Clark Griswold

Copy - did you fly the Super T or still do? Asked as I took a closer look at your account image (Super T initial cadre) Concur with AT-6B, avionics are more advanced (up to MIL STD 1760) and while built in .50 cals would be cool, I doubt they would be worth it vs. another platform that can employ the more advanced PGMs in the inventory. Not sure if this link has been posted but it is a pretty good side by side comparison of Wolverine vs. Super T: https://rhk111smilitaryandarmspage.wordpress.com/2014/01/17/the-a-29b-super-tucano-versus-the-at-6b-texan-ii/ I think the quoted price of AT-6B at 14 mil a copy is a bit low but it is cheaper than the Super T, better avionics, and some performance advantages. Plan to finally get this plane (about 14 years late but better than never...): - Pick the AT-6B at the end of Phase II of LAE in August - Plan on buying 175 for the AF and get the USN/USMC to buy 50-75. Half AD, Half ARC, FTU is a joint venture at a Guard unit with political pull to get the Guard friendly elements of the MIC to help push the rope. - Distribute the squadrons to retain some of the MQ-9 crew force by offering dual qual opportunities or homesteading, this would also be done in conjunction with an honest effort to improve QoL for RPA folks. More & better base choices across several time zones. 11s & 18s could fly pilot / cso respectively and for enlisted sensors, make a CCAF degree and a commander's recommendation enough for an OTS program with a designated follow on and flying opportunity in the cso station. - Before we lose all good will towards us, get some of the Allies that join us on foreign adventures to buy a LAAR also, up to them on which. But establish that when the West goes to fight long wars in the Arc of Instability, we are going to do it somewhat efficiently and not wear out the fast jets doing NTISR. Just buy it AF....

That is some serious capes wish list, not saying it is a bridge too far but is that really necessary in one platform? Or could these MUXs be one common platform but have variants to specialize to keep from getting into the trap of it has to do every mission awesomely and likely command an awesome price tag. Returning to the AF Light Attack subject, second phase of the "experiment" is underway... https://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1514033/second-phase-of-light-attack-experiment-underway/ Just pick one... and then actually buy it. Informal survey - which would you buy for the Big Blue? AT-6B or A-29. Unfortunately Scorpion is not an option nor any other design (L-159 ALCA, OV-10X, etc...) and it is one of those two (not that they are bad choices) but that is all there is.

L-159 trying to get into OA-X / LAAR consideration: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/aero-vodochody-and-iai-pitch-revamped-l-159-for-oa-x-449391/ Has better endurance than I thought (quoted at 2+40 but likely only with clean wings) with the improved version (L-159 vs. L-39) via a new wet wing, ref here. Still way way short of a Scorpion Jet but another aircraft to consider, then not buy... Buy a jet powered OA-X / LAAR capable of some A-A threat or target simulation (cruise missile, slow flying enemy RPA, etc..) as an additional mission and train crew force to provide some Red Air for fighter units, profit. No doubt that it would not be as robust as a dedicated aggressor aircraft / crew but something is better than nothing. You get more missions out of platform you need to buy anyway and instead of min running the OA-X acquisition (if it happens) you get the jet bringing much higher levels of performance (speed, range, altitude) to its primary mission set...

Not on AD so had not heard that, sad. All the more reason to reach back to our past and continue to develop well rounded aviators in tried and true ways, particularly those that spend a lot of time on autopilot, yours truly included. ACE was before my time but a good idea as relayed by the Lt Cols to me when a new Lt... continue developing airmanship and heaven forbid morale... Keep it real, no ejection seats and a prop but a Diamond DART 450 would be affordable and supportable... https://www.flyingmag.com/diamond-aircraft-dart-450-prototype-takes-first-flight

Fair enough and rather than starting another round of Heavy v Fighter version 69,000 I will agree some T-1 trained could do it, some couldn't (sts) , I would just add that it would be the majority of T-1 guys and not the minority could rise to the challenge.... Sidebar, SUPT should end and the USAF return to UPT, coming up on 19 years in Big Blue and flying over 17, it (SUPT) is having a pernicious effect of creating and us vs them culture, I feel like it is always there and it just screws things up. Two cents paid.

Heavy drivers (T-1 trained) are just that bad / untrainable to become a T-38 IP later (or anytime) in their careers?

Copy all and agreed that LAAR + light carrier ops would have a high pucker factor to it If there was a desire for a lighter attack / ISR platform that was carrier suitable, I don't think you could get that much lighter/smaller than around 13-15k lbs (common weight for WWII naval fighters) and for some of the desired capes like range / endurance, it would probably grow to about the size of something like a Westland Wyvern or A-1 Skyraider, both just about 25,000 lbs max takeoff weight would be more likely but I imagine those probably all depended on catapult assist for takeoffs for those gross weights for an LHD (no cats) would likely be a good bit lower... Still, a carrier suitable efficient modern medium weight attack/reconnaissance aircraft not requiring AR support for a decent vul time and/or range would be a useful capability for a MAGTF

Semper maybe... https://www.military.com/dodbuzz/2018/06/01/senators-want-100-million-new-marine-corps-light-attack-aircraft.html Doubt the USMC has even asked for this capability (didn't see it referenced in the article) but would it be reasonable / possible to operate an A-29 / AT-6B from an LHD with a 800+ foot flight deck? Modified for carrier suitability (upgrades airframe, gear, brakes, higher HP, better prop, etc...)

Per usual, VDH is on target... https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/

The fat is hardest to get rid of and muscle the hardest to build, true on the personal level and institutional.

Coming sooner rather than later unfortunately... https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/24/russia-quietly-conducted-the-worlds-longest-surface-to-air-missile-test.html?__source=twitter|main About that HVAA stand-off plan...

Another iteration of a similar design, fictional F-59 Saber II.

Yeah, but that was definitely an improvement. Nowhere to go but up but still...

If the X-32 had a chance to grow up... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20971/this-is-what-a-boeing-f-32-wouldve-looked-like-if-lockheed-lost-the-jsf-competition

Well said and the article you linked should be mandatory reading and discussion for Congress Referencing @BashiChuni point, it has gotten out of control. If one of the current crop of retired GOs not tainted by scandal / having left under a cloud or perhaps Mattis could articulate a well crafted call to a reserved humbleness for the Joint Team and vets while asking the public to direct their energies to helping the most needy vets / members vice those of us just going about our daily business, the legitimate goodwill could be more positively directed. I like discounts just as much as the next vet but if I would like it more if a business said show a military ID and we'll donate a dollar to a military themed charity.

Interesting article on the Su-57 https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/20434/no-the-su-57-isnt-junk-six-features-we-like-on-russias-new-fighter

Copy but I mean a heavy attack vice light attack. A-X / A-X2 vs OA-X https://breakingdefense.com/2016/07/a-10-then-a-11-and-a-12-air-force-ponders-cas-future/ From the article: "But the other aircraft, the A-X2, would be designed to fly in the face of higher-tech opposition in the form of surface-to-air missiles and other opposition, but not the high-end threats known as Anti-Access/Area Denial systems. (A2/AD would be the purview of the F-35 and other fifth-generation aircraft). The Scorpion could be considered for this. The Marines, who are writing the Close Air Support doctrine for the F-35, have praised its CAS performance so far. That said, the plane won’t have its most advanced weapons for CAS, such as the Small Diameter Bomb II, until the Block 4 software." Even as a Scorpion proponent, not sure if it is designed or could be survivable in a theatre with an SA-22 type threat but that's another matter. Still think it (Scorp) was the right one for OA-X but I digress... Not sure if there is money or interest in the USAF for an A-X / A-X2 but an Attack platform with a reduced signature / balance survivability (Boeing terms but captures my point) and is capable of reasonable self-escort / defense with long range for deep strike or loiter over a ground engagement with mud to air / air to air threats possible (Syria, Yemen, etc...) is what is needed to fill multiple gaps in our strategy hold small, mobile, fleeting targets at risk operating in grey zone theaters, well defended targets at risk via stand off weapons delivered inside of their defensive WEZs and traditional force on force targets as part of a joint force. Basically an A-12 Avenger...

