Clark Griswold

Agreed but he is not above weakening, distracting, disorienting, intimidating, influencing in ways that border on aggression in several ways. Breaking up the EU to further divide and conquer is probably the long term strategy. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-europe-idUSKBN14R0G8?il=0 All great powers meddle with lesser powers and to some extent push or probe other great powers but his tactics and goals cross lines we (usually) don't. Good article on whether or not NATO serves our or their purpose of collective defense: https://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/02/03/obama-wants-u-s-to-spend-more-on-europes-defense-europeans-should-pay-instead/#1b726effb949 There's good place to put assets that could come home from Europe:

True but I think that is starting to wear thin, Merkel is still the Chancellor so they are not there yet to assert sovereignty / control immigration, but getting close. On your anecdote, they (average Germans) must not view or value engagement (military) outside of Germany as a priority or their responsibility... A Quora thread on the subject with several posters stating they are from Germany and their responses: https://www.quora.com/How-can-Germany-spend-so-little-on-defense-thus-rely-on-the-United-States-and-NATO-treaties-for-defending-them From the thread: Bernhard Støcker, Native German and "Kölsche Jung" Written Jul 30, 2014 why should we spend more? our army is able to handle its tasks. germany is not interested in participating in any war, so the money spent to military only needs to cover the nessecity to self-defence. and since germany is in regards to engineering one of the leading countries, we are able to use very good technologies making it unessential to have a bigger army. we like to spend our money on important things like free education and social protection. something that is maybe also a good idea in the US, doesn't it? Guy could be just a troll / poser but from the perspective of the average German, when America is willing to do the dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, expensive missions around the world to keep the current international order / stability / deterrence / etc... why do they need to do anything? Follow on: If we don't want to leave NATO just restate our relationship that we'll come to help if the territorial sovereignty of the members is violated/increase deterrence presence if necessary/etc... then how much foot print do we really need there?

Feasibility with a President Trump of a call-out on the free riders? Somewhere between good and really good. Looking at you Germany... Implications of Associate Membership for the US to the Alliance? Could be not that bad but it depends if they step up to the plate and take a leadership role. Looking at you Germany... NATO should be lead by one of the strongest (economically) members with the most to loose from a meddling, aggressive Russia. Looking at you Germany... Cato think tank option piece on the subject: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/should-us-leave-nato From the article: Retired Gen. Robert Scales, commandant of the Army War College, recently complained that: “At 30,000, there are fewer American soldiers protecting Western Europe, a piece of the planet that produces 46 percent of global GDP, than there are cops in New York City.” But why can’t an area that accounts for almost half of the world’s production (an overstatement, but never mind) and has a larger population than America provide its own soldiers for defense? Why can’t an area of such economic prowess, which has around eight times the GDP and three times the population of its only possible antagonist, Russia, deploy an armed force capable of deterring any threats? We're going to have to kick them out of the nest or in the ass to get them (Germany and company) to self-actualize and basically double to triple their capabilities. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Europeans are not on the rapid build up with: Russia overtly and covertly taking territory, aiding rebels and conducting hybrid warfare in Ukraine, getting aggressive in the skies over the Baltic Sea, refugees poring in from a war torn area not that far away and numerous terrorist attacks in their own nations. Don't forget too that in about 5-10 years, Iran will be at least a nuclear weapons capable state with a ballistic missile capability and your principle defense strategy is a to rely on a country 1800 miles across an ocean that just elected a rather eccentric leader shall we say... I would buy my own gun(s) if I lived in their neighborhood rather than relying on my friend across town.

Scorpion in the Mach Loop

Copy that - not a bad place to host an FTU. A-29s seem to be the choice of most for LAARs, would not be a bad choice for us either. Good points. I think that is the rub, will it actually put out the fire or can the fire be put out, bigger question than whether or not a partner / ally should get airplane x or y. Can this conflict be won militarily with what we are willing to spend / commit to our ally? On the subject of short term costs vs. long term investment, I'll play Devil's Advocate and ask is that long term investment, in this case the manpower, satellites, fuel, etc.. to get to the HVI shot getting us closer to victory / acceptable outcome? Is this a tactic that is worth the cost?

Question for you CH referencing your comment on Building Partner Capacity, do you think some of our current partners/allies can handle what we would likely help them buy? A-29s, AT-6, Scorpion Jets, etc... Do we need to build/design a LAAR for them that we would probably find not meeting our requirements for Light Attack / ISR but for them meets their requirements / abilities? Are they going to spend the money to train & maintain that equipment and skill set? Are they going to buy the PGMs as they are not cheap per copy? Not asking for any specifics (philosophical question really) but to you and the contributors on this thread, are or should we encourage these partner nations to deliver airpower in this mission as we do or should we look for something less capable but more affordable/easier to sustain & employ? I doubt that these militaries will be / are as concerned about CDE / ROE, do they need the same precision strike capability with high end ISR?

But speedy employment is not typically a problem in the typical mission of a LAAR, IMO. The challenge first is to develop comprehensive SA: players (ground/air), effects called for, locations, frequencies, timeline (on station time, etc.)... The JTAC / GFC could be calling for fires immediately but usually not in these missions, even arriving overhead with a TIC in progress, a single seat is not going in first thing guns blazing.

New year, same problem... https://www.breitbart.com/texas/2016/12/31/breaking-cartel-gunmen-fire-border-patrol-agent-arizona/ Build the walls, fences, security systems, expand CBP/ICE, deploy the Guard (Army/Air) permanently to secure the large open areas not physically blocked. If it takes a lot of money, so be it, if it keeps a POS like this guy out: https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/mexican-man-charged-rape-19-deportations-removals-44472938 It's worth it.

Ditto - just buy a 777-200LR and fly to wherever the hell you want. Geared turbofans, better wings/winglets, composite materials, etc.. probably make this a moot point but it is interesting and could be another military technology that makes it's way to the civilian world.

It does seem not worth the while (Civil AR with a large aircraft as a tanker) but what if instead of another transport category manned aircraft to act as the feeder (tanker) you used a UAV to deliver the fuel at one or more AR points, continuing on to your destination... Instead of this MQ-25 getting gas, it could be pumping gas up to receiver to extend flight, enable very high speed cruise, etc... of course it would need be a way bigger RPA but that is just a matter of scaling it up. Could be a multi-benefit project for some countries developing aerospace capabilities: RPA delivered AR, new AR systems readily adaptable to existing transport category civilian aircraft, operational/logistical experience with long range RPA ops, etc... That is a bit of problem to solve finding there but for China, India, even Russia this could be a capability to develop to garner respect, demonstrate capabilities and potentially win new customers for civil/military aviation systems...

A bit dated but if we had listened to RAND in 2010 we would have a force for these marathon conflicts https://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/04/05/af-needs-coin-plane-rand/ We need it to deliver air power without breaking the bank, develop our allies and steer them to airplanes they can afford and not fly the 4/5 gen fighters into the boneyard prematurely Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Found the RECREATE website: https://www.cruiser-feeder.eu Enjoy About 99.69% sure this is not necessary but interesting to see how someone else would approach doing AR Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This might be what actually brings the F-35 Joint Strike Money Black Hole to heel... https://warisboring.com/the-official-f-35-price-tags-are-bogus-99d67799e2ac#.viq3ct932 From the article: I suspect Trump can recognize when he is being scammed. In this case, the Pentagon is telling him American taxpayers can get F-35s for only two to four times what they originally advertised. It would be pretty much impossible to cancel the project now, not to mention Congress would never actually do that due to the well distributed nature of the sub-contracts but could/would a Trump administration punish the DoD, Congress and LM by proposing offsets to cover the growth of the F-35's cost? The USAF has to loose an MWS and/or X bases, the USN looses two carriers, etc... not rooting for this but as a taxpayer and semi-responsible citizen, someone/something has to be held to account for this.

Two place cockpit is a must for most potential foreign sales and IMO a plus. Not sure if they offer or have even designed a single seat variant, doubt it. Other branches of the military and most foreign buyers want a second crew position, give the customer what they want. On the single or dual seat argument with COIN aircraft, historically and currently, COIN aircraft had and have two seats as the workload from operational experience has demanded it. It has been mentioned in these forums before and I will steal the thunder from another member that we sometimes confuse manned ISR with CAS, I'll extend that idea that this mission I call LASO (Light Attack Surveillance Observation) is not CAS, where fires are delivered more readily than in the LASO mission. In the LASO mission because the fires are harder to deliver effectively, it lends itself to a multi crew platform. The fires or effects are not likely to be delivered against a readily found/unambiguous target; they require time, effort and coordination to action them. Two or more crew members managing sensor(s), multiple frequencies/playmates and potentially a long loiter over a target area with likely changing GFC priorities can do this efficiently and reliably, so can a single seat platform but usually only as a two-ship, so really it is not a one man job. The US has previously operated COIN aircraft and they usually had two seats, the OV-10 & OV-1, both true COIN aircraft (low cost, technically simple, light kinetic capable, observation focused, etc..). Almost all the other coin aircraft actually flown or dreamed up had two seats for the reason that fires in COIN / Irregular Warfare are not necessarily easily delivered and the operations tend to need two craniums, divvying up the chaos, developing SA and then delivering whatever air to mud effects are needed.

More on this idea... RECREATE was originally investigating nuclear powered continuously flying aircraft taking on modules in flight, gave up on it after realizing no one would ever let an operating nuclear reactor fly over their country, started looking at doing AR as it is done now, tanker on top receiver on the bottom, sts just to cover that. But decided a tanker on the bottom pushing fuel up to the receiver was logistically easier and safer, less receiver training requirements and safety was enhanced, put sexual innuendo comment here: __________________. Proposed routes with AR orbits for long range commercial aircraft: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/nuclear-powered-planes-could-see-passengers-5474910 https://airnation.net/hangar/threads/aviation-week-air-to-air-refueling-for-commercial-air-travel.18228/ Receiver on top AR CGI... From the last article linked: But as a near-term option, aerial refueling showed promise. Here the “cruisers” are 250-seat aircraft designed for 2,500-3,000-nm range. Optimizing the aircraft for a 5,000-nm flight with one refueling, by resizing the wing, reduced fuel weight just over 20%. Two refuels and the savings approached 25%.The “feeders” are purpose-designed tankers with refueling booms, able to offload 35,000 lb. of fuel over three contacts per 4-hr. mission. “Three refuels per tanker looks sensible, based on aircraft size and the load on their bases,” says Tomas Martensson, senior scientist at Swedish defense research agency FOI. 3 contacts to offload 35K total? Again, doesn't seem financially / logistically worth it...

They (advocates for this) seemed to be looking for a problem to solve, the closest I read in their proposals to a legitimate problem/reason was to have large long range aircraft operate out of shorter, less congested airfields having lower GW via low fuel loads to allow operation out of these fields and picking up their gas for their long range flights after departure. Still just seems easier to just land or get a bigger jet / better wing & motors. For long range, speed and short(er) field capability, the 757, IMO fills the bill, plus it was/is just beautiful. Too bad Boeing didn't think there was a case for making a MAX version of it. Sexy beast...

Yup, AR is easy and great when everything works and everything happens as planned, and that happens almost never. Not saying every AR mission was a life and death struggle but there was always some hiccup or change to deal with. If the AR gets slipped by 15 mins, that's (in my hypothetical 15K per hour comm tanker) another $3750 charged to the customer or absorbed by the tanker company, that could be the profit for the whole mission. Also, what happens when you delay/flex for one customer but have a contract to deliver to another and they now conflict with each other? Lots of moving parts to deal with. The military does AR because it has too, don't really see the Commercial Aviation enterprise needing to do this, but hey give it a try they might make it work. Boeing or Airbus equipment would probably be too expensive for this but Ukraine with it's An-112KC could probably deliver this hypothetical commercial tanker: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/an112kc-100710063555-phpapp02-100714232617-phpapp02/95/an112kc-100710063555phpapp02-9-728.jpg?cb=1279150020 They would likely be around 30% or more less expensive (not saying better but cheaper) and have a cargo mission capable aircraft to maximize potential revenue on each mission.

I'm skeptical this will happen or if there is really a need but there is a good bit of research going into this... https://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161220-the-aerial-tankers-that-helped-shrink-the-globe https://www.google.com/patents/US20030136874 https://www.range-unlimited.com/ https://theconversation.com/in-flight-refuelling-for-airliners-will-see-non-stop-services-shrink-the-globe-39931 Reading this and thinking about my own time flying the mighty 135, the only way I could see this happening and being profitable/logistically sensible is if you could synchronize the tankers and receivers by a reciprocative schedule/flight plan or rendezvous . If the receiver was scheduled to a destination that allowed for a convenient AR for the tanker which was also flying another revenue producing mission (they have intersecting or parallel flight plans) then maybe but putting a tanker up just to extend the range of 2 or 3 airliners doesn't seem commercially viable with relatively cheap Jet A and transport category aircraft getting more fuel efficient. Just guessing that a commercial tanker would cost about 15K per hour and would have logistical costs at it's MOB of about 2k per mission and WAGing an average 3 hour mission comes to 47k. Round up to 50k for just under 10% in unforeseen costs and that is a considerable bill for airlines to foot. Also, didn't see anything in the articles about what happens when things go wrong (tanker breaks, receiver can't take gas, WX sucks in the track, air traffic congestion interference). Not sure they are considering the entirety of the whole effort to pass gas in the sky. Still, an interesting idea, here's the linked sims flown by the RECREATE project to try this out in the Matrix before taking it live...

I'll raise you

You never know... Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

First flight in production configuration for Scorpion Jet https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2016/12/first-production-conforming-scorpion-jet-completes-successful-first-flight New administration with a pro military agenda, make a play for a new MDS AF...

Distinct similarities but what was interesting was the message I inferred was the Army shifting from COIN, not going back to a conventional focus but high end next generation focused conflict. As the WOR article mentioned: "The Army isn’t going to act as an anti-access enabler unless it is providing logistical support and communications or bothers to deploy its point defense systems to defend US air and naval facilities against cruise missile attack." This has to be realized by Army leadership and if they are truly serious about this concept, then would this drive the need for organic mobility, they apparently have confidence in tilt-rotor technology (Valor 280) and I am surprised that a large tilt rotor mobility platform hasn't been at least proposed to get the Army directly to the fight: Not sure if this is really necessary, direct air land delivery via tilt rotor but if the Army wants to lead the way they will have to get close to roll in...

Thread relight. Read this today: https://warontherocks.com/2016/12/no-end-in-sight-to-the-armys-dependence-on-airpower/ Thought it was a pretty good read and the AF is not going anywhere but the most interesting take away was the Army's new concept, Multi-Domain Battle. Summary: Army enables entry into contested AORs for Air/Naval forces thru long range precision fires and small ground force elements to take advantage of fleeting moments where they have the advantage, go static and defensive until the next moment of advantage comes up and advance, repeat until the enemy is cooked thoroughly. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/under-enemy-skies-armys-multi-domain-battle/ https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/miserable-disobedient-victorious-gen-milleys-future-us-soldier/ Not really buying that at all, also not buying that it will only be one service kicking down a robust A2/AD brick wall and knocking a peer foe on his ass. Grist for the mill but interesting.

Erotic Carp calendar... your welcome. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2327321/the-erotic-carp-calendar-you-never-knew-you-needed-is-here-in-time-for-christmas/

Godspeed sir.