Clark Griswold

Scorpion testing Agile Pod https://www.dvidshub.net/image/4061719/afrls-agilepod-shows-isr-versatility-during-scorpion-fit-test

Yup these dudes are not retreating to safe spaces after being traumatized by a contrary opinion: Jacked up an IRGC soldier https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/02/video-iranian-protesters-steal-revolutionary-guardsmans-trousers-violence-escalates/

The weed of the serenity prayer: fix the things I can, accept the things I can't and have the wisdom to know the difference between the two. Aggression would be on a scale, not every incident would mean deal breaking aggression. Like pornography vs art, we would know when we see it... Happy New Year also.

IDK all the effects either but like a lot of things it’s not the idea per se but the execution. Redeployment would be gradual but positive, every year unless a new aggression causes a pause, we gradually pull out (sts) or transition to a new stabilization/deterrence posture (ref a hypothetical Korean unification stabilization mission). It would not be an exactly even process but about 10% per year of capacity in theater would be redeployed from one phase to the next and/or the final withdrawal phase (assuming the conditions for redevelopment or withdrawal are met)

After a successful 10 year stabilization mission? Probably 50k around Pusan for the next 10 years then eventual withdrawal of permanently based forces. 50k is about 35%+ what we have now there now, the additional forces would be a reassurance that significant capability to reverse and secure exists if any shenanigans were attempted. I would imagine for the stabilization force about 100k US forces of the total 300k force (China would have 100k to give them the prestige of a 1 to 1 with US forces and to ensure no loss of face), the other 100k would have to be combination of a new coalition, nations selected to be acceptable to SK, NK, US, China to round out the force and have "neutral" members to dilute any tension building in the stabilization force. ROK and DPRK armies would be training together and forming a new unified Korean Army, ditto for AF & Navy. Valid point on losing influence in the region but I am convinced that our excessive involvement in some areas of the world is detrimental to the Republic; politically, economically and spiritually. It (post Cold War maintenance of Cold War era deterrence missions) now work mainly to the interest of international corporations, the global elite, sullen & complacent host nations and the MIC. The Republic has gone from being prudently cautious and when called for absolutely decisive in war to overextended, tolerant of draining perpetual war/conflict and self-destructively over protecting those who are capable of most of their own defense. We should not accept that we will be in large deployment to SK, Western Europe, etc... for the next 25+ years. It's not good for us.

Valid point but with 30 x GDP and twice the population it would be some version of the current SK by the sheer weight of their influence and fact that they would be bringing the North up to modernity by transfer payments. Also, I doubt China would want the new Korea to be anything close to the DPRK, they may not like a capitalist democracy with good ties to America on the border but that is a helluva lot better than a wildly unpredictable, WMD armed communist dynasty ruling millions of desperate people on your border. Probably 30 years in total to rebuild and fully change the vector of a post communist economy and after effects of 70+ years brutal dictatorship. Trillion+ $ https://www.uskoreainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/YB07-Chapt6.pdf

Don't discount that China / Russia would accept a unified Korea with ties to the US, if they want an Asia with a reduced US military footprint this is one way to that reality. Status Quo is an option but it will exacerbate other problems (nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile proliferation, NK other illegal activities of synthetic narcotics, counterfeiting, etc...) and keeps us engaged in SK forever + 1 day. I'm not saying to not keep up the non-kinetic efforts we have going right now but it is time to break the ice rather than argue for the same things with the same regime as we have done for 26 years with nothing to show for it.

Yeah, the overall greater good is hard to buy into but methinks that is a result of the sense of entitlement to American security guarantees Start 2018 with a metaphorical bang POTUS - call for reunification and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula: -10 year multinational peace keeping and stabilizing force: USA-China-Australia-Canada-Poland-UK, 300k boots on the ground, cede to China air space control north of 38th (assuring them of security and sovereignty control to the Yalu), US / Allies Air forces operate south -Following successful 10 year transition to reunification, withdrawal of US forces to Pusan with withdrawal entirely in another 10 years if the situation is stable -Amnesty for all former DPRK gov officials with guarantee of employment or pensions -Commit to a Korean Marshal Plan

We're stuck in an amplifying cycle and I'm not sure why the Euros at least are not on board with stopping this right now. At various launches, Iranians are in the viewing stands and it is just a matter of time before the DPRK has a warhead that is compatible with their rudimentary ICBM, the Iranians will pay thru the nose to instantly have nukes and the ICBMs to deliver them putting Europe, Israel, KSA and eventually the USA in range. We all know the final destination for this crazy train (rogue nations becoming nuclear powers) and I would not be surprised if Venezuela (if it doesn't implode first) doesn't come to them wanting that capability to ensure they will never be attacked by the US (at least under current unstated policy). It's time to get serious about getting rid of the regime, that doesn't mean preemptive strike (it would have include tac nuke strikes so it is off the table) but massively to increase the pressure on China / Russia to reign in or collapse the regime, really it is to collapse it as they will never truthfully comply with a denuclearization deal.

New thread for Iranian happenings. Protests into the third day, another chance offered by history to support Iranians who don't want to live in under a brutal theocracy: https://www.redstate.com/slee/2017/12/30/iran-may-experiencing-world-changing-legitimate-resistance-movement-american-media-yawns/ https://www.cnn.com/2017/12/30/middleeast/iran-protests-intl/index.html

Probably so. Following this discussion, someone mentioned the first job postings (pending contract award) were at KSPS, well why not just expand the existing contract at Doss Aviation at Pueblo and do more with what you already have in execution?

Copy that. There may not actually be one as it was in International Waters but as a principle, seizing the ship and impounding it for 6+ months may be enough of a disincentive.

Are they planning on IP Qualing these guys at PIT or at the base they will work at?

So the ship is in SK custody but can a fine be levied against the operator and the company that chartered it? Who could levy it?

Not unlikely but the cure for that is to officially end golden boy / favored son programs / positions (exec and other such suckling jobs) and have the first 6 years or so of everyone’s careers be direct duties performance appraisal with leadership potential only judged around the 8 year point. O-3 and below should be / is focused on operational proficiency / tactical leadership. That has a strong rated view to it as other non rated officers primary function is leadership from the get go but that again leads to separate ratings / promotions for rated and non rated to address that.

F-106 - Project Six Shooter. Skip to the 4:00 mark for the air target tests there and around the 5:30 mark for the shootdown of a MACE drone.

Yup - I am corrected

True and this career path would not be for everyone. If it were CSAF Clark Griswold this program would only be open at the O-4 (selects included) and only based on nomination at the OG/SQ level or possibly by the wisdom of the crowd, allow nominations anonymously of peers that are believed to be the right guy and bypass the filter of the admin/queep/company man filters at various middle levels. Just to home in on one of your comments and to echo it, a strategic leader. That's what I am arguing for, a program/policy to only begin the long process of recruiting and developing a strategic leader vs another company man.

That's the rub, how do you actually execute your reform so you don't open up another can of worms. To reference the example you cited and to expand on the idea of a generalist leader, some part of the career experience would have to be combat operations to lead/command combat operations. Mission commanding combat aviation? Bomber/Fighter/Attack/Strike/EW/ISR with Kinetic Finish/JTAC experience required but that leader also having direct experience in mobility/logistics/cyber/intel is best. Mission commanding cyber operations? Cyber experience required but that leader also having aviation/intel/ndo/space/etc... is best. We should broaden the opportunity for cross flow between career paths for those we believe will be able to use that direct experience and knowledge in likely roles as senior leaders. More opportunities for heavy dudes to flow to bombers/cyber/ndo/etc... (fighters & attack also if it is appropriate and meets the needs of the AF) if said heavy guy is identified and assessed based on his/her operational performance and intellectual capability to be an effective combat leader. Opportunities for fighter/bomber/attack dudes identified as future leaders to flow for an operational assignment to heavies/rpa/isr/cyber/ndo/space without it being a black mark or viewed as a demotion to broaden their experience so as senior leaders, they effectively lead the team in delivering air/space/cyber power. Opportunities for cyber/space/ndo/battlefield airmen to crossflow into aviation/mx/logistics/etc... Right now we have leadership dependent on having a team around them to be the expert in X field to give them advice on how to bring all the elements together to deliver air/space/cyber power. It works but IMO, having a career policy that encourages/guides broadening for those recruited/selected for a leadership path after proving themselves in the first operational community is better.

No doubt that has and continues to happen. The booger fling is a real phenomenon and it is right to beware someone at certain points in their career and they have not attained certain quals/certs as that is possibly indicative of buck passage. My only knowledge of her capability is second hand from when she was being initially discussed as a candidate prior to Fingers, consensus was she was a good egg. My two cents, if the AF was operations / leadership focused vice problem mitigation / management focused, those on the path to leadership would be identified at around the 8-10 year point in their careers, recruited and selected, then sent to other communities to develop a cadre with a broad but not shallow depth of understanding of how air, space and cyber power are delivered for the Joint Force as a total effort. They would say the current AF does this now, not so much IMO.

True but she did start / serve as aircrew and then went on to other domains we operate in, breadth in experience / knowledge is better for overall leadership & management of the institution. Just my two cents but she sounds like what we should be developing for senior leadership. Experience with a broad range of operations versus specialized. The days of the bomber / fighter / pilot only general should be gone. It should be the Operations General with a broad based career to have the 50,000’ view. Said as a proud pilot but we are not the only place in AF where senior leadership should come from

Valid question, what I would say (segueing to a smaller carrier point) is that a small deck carrier is to bring the same (or nearly) capabilities but in smaller amounts (same aircraft but fewer on board probably taking off at lower weights) and at lower costs (acquisition and operation). Won't argue that big carriers, brigades, etc... are valuable (better) for the big fights but they carry their own costs, vulnerabilities in combat (real and budgetary), having a force that has scalable options seems a better fit for the wide security responsibilities the US takes on. NK / China getting frisky? Send two/three Ford Class carriers and the CBGs. Trouble in East Timor or HOA requiring some tactical airpower that's sea based? Send the Agile class (made up) carrier(s) and escorts to thump terrorist base camps / support SOF forces.

History of towing aircraft: https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2017/04/history-airborne-aircraft-towing/ B-29 B-50 on a rigid tow boom

Yup - can't argue that VSTOL can give you high flexibility in logistics. Brits were going to use converted cargo ships for RAF Harriers in the Falklands War to augment the RN Sea Harriers. Atlantic Conveyor launched her Harriers prior to being attacked and it was not a bad plan to quickly increase the landing deck capacity of the British Task Force. https://aviationintel.com/sea-basings-ancestor-the-forgotten-commercial-freighter-aircraft-carriers-of-the-falklands-war/ https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2012/04/the-atlantic-conveyor-falklands30/ Good points but to home in on one for debate "that small deck can still do the job" - the cost of the small deck is lower, that it really is that several small decks can get the job done (and overall be cheaper than an all big deck nuclear fleet) and then be less expensive to own/operate when you don't have the need to generate / concentrate naval air power, you break down and have an ability to cover a great number of areas Hi / Lo mix - some big decks some little decks (sts)

Copy that. I remember the joys of the Norther Tier in the winter and while it would not be pleasant to be in the exercise, a combined arms LFE would be an important learning opportunity for the joint force. Just after I retire ;-) I kid I kid... Gotcha IDK, VSTOL is impressive but I am just doubtful of it when you look at the cost in dollars and performance over the whole of airpower strategy (be it naval or conventionally land based). Numerous smaller carriers using conventional fixed wing aircraft seems more bang for the buck and less problematic. Don't get me wrong, VSTOL fighters have proven themselves (ref Falklands War) but overall it seems to me like variable sweep wings, cool technology but not worth the trouble in today's operational environment. FA on smaller carriers: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/americas-carrier-gap-crisis-highlights-a-need-for-sma-1740644946 ___________________________ More F-35 news: SK may buy another 20 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-usa-airforce/south-korea-plans-to-buy-20-additional-f-35-aircraft-report-idUSKBN1EF051?il=0