Clark Griswold

Can't argue they are wanting. Thank you sir may I have another! Yeah, they are not to referenced in a 3-1 or besides my spurious post but they stir the pot for a discussion on a "4++" vs 5th gen. From his musings, I thought there was one point worthy of discussion, can a 4th gen that is likely one of the best of its class, can it maximize its best qualities (energy potential, combat load, radar/IRST) to overcome an LO opponent?

Trying to get three more partners on the 35 team... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-australia-lockheed-idUSKBN16A0DW And from the internet so caveat emptor, some F-35 vs. Su-35 analysis... https://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/usa-f-35-jsf-vs-russian-su-35s.html https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-vs-russias-su-35-who-wins-13855 Two Youtube videos on a hypothetical 4 v 4, defending and attacking setups with Flankers vs Lightings: Part 1 Part 2

Copy all. Since we're having an exchange between the crew and single seat communities I don't want to leave the impression that in the multi-place world that we are incapable or don't occasionally fly for some periods of time with duties normally distributed between the pilots all done by the PF (physio breaks, controlled cockpit rest, mission requirements in some crew aircraft will pull the right seater away for other mission tasks, etc...). Usually the split of flight duties, challenge and response checklists, confirmations, etc... is not because the PF is tasked saturated with just flying of the jet but to enhance SA, communicate to the crew (flight deck and back end if applicable) and utilize all the resources available. It keeps the PNF from getting out of synch with the PF and ready to take the jet, if required. Just one herbivore's take on how we do business...

You have altitude hold in single seaters also, you don't use it when you have to multi-task?

They talked about it but never pursued it, can't meet the sustained turn requirements they want in T-X for BFM instruction. They added 4 degrees of sweep to the wing and and all moving horizontal stab for better high speed control. I thought they had it right with the first aircraft and it's Hershey Bar wing but they modified based on testing inputs so be it. It's still not going to catch an airliner unless it is OEI but a supersonic BVR missile fired from it will catch almost anything.

True, but selling the AIM-120C model should not be a stretch or the Israeli Derby BVR missile. The case for the fixed wing is made for the capabilities (speed, range, endurance, altitude, payload and self-defense) matched with much lower operational costs. Particularly when you have a large geographical area to patrol and secure like the PI, Columbia, Nigeria, etc...

True but it is probably what they could truly afford. Now if we want to just give them second hand 16s then that changes the equation but this idea is that Country X is paying for everything themselves. I was thinking something similar also, County X with limited resources for defense uses a Patriot battery for their first ring of air defense with Super Scorpions forming a second echelon that fires and retrogrades to preserve the asset and the aircrew lives.

Possibly but my comment was mainly meant for FMS customers like the PI's, Columbia, etc... For the cost of one F/A-50 at $30 mil, you could get a hypothetical Super Scorpion at $25 mil (WAG) and 6 AIM-120C + 2 AIM-9X for Air Defense and 20 SDB + 10 AGM-114 + 10 APKWS for Precision Strike. You'd have about 800k left over for training, spare parts, etc... That's just simple math but you get the point, a less expensive platform that still has enough capability to deliver advanced weapons is a more viable COA than blowing all your money in a few fighters that you have no money to arm, train or maintain properly.

It would be tough - read impossible - for Scorp to intercept anything but a recip or turboprop but that's not its bread and butter. This hypothetical capability would be as a second echelon or compliment to a true fighter. Real fighters cost too much to buy and operate, they carry prestige but often can't be procured in relevant numbers or the fleet is not nearly as available as needed due to MX costs. This is the case for a lot of our budget conscious partners. Providing them an option that lets have some A2A capability but gives them a lot of ISR and Light Strike can fill a niche the F-5 used to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool - no offense taken and good points made. As a T-1 grad looking from the outside at the potential change to SUPT, just send everyone thru T-X and at some point in the Phase 3 syllabus make the split between Fighter rec'd and everybody else with the syllabus diverging at that point. Good for the Aviation Community as it encourages common culture and gives everyone a chance up to some point to shine and get to earn a single seat fighter.

By air defense, how do you mean? Air Defense as a fighter capable of BFM - no way. Air Defense as a missile platform for BVR missiles then defending or egressing, maybe if you wanted to invest that kind of money into this platform for this new/added capability. For the US, it could be useful but would likely substantially increase the cost and likely doom the project for us but you could use it to entice a FMS customer. Take a potential customer like the PI, they have a basic Air Defense needs but large FID needs with various insurgencies, TNCO, etc... Have a "super" Scorpion model that has that capability to deliver ISR & kinetic effects inexpensively and with a suitable radar like a Raytheon RACR, to shoot AMRAAMs then egress bravely to avoid a shot from an encroaching J-15. The platform is not a fighter but a missile platform, a slow moving interceptor really. How effective would it be, don't know. But if you are a resource short AF needing some capability to defend against air to air threats and a lot of capability to deliver ISR and light/precision strike, this could be a novel way of doing it.

Excellent - going in with that square filled is the best COA.

Fair enough. I will quibble on your historical analogy though, that was when it was "universal" UPT and all were tracking 38s with their order of merit and Fighter, Bomber, Recce recommendation determining who could go where then. Everyone was a 38 student then so the assignment of non-fighters was not remarkable but routine. I didn't imply and I don't think that T-1s have "dibs" on certain assignments, however, the expectation is that the T-1s will be the primary source for those assignments, I saw some guys who were competitive for 38s choose T-1s, not me just to keep it real, but as Fuzz, said not everyone in T-1s is a unsuccessful T-38 track applicant. Flying T-1s doesn't close doors, its a privilege. I wanted to fly something with an afterburner but that didn't work out, so be it. But getting to fly heavy jets is not a consolation prize. Not sure if you were intending to shit on heavy flying or not but it comes across that way. That's not butt hurt talking ether, just not going to be condescended to. I'm done ranting, no animosity either. How was WWI started? One guy shooting another guy was the little match to light the big fire. Kindling was already in place though...

Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical. SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice. They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.

Guard dude confirming his advice - get it done prior to going to the dark side. 0.0% chance of promotion to Major without it. Since you're almost done with USMC PME course, you'll save yourself the loss of IQ points by doing AF SOS.

A bit older article but a good comparison between the A-29 and AT-6: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/light-attack-aircraft-the-super-tucano-the-at-6-and-the-blue-kool-aid/ Taking CSAF's comments from the recent speech and if we really want this we have to strike when the iron is hot, either of these two plus the Scorpion Jet are the lowest risk, ready to fly options. Or could we go with what is behind Curtain 3? A split buy of Scorpions and A-29s? I say A-29s as their is already a training unit established and that is what Allies / Partners are seeming to choose, it is operationally proven and lower risk. Buy 125 Scorpions and establish an FTU to entice potential FMS customers (India for example) and give confidence in purchasing the jet, learning the lesson of the F-20 failure to launch. Buy 25 A-29s and continue the training mission at Moody AFB. Enough USAF capability to support one FOL and encourages participation with the USAF for BPC. Scorps at Seymour, Duke, Maxwell (training with Ft. Benning) Kirtland, Nellis. Look for 5-7 ARC units to change MWS or set up AA units at their locations. A-29s at Moody and Ft Campbell.

Too logical - separate quals with widely separated bases, no crossflow - maximize the self imposed problems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's in the zeitgeist now. McCain wants 300, that seems a bit high but an order of 100 to 150 seems about right. Now the question to answer is where / how will you crew this aircraft as quickly as you can procure it? Would the pilot need to be an IFF grad or could those relevant syllabus portions (surface attack for example) just be taught in Initial Qual? Just guessing that the delivery of unguided or direct fire munitions is not really how this platform will be employed most of the time so would that really need to be a pre-FTU requirement? Honest question. The Afghan A-29 syllabus (I assume) rolls everything into one syllabus, repeat the same method with a USAF LAAR program (IMO) CSOs - qualify in the same class or separate from the pilots?

I wish I could refute that but it pretty much sums it up.

Not terrible spots, not the best but definitely on the better end of the spectrum. At these locations, you could get long term instructors (civilian, AD mil or Reserve mil) as the locales are nice enough (IMO) and they fit the other requirements (mostly).

Not the easiest question to answer, it should have: - Multiple runways or numerous satellite airfields. - Low civilian air traffic for MOAs & Low-Levels - WX conditions generally providing good VFR and mild winter conditions - A desirable location for retention and volunteers for extended tours. - Close proximity to a major airline domicile for a strong Reserve participation My opinion would be to open up Robins for UPT, a LONG shot would be to put a training wing at Beale. I'm actually not really for civilian instructors on the flight line but not adamantly opposed to it in some phases/sections. Agreed on a Merchant Aviation Academy, do you see it from zero time to ATP or from PPL to the higher certificates? My only reservation is that it would change the culture of the AF, having all pilots graduate from a military course does build some culture, camaraderie, etc..

Valid points. Just throwing it against the wall to see what sticks, apparently not much. The real solution is two fold: Make UPT Instruction a more desirable assignment by putting UPT in decent locations with additional career opportunities offered for extended tours. Higher educational opportunities, homesteading, professional development, etc... if you put some decent carrots out there, the Line will respond. If you continue to put shit sandwiches on the plate, they'll respond again but with their feet. Use the pilots you already have trained more in your Guard / Reserve force. The AF spends over 5 billion a year in training, I am not sure what X percentage of that is UPT but probably a good chunk. Train fewer pilots but offer more work to your already trained crew force. This is more complicated than my simple one sentence answer but the cost in terms of time and money to make new trained / qualified pilots is more than to use the ones already trained. Doing the same thing day after day in a cold, sunless, sterile Borg cube flying a computer to the same virtual places to see the same screw ups with just a different name doing it, that would never wear down a man's soul to a hard edge curmudgeon... never...

Historical item for the topic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Army_Air_Forces_Contract_Flying_School_Airfields Beyond IFS and sims I don't see Big Blue going for this but is this another place in flight operations where a WO program would make sense? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you are ok with this AI FO not being full proof in the event it has to take the jet and execute a flight plan deviation, arrival to a likely CAT II or III full auto approach, land and autobrake? That is a holy shit what? I think I know what you are implying, that this is an emergency and everyone will just get out of the way and let the AI driven jet land and that this will be a rare occurrence, but what if it is not? The overall effect of these deviations to the flow of traffic in the NAS, especially if these AI diverting jets land at a Class B and shutting down a runway for at least an hour would be huge pain in the ass. Just because they are capable does not mean they should be. I bet a senior med school student could pull off simple surgeries unsupervised and would do it for a shit load less than a real doc, does not mean that they should either.

In your example you're combining a "deadman" switch with a branching logic system like the RQ-4 has. From experience directing the GH, there are some strengths but more weakness than are easily explained here - not trying to be condescending but when you look at all the X factors out there, you quickly go down a rabbit hole of "if thens" that become problematic at best. It is not that this is impossible but it is not worth it. The amount of money to be saved to actually reduce cost to the customer is minimal and if you want to reduce safety / operational capability to give some VP a bigger bonus - F that. Let's say you mass deploy this system and multiple aircraft have these AI directed deviations : In the same airspace, who has priority? Who assigns that? How will the AI handle see and avoid, WX avoidance, cascading faults or multiple contingencies? What about software issues (upgrades, bugs, sabotage)? Just an anecdote from the internet but I saw a 100+ million GH saved by a human operator many moons ago when he (not me) commanded a landing when HAL wanted to go around - what HAL didn't know was he was having a computer stroke and the MCs were about to shit the bed. The human had the SA not the machine. I understand that almost all airline flight in on autopilot on the FMS and routine and uneventful - we pay for the capability to deal with the unlikely but potentially catastrophic. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk