Clark Griswold

NASA QSRA landing on the Kitty Hawk in the 70's Impressive as the aircraft didn't need to catch a wire or use the catapult for some of the tests.

War on the Rocks has a good article on NK with an apt title: TIME TO LOSE YOUR ILLUSIONS ON NORTH KOREA Articles like these are almost obliged to close with recommendations: Live with it, improve BMD, do sneaky shit to bring down the regime, tighten sanctions.

Excellent article - succinctly and clearly described the intersection of admin process worship with the quiet corruption of clique Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's possible (space has out grown the Air Force) and possibly cyber but really it is the idea of doman-centric military branches that is outdated IMO. Everyone spills a little bit or some into someone else's domain and that organizing the military differently, by scale/type of military operations to be performed is the better approach. It has the risk of having branches that in reality are only focused on a set of missions and pay only lip service to others but some would argue we have that now, i.e. space/cyber/coin/etc... Not a military historian but the idea of domain organized militaries comes from the very beginning of history and carried on to today, with our technology and capabilities, why is it that we think this is still a good model? Specifically though on your point, I can see your point that we are restricting the natural growth in military capability and I can also see the SECAF & CSAF position (doesn't support and their reasoning - unnecessary bureaucratic separation while the at least saying they want to integrate space) - my preference would be The AF putting a ring on it and becoming the The United States Air and Space Force or really totally reorganizing the DoD into 4 branches: Conventional - Strategic - Special - Hybrid. Not by domains but missions (size/style/culture/synergy). That would be the Mt. Everest of bureaucratic reorgs so I give it 0.69% so "fixing" the AF seems the most realistic COA.

Valid point Operationally disable is the first objective, destruction is secondary. Continuing the sidebar topic, 20 lb brains are thinking about it... https://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA570475 Just thinking about this a bit, what's the defense? Besides stealth, stand off range, defensive maneuvering,,, Reflective coatings, mirrored quick deploying shields (for cockpit windows, probably preemptive), fully enclosed visor systems (no natural light, only video projection) and / or quick retract sensor pods / turrets? Just initial ideas. More on concept aircraft with lasers... Apache with a tactical laser.. https://www.interestingtechnology.net/us-air-force-attaches-high-energy-laser-to-ah-64-apache-attack-helicopter/

Likely.

Now the Navy wants the Space Corps... https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/against-air-force-space-corps-space-belongs-the-navy-21350

Yup - current efforts are on drones and inbound rounds but it's inevitable for DE to target manned... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam https://www.popsci.com/israels-rafael-shows-off-anti-drone-laser-in-korea But for aircraft, the gunship is the logical first step... Concept laser armed gunships: https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-05/us-air-force-unveils-combat-laser-guns-ac-130-gunships https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/us-air-force-combat-lasers-for-both.html https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/11/boeing_atl_advanced_tactical_laser_fitted/

I think you would (still need AAMs) - I'm not an expert on lasers but for air to air I think the use DE weapons will be further down the road than the use against ground targets- for use against a fast moving and maneuvering airborne target will require a shit load of energy imparted to the target for the short period of time before the target defensively maneuvers - just my guess but I suspect the first gen of aircraft mounted lasers (in fighter/attack) will probably need a longer period of time illuminating their targets to be effective than an enemy air vehicle will allow - now large aircraft with large lasers like the ABL in a 747 are a different animal Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

AL with Shelby bring senior and heading the SASC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because I was inverted... https://alert5.com/2017/06/30/f-35c-fires-aim-9x-while-inverted/

