Clark Griswold

More on F-15XXX... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter From the article: "Still, next to nothing is known about this initiative, including where it came from and what it entails exactly. Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago." Very interesting that this is not the Boeing Good Idea Fairy trying to coax the AF into something but the AF making an inquiry.

New capabilities for the U-2: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22469/usaf-plans-to-test-a-system-called-symphony-inside-an-irascible-pod-on-a-u-2-spy-plane

Yeah they leave a lot to be desired compared to other carrier based jets (max weight at carrier launch) but it’s just the point that a land aircraft design if rugged enough can be made carrier suitable. The Sea Gripen is probably not a bridge too far due to original design for STOL & dispersed basing. What kills them (MiG and Su) in naval ops is the lack of a catapult system.

Yup, I think Boyd would have loved it and adapting a land design to naval is not crazy, ref. MiG-29 and Su-27 to MiG-29K and Su-33 and the yet to be built Sea Gripen... Not a Marine Aviator but I've always thought the Sea Gripen would be a good steed for an amphibious military force with a doctrinal slant towards expeditionary, austere ops with limited logistical support... Operate from the boat then establish the land base, roads as a runway are acceptable... VSTOL gives you that but comes with such a cost in performance and dollars that IMHO, a STOBAR / STOL would effectively achieve at a fraction of the cost and way less risk.

Understand the critique but the physics / logistics of operating off the boat necessitate size / performance expectations (sts)... Sea Eagle stuff: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-sea-eagle-how-americas-f-15-fighter-almost-became-18051 https://tacairnet.com/2015/04/15/f-15n-sea-eagle/

Don’t follow - are you saying the Hornet/Super Hornet are useless?

Would have to be a recessed weapons pod like the Super Duper Hornet has...

An initial opinion on the RAF Tempest concept: https://hushkit.net/2018/07/19/project-tempest-6th-generation-combat-aircraft-assessed-by-former-british-technical-liaison/

Might be I suppose but if this was ever built it would likely have a pretty good IR signature due to small size with likely major increase in avionics/mission systems to add 4.5/5th gen capabilities (AESA radar, datalink, satcom, EW suite, integrated EO/IR sensor, sensor fusion, etc...). Now that comes with the assumption that if you remade a 3/4 gen design to incorporate LO or reduced signature you would necessarily incorporate all of those features, someone might just want a reduced signature capability to give them an advantage over regional rivals, not to go toe to toe with the USAF / USN

I know A particularly good vaporware airplane

Stealth A-4

Yup The French have an economy slightly smaller than the Brits and managed to build their own 4+ fighter for their AF / Naval Air to meet their requirements - just takes the will to go your own way and keep it real.

Brits wanna build an LO fighter.. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22190/the-u-k-s-new-tempest-stealth-fighter-project-already-faces-serious-challenges

Relight on thread. https://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-still-defending-europe-24957 and https://www.defensenews.com/flashpoints/2018/05/29/poland-offers-up-to-2-billion-for-a-permanent-us-military-presence/ Good articles and worth the read. NATO 2.0: Reduce our forward presence by half (at least). Redeploy from Germany to Poland. Do not expand NATO to new members. Walk away from existing alliance and be wiling to from new one with Central Europe if no reform is seen with 2 years of upcoming summit.

Saw that. Now they have enough data to decide whether or not to go to an OA-X evaluation because you know this is so new and cutting edge... Rope a dope continues

Very interesting interviews with former pilots of various aircraft, mostly military but some civil. Good technical details, training philosophy, there I was stories, background, etc... https://www.youtube.com/user/Aircrewinterview/videos?view=0&shelf_id=1&sort=dd Watched the F-111, F-14 and MiG-29 videos and worth the time.

Cool - if the Dems / Progressives want to show their sincerity (using your words as a proxy) then they should at the state level show the red states how to get 100% photo ID done along with other vote integrity assurance technology / procedures, then you guys win points in the national debate by removing this legitimate point of contention. Photo ID is only one part of a well defended, high integrity voting system. Include bio-metric/video recording of voters and compared to other voting facilities to prevent double dipping, no electronic tallying machines - physical ballots only, and a law enforcement presence (to include ICE) at all voting facilities to ensure no intimidation by any side and I as a conservative would have no problem with liberal ideas on increasing voter participation (same day registration, weekend voting, etc...).

Carrier Hangar Catapults... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/11821/the-crazy-aircraft-carrier-hangar-catapults-of-world-war-ii

Yup all while insisting on virtually no verification to participate in the political process, voting, or legal receipt of public benefit(s). You can't have a democratic republic if one side is trying to break, bend or encourage the disregard for laws and the rule of law. Trying to use inherent weaknesses in the open society to gain political advantage. I'll believe the Democrat line on immigration when they want strict, strong and tough voter ID and citizenship/legal resident verification for public benefits, until then just stopping them at anytime, anywhere from advancing their agenda of open borders and the destruction of the concept of citizenship is acceptable.

We may have a winner... Air Force Says It Might Have The Data It Needs From Its Light Attack Experiment After All Just buy it... and give it the Guard 🙂

I hear you and I make no illusions that my proffered idea is perfect and doesn't come without significant cost, assumptions that are likely only partly true and some difficulty to implement but IMHO it is a step in the right direction of trying to retain & retrain talent that has proved itself valuable in a related assignment and could be redirected for a related assignment. On synching it with the MQ-9 community... Will it be appropriate for all MQ-9 crew or squadrons? No. For some? Probably and probably enough to make it worth the effort. On enlisted SOs and the lack of vision the AF has had for tapping some on the shoulder that have demonstrated skill and ability... No disagreement this is a mistake the AF has fallen into and needs to be corrected, this is one program to do that. On the ability of new Pilots / CSOs to be given a light attack assignment right out of UPT / UCT... disagree if they do not min run the syllabus and train accordingly, there is no reason to think they could not handle the mission. The key is for the AF to look down on this as "just a light attack aircraft" and see it as equal to any other assignment and train accordingly. Lower need for Intel folks in Light Attack Squadrons? Copy, offer some retraining opportunities if they want to apply for rated slots, those that don't or can't, work with them. This is an issue, nobody should / would get screwed but it is addressable. This would be a multi year, multi-base, multi-billion dollar program and IMHO as important as any other MWS. The AF didn't get into the region of reverse command overnight and it won't get out of it either, building up the manned light attack mission community would likely take 3-5 years but it is better to get started now, again AF just buy one... I can't believe the AF, a military institution ostensibly led by fighter pilots is resistant to buying into this idea.

No I don't think so (using LAAR / OA-X to prosecute targets with some ground to air threats in that AOR), just depends on the type of threats and the capability of the platform-sensor-weapons combo to mitigate those threats to deliver its desired effects. Use modern capability to out-range the enemy, the platform out of the enemy's threat range and while putting him in your effective range all while delivering air power for less thru lower platform operating cost and lower operational support (AR) and logistical footprint, profit.... If you are reading this Big Blue, buy a LAAR: - It's what you should be flying in permissive and in some parts of semi-permissive (Syria) AORs, depending on how you read tea leaves it is probably 6 to 15 times cheaper than conventional systems being used. - It's acquisition cost is not that big a hurdle when you factor the fast payback rate due to much lower operational costs (direct operations and operational support), lower utilization on your 4th gen fleet to accomplish the same mission providing another operational saving and extended life of your 4th gen fleet to again save money in the out years of budget planning. - It will give you Pilot / CSO absorption & operational seasoning if you buy a nominal force, employ it and crew at a rate of 2.5 you have places to go for your new people. Buy 150 and crew at 2.5, that's 375 pilot and CSO slots that your efforts at increased aircrew production can send newbies to until they go on to their follow F-69 / other aircraft, the training cost is low due to the efficiency of the platform, it will initially provide qualified wingman to deploy into the fight(s) and in this humble internet nobody's opinion changes the vector of the AF ever so slightly back towards Mission Focus. Cycle dudes thru in 2-3 year assignments as the FTUs build additional capacity. - It will give you an option besides RPAs when logistical concerns may necessitate using a manned asset vs. unmanned. Sometimes it is just simpler to send two trained aircrew in an aircraft to do a mission vs. everything required to execute RPA ops. It is an affordable option to have in addition to RPAs not at the expense of the RPA mission. - If you buy a robust LAAR / LAAR program vs. min running it, you have the possibility of additional missions (ACE program, threat replication, MOOTW platform, etc...). Don't just get padlocked on solving one mission with this platform, think strategically, buy it to hack a mission and build morale / mission culture to retain valuable aircrew / airmen and potentially offer career options to increase operational capability not administration of the AF. Preaching into the ether but might as well, just buy it AF...

From the article ref here the AT-6B is quoted at 14 million and A-29 at 21 million, seems a bit low for the AT-6B and the article is dated from 2014 with references, some are wiki so if you want to cite it I would follow it up but those numbers of the mid teens to low 20's seem reasonable for the turboprops. Guessing at $1500 a flight hour with everything factored. Scorpion is often quoted at 20 million a copy but I suspect with some more features that a customer would want (AR capability, Air to Air capable radar, defensive suite, etc...) that price would climb. Just a WAG but 25 million a copy seems reasonable. Guessing at $3000 a flight hour with everything factored. But for a mission requiring no AR support for Vul time, it's still a bargain.

I know that feeling all too well You think you hate it now but wait till you fly it...