Requirements still being determined for A-X it seems https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-firming-a-x-requirements-for-a-10-warthog-alt-423999/ How this gets money with all the other big acquisitions currently going on or planned is the 64 billion dollar question

From back in the day... LABS, Low Altitude Bombing System, demo video with a B-47

Copy, I wouldn't stop at 5+ or 5.5 (upgrading or developing) but try to develop simultaneously with 6, this is of course happening with all the other acquisitions so that's no big deal, not at all... /s. Now with other people's money... there is a possibility... Not wishing, suggesting and not holding my breath either. All of this (asking for access to US technology and being told no) should lead the financially, technologically and industrially capable Allied nations to come together to burden share & develop jointly but we all know how that works. Still, variety is the spice of life and seeing some other 5th Gens out there is a risk I hope they (Japanese, Indians, Euros, Israelis, etc...) consider taking...

Not sure and quick Google-Fu pass revealed nothing up front to that question but I would imagine that the USG holds the right to license production / export of technology. We (USG) were the sole customer and likely will be the Sun around which they orbit from now until forever, if it really started to happen they would get with the program. Question for the forum and @brabus specifically, if 6 gen is the new hotness and the operational environment is changing to an extent that 5th Gen is the baseline and to dominate we will need to be above that, wouldn't an incremental change / progress be better / less risky / viable than trying to leap to the next generation? Not sure where I heard this but a commentator was speaking about the two different acquisition philosophies of the AF and Navy and it seems the Navy's Incremental Improvement Strategy vs. the AF's Aggressive Improvement Strategy, in the long run is more successful (USN strategy), as an 11F do you think that or think the leap to the next level is better? Big picture for airpower not just to the capabilities of the particular airframe/system. Nothing passive-aggressive in that question but looking back at the end result of efforts to leap to the next technological generation in some of the AF's big acquisition programs of the last 25 years, we got some great planes but way less of them than we wanted and for way more than we planned to spend in development / procurement in both time & money. For 5 to 6 generation, it seems an interim stop at "5.5" with an enhanced F-22 or new F-23 is expensive yes but less risk. Googling it and like 5th Gen, there's not a definitive list of attributes but from what I discern, 6th Gen means: - more range - no vertical tails - a DE weapon (or ability to have one) - further signature reduction (particularly IR) - control of unmanned wingmen A tailless FB-22 seems with an update to existing subsystems / features should meet these

Valid point(s). If the Japanese are willing to slide 40 billion bucks across the table to make this happen, let's not get in their way. Assuming they would buy in volume (replacing their 15 & 4 fleet with 22s). My argument for the 23 is that it attracts a different constituency to argue for it versus Lockmart, while it may seem counter-intuitive from Lockmart's perspective a Raptor restart is more detrimental to their effort to get the way bigger job underway, 35 development/delivery. It would also light a fire under them to get the cost down and quicker if there was a real 5th gen alternative to the 35.

It's probably a bridge way too far (YF-23 restart/test/development and eventually F-23 production under a Japanese partnership) but apart from continuing to pile all the chips on the F-35 bet, the West / Allies have to start something new for an LO alternative to the F-35. Not bashing the 35 but competition keeps the animals nimble and quick, monopoly not so much. No argument on requirement creep (test or operational) bogging down the whole effort but in my estimation the Japanese want the F-22 for mainly air superiority, is it possible to state in the requirements air superiority initially with the ability to be expanded later to air to mud, electronic attack, etc...? The software will be built to accept updates without having to re-engineer the basic software engine, the physical platform designed with X % of space / weight / electrical generation / environmental control / etc... reserved for additions... a modular design as opposed to an integrated design. Methinks this would cut the development time and lower initial risk for development.

Not a bad outside of the container idea but as the author states the F-35 mafia is strong and the MIC is not interested in Raptor restart to compete with F-35 procurement so go take an alternate route and let Japan buy the YF-23 design and test data and develop a Japanese Black Widow. We've offered to other allies planes (copyright and design) for ones we didn't buy (ref F-20 offered to India & Taiwan), offer the YF-23 with a partnership in development with NG and spruce up our fighter industrial base by getting work and recent design/production experience so Lockmart and Big B aren't the only games in town.