn't offer this in a two crew configuration? It would seem for a training aircraft, having a family model would be beneficial for a new dude to sit back and watch the fight, are ADAIR 38's usually flown single seat or do they usually fly with a second pilot or WSO to observe the scenario?

Thread bump. Article is from 2016 but looks like the Scorpion might get an Air to Air capable radar and used in ASDOT (UK aggressor): Scorpion Selected for ASDOT Proposal The article mentions the Thales RDY-3 multi-mode radar, does any know or can say (if OPSEC / Non-Disclosure allows) if the Scorpion in the USAF AFE is military radar equipped? Link to the Thales page on the RDY.

Dog, what were you going to do if you caught it?

Touche but I would square that circle by some admission of private knowledge / assistance historically not currently of Israel's nuclear deterrence and not concede the point. Just because some sanctimonious hypocritical windbag at the UN or media talking head is upset at that not everything is being done exactly as they think it should be, who cares. Take a page from the authoritarian powers and just DGAF what unrealistic peaceniks, the naive activist crowd and other assorted coddled, spoiled and really childish people think. Pakistan's exclusion from my off the cuff list was not intentional but I would still not include it, democracy (IMO) is not just elections that are somewhat free/fair. It's also the absence of other bad behavior, like assisting the Taliban or other terrorist organizations (cough couch attack in India)... Honest question, do you really believe Iran is not working at least towards breakout capability so that at the appropriate time, they will be able to go from nuclear weapons capable to at least nuclear explosive device (weaponization is another matter) in a matter of months? I'm not saying based on that, that a military option is called for or justified but I have no illusions they are still working getting as close as they can to having a nuclear weapon without getting detected so they have to option to breakout, demonstrate capability and then just say it's done, we will never give them up and deal with it. The West being led by people now who lack even the testicular fortitude to stand up and control their own borders or expel violent illegal aliens will likely navel gaze and fold like a house of cards, but I'm not cynical, not one bit... If you want a third way that is negotiated fine, I can support that but you have to be realistic. These nations will not be cajoled, shamed or convinced by moral persuasion that them not having nuclear weapons is better than having them. It has to be negotiation with the possible outcome of no further relationship and as much isolation/pain without direct conflict as possible to have even a hope of getting something acceptable to us. As to Iran, what's done is done. Watch them like a hawk, arm the Saudis, give Israel LO deep strike capability (conventional) and foil them everywhere you can. As for NK, offer them a period of detente, negotiate with them directly along with the other regional powers and go on the diplomatic / informational offensive and while foiling them every way you can clandestinely. Propose things never seriously discussed and try to break the ice, but just give up on the idea they will ever give up their nuclear weapons, who would looking at recent history if they were on the other side of the table from us?

UFB or in today's AF totally believable... new for the sake of new, not whether or not it is academically worthy of discussion, it's new so good... Yup - if you're a rogue nation, get nukes, you will never be f'd with by the do-gooders ever again. Wish it weren't so but from the perspective of Iran, NK, other bad actors it is the best use of their resources from their perspective If we want to halt the growth of the Nuclear Club, then we have to admit that we have separate policies for the legacy nuclear powers and everyone else. Don't apologize for it and don't discuss it, just state it as fact, more diplomatically than that... but the West + the democracies of Asia (India, SK, Japan, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia) should declare that they will have no trade relations with new nuclear weapons powers, declared or suspected. No trade, no travel except diplomatic, no aid, nothing.... if we don't give a HUGE disincentive to developing nuclear weapons, all the other bad actors of the world (Govs and Non-State Actors) have every reason to cuddle up to NK to try to get some of that garlic that keeps the West at bay...

From NR: How Do You Solve a Problem Like North Korea? https://www.nationalreview.com/article/451011/north-korea-nuclear-problem-kim-jong-un-china-puppet-regime-no-good-solutions If there are no good solutions or good moves to be made directly at the DPRK, then don't make any. From the article: So what to do? Well, the first thing is to recognize that there are no good solutions. But perhaps the least bad option would be to openly declare that America already considers the North Korean regime to be China’s puppet, and that North Korean misdeeds are really Chinese misdeeds. That would come at a price, too. But it would incentivize China either to rein in the North Korean regime or, eventually, get rid of it. Not exactly sure what you could or should do to incentivize China to rein in NK without poking the dragon but at this point deflecting the booger to them may be the only option. But that option would have to be more than just the US imposing some penalty on China. That would quickly pit China vs. US instead of inflicting damage on the DPRK regime, it would have to be the US, Japan, South Korea, Australia, the PI, etc... imposing some significant economic/diplomatic concerted action to bring about some change in behavior.

Yup, just thinking how an AF on a budget and really a country with limited means could still get some AR capability but still have a revenue producing aircraft. Thinking something like an E-190 or An-178.

Yup. When I read your original post mentioning that, I was wondering about that and how a smaller LLC (just an assumption) would be able to afford that or talk a partner presumably with more resources to do the design / development / testing for certification for a new system and if you were trying to use an existing system (Boeing), why would they want to help you when you are developing a potential rival to their product? Just an interesting aside, there was an IL-78 used by a company, Tactical Air Defenses, for contract air refueling impounded in Michigan for several months while drama swirled around it (theft allegations, visa overstays, shady destinations, etc...) but eventually it got on it's way I believe. https://www.wired.com/2009/09/soviet-tanker-abandoned-in-michigan-not-just-an-ilyushin/ https://www.upmatters.com/news/russian-jet-at-sawyer-almost-ready/151443411 I am sure this would be about 69 x more complicated than I am imagine it to be (engineering) and I am not sure what exactly the legal ramifications would be (re purposing and de-purposing civilian registered commercial vehicles for use in military operations) but what about adapting a airliner and building into it a wet hard point with a supply line spurring off from its SPR assembly? Airliner most days but available for lease as a light duty tanker? Trying to keep it as simple as possible, just modify the existing fuel system and all support required for the pod (electrical, hydraulic, control) are done via self-contained ram-air powered generators and control done via secure wireless.

Probably an adequate supply of parts as Wiki says there are only 8 others in operation but 250 were built, what's the likelihood the survivors in the boneyard can be picked for spares? Was Israeli AIA going to develop a new boom/pods or partner with Boeing / Airbus to adapt their systems?

Maybe but I doubt they (Russians) will actually build this X-wing as it will cost a crap ton of rubles and unless oil goes up another $50 a barrel, I doubt they have the money to build a truly new platform. Now a big upgrade to the MiG-31, maybe... They're still behind the 8 ball on the Su-57 and they are way down the line on developing that platform and need to follow thru.