Yes and Hell Yes to flying. Despite the bullshit of being a part of any large organization (public or private), it is a unique challenge, personally and professionally rewarding and a chance to be part of something occasionally historic and always important. Would do it all over again. Pitfalls as a young officer (somewhat generic but my two cents looking back): - Alcohol Related Incidents. Enjoy but be aware of your limits and/or surroundings. Not to be condescending or cheesy but stupid shit does happen in the bar on Friday and on the road. Newbies sometimes feel a need to prove their bravado and limits are exceeded with damage to egos, reputations, friendships, faces and careers. - Realistic significant others (if you are single). Just a quick count but I can think of several buds (male & female) who got divorced about 3 years into their flying careers due to the lifestyle and requirements due to a military flying career (work hours, last minute schedule changes, TDYs, non-vol assignments, etc...) - Blue Kool Aid. The company line will be emphasized a lot and most of the time it is like the repetitive commercials on AFN, harmless but somewhat annoying. Take it with a grain of salt, don't be naive but don't be cynical, find some mixture of the two that suits you. - Career Priority Indecision. Towards the end of your second tour, the end of your youth as an AF officer, you'll need to decide the red pill or the blue pill. Operationally focused, Military career focused, Transition to the ARC or the road not taken... That is not to say I think you have to have it all figured out and/or if something changes (lifestyle, personal choices, new opportunities, etc..) but have a rough idea figured out of what you want, one more time - what you want, so you can work towards it and make the case to the AF that they should help you do that. Wisdom: Work hard, keep the end goal in mind, don't sweat the details until it is time to sweat the details, recognize nothing goes exactly to plan ever and always remember what you have already accomplished. I am in no way 100% in compliance with said advice but I try to remember that which was passed to me by smarter men.

Future scenario with DE use envisioned via datalink cue at the 2:30:00 mark... For the first generation DE aircraft mounted weapons, build a multi-engine attack aircraft with payload bay either around a tactical laser system or built with it in mind at least (power / cooling / targeting) readily available Two engines for the power generation, recessed bay for at least a reduced signature until your ready to deploy the laser turret and give the target some love. Resurrecting the Flying Dorito (A-12) would be an ideal platform IMO, designed with two weapons bays, one could hold the laser system, other for PGM / Defensive AAMs

About as practical

This could also go in the WTF? thread... Giant Soviet six rotor SA-2 launching helicopter... https://medium.com/war-is-boring/this-monstrous-soviet-missile-helicopter-would-have-been-a-flying-nightmare-1693f03369be

NASA program - too good for a civilian controlled program with military application - gobbled up by DoD to prevent inadvertent data dissemination That would be my guess - no first hand knowledge

This is the problem now with our most basic way of organizing our branches of the military by domains, everybody's mission(s) overlap into someone else's domains at least a little bit and lot sometimes. Domain(s) are probably past their time in the way we organize and assign forces/missions. I would say reorganize more on the way you carry out operations or the type of operations: conventional / special / strategic / hybrid. Conventional - traditional kill people and break things with kinetic energy / explosive force and soon directed energy in mass and overt formations. Special - focused kill people and break things with aforementioned means but in small(er) units, clandestine methods typically and executed from different political circumstances or authorizations (often). Strategic - usually and hopefully only promising to kill people and break things with nuclear weapons, monitoring from space the threat of attack with nuclear weapons and I would add now monitoring for major or national security threat level cyber attack and responding in kind or in defense. Hybrid - light(er) conventional military capability usually done for humanitarian / stabilization or for LE support.

Next Gen Helicopter: https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/g2988/bell-concept-helicopter/

I'll commit to IDK... seems tempting but is it analogous that the "Air" Force which currently has the majority of military space assets is not investing / exploiting space to its fullest extent for military purposes in power projection for the US as the US Army was judged to be immediately after WWII thus beginning our existence as a separate service? I would argue that Space is not to be separated from the Air Force but the Air Force needs to become the US Air & Space Force.

Agreed and those were interesting programs/ideas, good stuff either gets built or the LL get rolled into another program(s). Another pic of this concept: Would need to "smoothed" out and joined for one continuous edge from fuselage to wing tip.

Why the hell did the guy filming think the Class C accident happening right in front of him was less important than a routine takeoff?

Not to mention at probably 15% per flight hour cost and the logistical / security costs of parking a T-bird configured F-35s while out on the road. T-X T-birds would likely have a much lower logistical footprint. Bar napkin math but 8 pilots flying 750 hours a year (WAG) in T-bird F-35s @ $30k an hour comes to $180 million but in a T-X @ 5k an hour comes to 30 million, 150 million in savings, real money even for the AF.

Unclass footage released

Copy all It could do the job but damn that is one expensive show... not sure what the requirement per hour max cost for the T-X is but probably around 1/5th (or less) of what a 35 will cost per flight hour of rage.

This. Question (not just for CH) but has it ever been discussed to go back to 38s or ideally whichever jet is picked in the T-X competition? New jets, lower operational costs, all are two seaters, etc...