Clark Griswold

Concur. There are 3 more planned for the Alien franchise with Scott directing with a loop back to the original 1979 Alien movie, linking Prometheus, Covenant, .... to Alien. Looking forward to that and to pay homage to the original, the trailer for the 1979 Alien...

BAi is Battlefield Aerial Interdiction. It's a term for AI performed in vicinity of friendlies while they are engaged but without the type of detailed deconfliction that CAS requires. It's not part of the Joint terminology now and as I recall there was resistance to the idea of it as it seemed to imply that Air would strike independently in or just behind the FEBA without coordination / direction of a GFC. Crap - well to light a candle and as this is a thread on light support aircraft maybe that could be another mission for it - an inexpensive training platform for the NATO partners to use also to build a cadre of expertise in CAS, SCAR, etc... would also give them some capability to participate efficiently in long term COIN / LIC operations if they wanted to or were willing to... maybe... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alien Covenant Good and disturbing as an entry in the Alien series should be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy Pardon my naïveté - I've heard variations on that theme before hence the earnest question Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it something (air to mud) they just don't practice and are not that good at or are they really ambivalent / apathetic? Do you mean CAS specifically or BAI also?

Valid points and my argument / point is one of a matter of degrees, I'm not sure if it (the level of personal operational skill determined to be necessary for an AF leader to have to be creditable) can be uniformly captured across all platforms be they manned/unmanned, aircraft, missiles, space, MX, logistics, intel, etc... but it's like the difference between art vs. pornography, you know when you see it. The AF is not structured this way but if I had my druthers we would define the purpose of a tour or billet more explicitly than we do now with a somewhat specific career goal expressed for the member and his / her leadership to work towards. This assignment is to build operational skill and experience, this tour is to develop your operational leadership, etc...

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership? Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...? Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations? I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader. My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession. He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership. Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead. Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF? It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have. Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...

Yeah - i remember it mentioned in the Air-Land Battle concept from 70's - 80's but Google is not readily supplying a reference for that. Found an AU article on the subject though that supplies a good analysis on the difference between BAI and AI, basically saying that BAI is in support of friendly forces engaged but does not require detailed coordination ala CAS where AI is more upstream, preventing enemy forces, support or logistics from being brought to bear. Article: https://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj90/spr90/2spr90.htm For this next generation mission driving the need for a Light to Scalable capabilities platform IMO, the doctrine has to be written to give this more footing, LAAR seems to get dismissed as a niche capability but it is not. This is an on-going, established requirement again IMO that is demonstrated from our 15+ years of COIN / LIC which is now morphing into Grey Zone Combat Operations. Not exactly persistent ISR with kinetic effects capability if called, we've got that covered with Tier II RPAs, MQ-9 and successors. Not exactly traditional Attack as it is longer in duration and target development (usually) than receiving a call for fires message and delivering effects with the main concern being friendly deconfliction, currently covered with several platforms, hopefully with an A-X dedicated platform in the future. The new mission is air operations conducted on a repetitive not persistent scale, tailored effects as required, usually in permissive environments but capable of up to low+ / moderate-, network and comm focused for dynamic collaboration while capable of independent operation from C2 and with a flexible logistical footprint to allow for operational flexibility. That's just my musings but looking at that, you come back to a two crew manned platform with room for growth, basically Scorpion.

It is not an exact term for what I was alluding to but close enough Air-Land Battle needs a refresh to address Grey Zone conflicts Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For the proposed A-10 successor I am talking about I only want one cook in the kitchen and this is not a jack of all trades master of none, this would be a reduced signature / balanced survivability attack aircraft, not multi-role strike fighter. Just my two cents but in grey zone conflicts, irregular actors / failing states with partial conventional military capabilities or varying levels of support from conventional militaries that we are at best frenemies, we will need a capability that can mitigate threats, self-defend, self cue from on-board multi int/multi sensors, deliver effects for longer station times with no AR and is designed around delivering next generation weapons, PGMs and directed energy. The F-35 can do some of that but not all of it and it can't do it long enough (sts). With our "mixed" record on acquisitions of late, I know the USAF would have a steep climb to get this requirement funded but IMO it is need. Combine the HELLADS and ABC systems into an attack jet and you can blast ISIS for a few bucks a shot, not blow up the entire compound (unless you want to) and swing to attacking / defending against conventional forces / threats. Attack needs a 1, 2 punch: A-X in moderate threat and OA-X in low threat. Derail - Complete (P).

Yup - that's why I am realistic about the chance of meaningful reform...

No swipes at you from the peanut gallery I think, just lament I believe at the fecklessness / meandering of the AF, in particular to Light Attack acquisition or not. On the related subject of upgrading the A-10 why not go for broke (technologically) as the AF loves the most expensive and technically riskiest concepts (usually)... as the A-10 is built for and around the 30mm why not develop a concept attack aircraft built around a new precision engagement weapon, my suggestion would be a laser, nsplayer made a persuasive argument for getting one in the field earlier in the thread. The AF wants the new hotness, put the first operational weaponized laser in an A-10 successor. Give it a laser in lieu of the 30mm (give this A-X a 25mm with enough for a few trigger pulls still), radar in the nose, strong ECM suite, internal weapons carriage capability along with LO external weapons pods, DSI and recessed engines with very slightly swept wings and conformal fuel tanks. Flex AR capability (probe or boom) and short field capability. 350 NM combat radius with 30 on-station. Shoot for a fly-away cost of about 50-60 mil a tail and operating cost around $7.5k an hour.

Don't think they have an endgame in mind, that is a plan to fundamentally change the AF. My two cents, I think they believe this is just a normal rough patch for the AF to play thru. No, you're not naive to be optimistic but be realistic, this CSAF and the MAJCOM/CCs are not revolutionaries nor particularly reform minded from what I have observed. At best they are tinkering at the edges, it will take a boss willing to fire his/her friends to get movement at the top to enable reform. You can want to fix an organization but unless you are willing to remove those in leadership that will filter, dilute and stymie you efforts, you probably won't change anything. Do good work, argue for common sense, take advantage of opportunities, roll with the times and never drink the kool-aid - from the perspective of one individual.

Not taken personally - it was inevitable to happen but maybe my assessment that it looked like a softball test was not right, it was T-ball. Show me a contact made and sustained in chop with a less than proficient receiver pilot during a big offload with the tanker CG starting aft and transitioning fwd and I will be impressed but will say keep the boom. Here's a challenging day in the pod: Don't think HAL would roll with this too well.

If they do nothing, a dwindling number of AD and faster dwindling number of ARC members on Involuntary Mobilization orders. The spiral will wrap up tighter and tighter.

Techy question but is a hardware translator between the two systems possible if the OEMs don't want to integrate their system? Just take the data to/from the pod and make it just another data stream on their bus to go to the BLOS links and keep command and data feed from having to be integrated into the platform system tightly Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vote with your feet if you have to, I wish I could say I see a turning point but it just gets to be more of a jobs program all the time with some Air, Space and Cyberspace power projection done for good measure. Pains me to say that without offering some kind of solution to the problem but maybe it (the AF) is just in need of a massive reset vs "fix the glitch". How to reset is the 64 billion dollar question.

You're right - the contractor has a profit motive that will get bigger F ups done faster and for more money with less iron bought - genius! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha - thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is more of symptom of what's wrong with the AF rather than the cause but it reeks of shoe clerkism & process worshiping versus professional, competent, confident decision making... Unprecedented: US Air Force Will Let a Defense Company Pick Its Next Jamming Plane Like the Boeing 737 Compass Call, would be a good part of a re-cap strategy for an 737 fleet for JSTARS, AWACS, RIVET, etc...

From your comment a sidebar question: If OPSEC allows... Has dual sensor (FMV) on a Reaper (or similar Tier II or above RPA) been discussed / proposed? Not the WAMI you mentioned earlier in the thread but maybe a SNIPER pod or another integrated sensor? Bandwidth likely a bottleneck but something akin to GORGON STARE with fewer frames per second for a secondary capability (general SA of the compound / area).

Automated boom AR Seems like a fairly softball test, smooth air versus appreciable chop.

False comparison - an A-10 may be / is currently tasked with missions that Scorpion if it is acquired will do but there are no plans to use Scorpion for the BAI in a contested environment that an A-10 is by doctrine / strategy tasked to Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? If the AF gets the Scorp, a luggage pod for the mission bay would happen. Plenty of room.

Probably so but fight the good fight / argue on BO.net Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk