Clark Griswold

Or a longer legged FB-22... if this is going to be twin engines and lower range go ahead and make an LO KC-21 with probe and drogue or an MQ-25 Stingray AR wingman

Article from WOR on how the AF got slow and below glide slope: https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/air-force-in-crisis-part-ii-how-did-we-get-here/ Worth a read but a cliff notes of his (Benitez) points: 1. The Air Force Got Too Small (People) Concur. Shoot to eliminate redundancy at the top first to save resources to build the base. More Indians, less Chiefs. Cut GO billets in half, Cut O-6 billets in half, etc... look for possible deferments in promotion with targeted retention bonus in critical career fields. Career Fields not just critically manned but critical to the military mission(s) of the AF. 2. The Air Force Got Too Small (Airplanes) Concur. While not addressed in this section of his article, it touches on morale which appears in several sections as it affects everything, an RPA companion aircraft, discussed ad nauseam and requirement is self-evident for airmanship and morale. He addresses 4th gen recapitilization, makes the argument for new 4th gen versus refurbished aircraft, better aircraft, better industrial base strategic utilization, better aircraft at about the same cost, agreed. Investigate a resurgence of a few good deal / golden apple programs to strategically retain key personnel, provide a solution to a requirement and ideally retain selected individuals for the full career. LAAR acquisition in respectable fleet size, ADAIR in desirable locales, flying graduate enrichment programs open to crew/single seat aviators as instructors, etc... I would also not forget about the support folks also, instead of emphasizing in-residence PME, I would look at expanded civilian career education opportunities for them with self-selection of schools/programs to be considered. 3. The Air Force Got Too Small (Lethality) Semi-concur. Argues for shorter rotations to AORs, 4 months preferred to 6 months, for a several valid reasons (experience distribution, QoL, etc..) and I concur but not concurring with looking to Navy / USMC for assistance in the Aerospace Control Alert Mission. They're tapped out anyway and don't like the idea of ceding mission. Internal redistribution of resources to expand capability in core missions seems better, resources from where in the AF is the sticky part (sts)...

Unconstrained by laws, lawyers, a sometimes duplicitous bureaucracy and an investigating and adversarial media... one man in control of a technologically capable and paranoid nation can do amazing / terrifying things...

I keep finding uses for this...

Shit could get real, doubt they would try to use this against a manned asset but unmanned? Maybe

Well damn it...

Legit point but I go with an ours and theirs policy, our LAAR and their LAAR policy. We buy a higher end aircraft that we can afford and gives us the higher end capabilities we want and that our ROE and in general our way of doing business demands (lots of ISR pre-strike, CDE considerations, PGMs almost exclusively, etc...) and their LAAR that is modern and relevant but cheaper (to operate and train) and is more in line with how X partner nation will likely do business (direct fire weapons, unguided munitions, some ISR pre-strike, etc...). Ditto on the AT-6, never flew the Texan but following that thread and the myriad problems (OBOGS, cockpit instrument problems, E-seat problems, etc...) I think that design has "issues". A-29 with open architecture sounds good, an "adaptive pod" (some smaller version of Agile Pod) is what I am imagining. Current 15" FMV ball could stay and this would be the dual sensor capability to up its game... If anybody flying the Super T can speak to this, is the architecture capable of becoming open?

The great Russians weapons demo continues

No gouge but wiki says 2023 and the ref for that was from 2013 (AF Times). Sounds about right for today's FUBAR acquisition process.

Gotcha The War Zone summed up what is likely the truth but again one can hope / rant on BO net Let's Face It, The USAF Isn't Serious About Buying a Light Attack Aircraft Again, AF look at the long term, Scorpion already has the best performance, capabilities and a design specifically to easily upgrade or accept new capabilities with low cost & risk. This is the type of aircraft we used to pursue, the best rather than looking for what is minimally satisfactory. Not sure if this has been posted yet but an article and assessment from The Aviationist after a fam ride: https://theaviationist.com/2017/11/16/we-have-flown-in-textrons-scorpion-jet-heres-what-we-have-learned/

True but all of them seem like a major leap in capability if even only 75% true of their advertised capability

It is impressive and they probably have the inside lane but to balance things out here's Leonardo's T-100 integrated training system page: https://www.leonardodrs.com/products-and-services/t-100-integrated-training-system/t-100-embedded-training-program/ and Boeing's https://www.boeing.com/defense/t-x/index.page?gclid=Cj0KCQiA2snUBRDfARIsAIGfpqHQLQAOEossg9gCAIfC9o6Tg40ukrUC1CBZjiXD5aahfqXskHHzJ7MaAhVjEALw_wcB#/video-player/boeing-t-x-real-as-it-gets-training

True but that is a fact not a reason that AFSOC could/should acquire a jet for this requirement. Interesting, is this requirement and a subsequent requests for proposals separate from these previous RFI/RFPs? https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b1732e28ed804b5d1cc5c2c7315a92f2&tab=core&_cview=1 https://www.fbo.gov/index?print_preview=1&s=opportunity&mode=form&id=b30065477e7b9159bb2687f2cc2a3667&tab=core&tabmode=list

Why is a prop a requirement?

Just posting links to sing the praises of the Scorpion Jet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLWlh5aZ8ks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdv_hqmemEs Brett Pierson explaining the concept and design of the jet, at the 1:15 mark (first video) he explains how the basic avionics and mission systems are completely separate allowing very easy modification, customization or update without affecting the basic systems that certify the aircraft as airworthy, genius... Again, I can't believe the AF is not selecting this aircraft for LAAR or at least further evaluation in LAE...

T-50A video If you have ADHD, go to 1:00 and the BVR A2A virtual engagement training scenario and 1:50 A2G scenario.

Relight on thread... For armchair generals and strategists... https://russiamil.wordpress.com/2018/01/24/russian-air-force-procurement-plans-2/ From the article: Overall, Russian aircraft procurement has followed the path of buying more of what Russian defense industry is good at producing, rather than basing procurement on a programmatic assessment of Russian defense needs. In addition, the MOD has to some extent succumbed to pressure to support defense industry and will be procuring aircraft such as the MiG-35 that it is not particularly excited about. As a result, the air force will be faced with a proliferation of combat aircraft types, with the attendant higher maintenance and training costs. In the meantime, the long-term weakness in transport aviation will persist, limiting the improvements in military mobility that have been one of the core aspects of military reform efforts over the last decade. Thought that statement was interesting and seems political/industry concerns trump their services own determined requirements, same as it is here to some degree.. One more for discussion... https://warisboring.com/russias-stealth-fighter-deployment-in-syria-is-a-dangerous-farce/ Deploying the not-ready for prime time Su-57? For potential customers or valid operational reasons? Methinks the former

Just to grasp at straws but is there anyway that AFSOC could define it's own requirement (separate and different than ACC's) to have a process not so biased? Any appetite for that?

Too smart not complicated enough

Light a candle but why only the AT-6B and A-29 in the second round of LAE? To plagiarize @ClearedHot "Scorpion crushes the other offerings" and that is not to say the others are not without merit but the difference in capability is too great to pretend they are similar aircraft. But if it is to be between the AT-6B or A-29 let's just cut to the chase and get the AT-6B. Not resignation as the AT-6B is a good buy but just impatience at wanting to see LAAR finally get here.

Quite a large head of pressure with moisture following the repeated gusts

Ditto. I don't know if this generation of AF "leaders" / other public officials (very last boomers / oldest Gen X'ers) desperately trying to seem cool realizes that Millenials can smell their cheesy lame attempts at "connection" a mile away. My oldest is amongst those oh so ironic sensing cohort and I may be naive but I have her respect by not attempting to be just like them, you know young kids, but I act like an adult, reasonably mature and not ham handily trying to emulate their idioms, mannerisms, humor or fads. Unsurprisingly, I am treated well by her and her friends because more than anything people respect honesty. This goes not just for AF leadership but other public officials: people (especially young people and those serving in a defined hierarchy) want to respect the person in charge more than they want to identify with them on a personal level. You can't respect someone that is not genuine and honest, you may not like someone but if they can have your respect and loyalty if they are honest, capable and moral. Give them reasons to respect you rather than reasons to like you.

Agreed but the MX and sustainment cost of the B-2 is prohibitive given the small production run and consequently low parts availability from premature truncation of the program. Didn't realize the B-21 had a lower range unrefuelled than the B-2, that's UNSAT. If anything, give the next bomber greater range to keep from telegraphing its ingress when it ARs pre-strike and push the tankers further back from the beginning of the A2AD area

Yes Wiki on Stop Loss: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-loss_policy US Code DoD policy is based on: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/12305

Yup, that sounds about what the machine is likely to deliver in lieu of procurement. The Borg collective is just incapable of admitting a mistake, that they should have bought a LAAR around the 2005-06 timeframe when it was obvious we were in for a long slog in two different theaters with no air/air threat and for fixed wing a mostly low threat environment. Yet here we are.