Clark Griswold

Decent chance of that but I am all for wasting money on science projects rather letting it get it spent on some non-mission related bullshit, screw new office furniture and flat screens piled up all over the bases, let's see what we can figure out... Another article quoting the same conversation from this year's AFA on a stealth tanker or tactical tanker: https://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-could-pursue-stealthy-penetrating-kc-z-tanker?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Military EBB 9-21-16&utm_term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief It's probably about 690 times more practical (not necessarily less expensive) to add humpback conformal fuel tanks to the 5th gen fighters we have now and probably not screw up their LO profile like the ones on the Advanced Capability Super Hornet but... Rather than build an LO tanker for the capability of LO AR maybe the goal should be a tanker that could operate towards the end or just inside of the WEZ of a long range SAM with high probability of survival if we actually think we will need that capability... from the article: A KC-Z will likely need to accompany fighter jets and other assets into anti-access, area-denial battlespaces, which means it could incorporate low-observable features. Everhart said he had challenged industry to create a “cloaking device” that would disguise the aircraft’s radar signature and make the tanker appear like a much smaller object. I'm not thinking a cloaking device but a robust set of EW pods on the tanker(s) and data links with other tankers and players to work together to degrade an enemy's EM sensors along possibly with wingman UAVs that could provide more tempting false targets / jamming in the vicinity of the AR track and moving with AR formation as required for ingress, on-station and egress. MALD has an open source endurance listed as 45 minutes, for AR protection it might need to be more than that but if you could put 3 on added hard points on a KC-46 you could conceivably protect a modest AR on station time.

Unfortunately true Just my cynical opinion but leadership uses certain unloved children as bargaining chips Still sucks and not in the good way Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have them but I have no idea if they maintain them (booms & the smooth operators) - the extent of my research is NIPR based and open source. France is getting the the ARBS for theirs but the RAF is not as of yet. https://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/france-announces-order-for-airbus-a330-mrtt-air-to-air-refuelling-aircraft/ From the second article: In French service the A330 MRTT will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, be equipped with a combination of the Airbus Refuelling Boom System and underwing hose- and-drogue refuelling pods, and can be configured in a variety of layouts carrying up to 271 passengers as well as medevac arrangements including the French MORPHEE intensive care module carrying up to ten patients as well as 88 passengers.

Just using the rules as they are written for maximum benefit - basically 4 hours of duty equals one pay day so you can legally make 2 days pay for 8 hours duty. Technicians can also work a day for pay as a GS then do an IDT (Inactive Duty Training) to get one day of pay by the Military system. Hate the game not the player. Yup - the more podunk the location of the Guard / Reserve unit the harder to attract / retain TRs. If the AF was really interested in fixing this problem (RPA locations and the enterprise in general) they'd put new Active Association units or convert Reserve units in airline domiciles or in major cities distributed across the time zones to attract TRs with airline or civilian jobs based there for an easier unit to attract / retain TRs. Station AD there for the continuity with an appropriate cadre of AGRs and Techs, let the TRs come in to maintain and fly the line as desired or needed. TRs get Guard / Reserve unit located with their domicile or in an easy to commute to location via CASS privileges. Active Duty RPA get better locations that Clovistan or Creechnam and the spread across time zones improves QOL. Anderson (domicile for United), Hickam, McChord, Beale (close enough to SFO), Nellis, Peterson, Robins (close enough to ATL), Hansom - that's an easy and quick march West to East across that have AD bases. Again AF, this is not that hard to figure out. Shoe clerks. Good locations across time zones - GA companion aircraft program - Good follow on assignments for volunteers to the RPA - Commissioning opportunities for qualified applicants for a modest ADSC / RPA service AF, please see the comment above..

Yup - would be an easy unit to support. Close to an airline hub, high density of military facilities for mutual support and desirable location - all things the AF would not compute. Consider it strategically, how do I get people to volunteer / not feel too bitter about driving a droid? Desirable locations, distribution across time zones, reasonable GA flying program for professional aviator development, base of choice or MDS crossflow for volunteers for 4 year assignments. This is not that hard AF.

Wiki says 560 at altitude, seems reasonable. The Wiki on the T-X program also said NG was originally going with the BAE Hawk (with NG as the prime contractor and partnering with BAE Systems) but after wind tunnel testing went with a clean sheet design as the Hawk didn't fare as well and they were concerned with affordability. No elaboration on the fear of costs creeping up as the T-45 program would likely offer some economy of scale savings but whatever.

Germany may be coming around... https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/germany-embraces-realpolitik-once-more/

WTF? I guess it's one fight two teams and screw putting a critical capability in one of my most important force multiplying / enabling assets... you'll just have to carry the burden yourself but come to my rescue immediately if I need it... The Italians have already bought 4 KC-767s (not full up KC-46s) and I think that it is not a bridge too far to expect them to buy a few more (8-12) for expanded boom capable AR... looking at you Germany, Great Britain... the French have 14 boom equipped tankers, get with the program... of course this is for starters... The full court press on them has to be cutting our permanent basing there in half to prove to them that we are serious about them self-actualizing and having their own capabilities.

Book on the subject (related subject really) - a reboot of NATO to version 2.0 https://www.amazon.com/NATO-2-0-Reboot-Sarwar-Kashmeri/dp/1597976644 and an article from the Wilson Center https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/nato-20 I had heard there was some buyer's remorse on the Typhoon and I knew it was lacking in some capes but I thought they had fixed that with the LITENING pod and planned upgrade to CAPTOR-E radar (e-scan AESA), all that with the currently fielded PIRATE IRST, seemed like a potent 4+ gen fighter, not so much i gather... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/ Well... shit... a 1970's swing wing multi-role fighter strike aircraft (albeit highly upgraded) had to help the Typhoon? That is a freakin' taco for basic capability. On tanker capability, I don't know of any NATO defined requirements for it as a total force but putting the Europeans feet to the fire and developing a requirement has got to happen, unless we want to commit to more KC-46s and ideally a KC-777 - actual numbers are not for this forum - but defining a requirement that they have to meet us half-way, that is they have to provide at least part of the tanker bridge if things go loud in Europe and they need the US to deploy in force there. Thinking sustain 4-5 AR orbits offset the NAT tracks at some point (probably just West of Iceland) for X number of 4 ships / or a T-tailer needing a plug. We have to require them to attain some greater basic expeditionary capabilities and expand their basic doctrinal requirements. They may exist on paper but there's not enough on the ramp or armory to actually meet them.

NG proposal sighted at Mohave in taxi tests. https://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-t-x-breaks-cover-mojave and an article listing pros and cons of all the prospective entrants, written before the Boeing T-X was reveled but enjoy... https://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has-edge-us-air-force-t-x-trainer-competition#slide-8-field_images-1494601 What was your take on it as an advanced trainer?

Copy that - too bad they didn't or couldn't afford to build that into the T-X. Too much common sense and 10 years is kinda quick, 15 maybe if we can get it coord'd in TMT. Follow on: BAE Hawk AJT website. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hawk The Hawk AJT with a small-medium sized buy of Hawk 200's for a Light Fighter / ADAIR would not be a terrible COA.

Another close up. Haven't heard it mentioned as a requirement or idea for the T-X program but has it been discussed (informally) to have an "Adversary Model" or options/features baked in for that training mission?

Nah - let's get a Russian mail order ride Fwd swept wing trainer SR 10 https://theaviationist.com/2016/01/02/new-russian-fsw-trainer-makes-first-flight/

Baby Superhornet. Still a good looking jet.

Copy that. The Navy may get into the mix soon with the TERN concept UAV. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-12-28 https://aviationweek.com/blog/darpas-new-tern-predator-frigate Googled it and found the US Army Roadmap 2010-2035 - no mention of MCE operations and trying a few other terms related to that (BLOS, split operations, etc...) turned up nada. Scanning it, I think they envision this forward deployed mostly, as an organic part of whatever size force it is supporting or really a part of. https://www.rucker.army.mil/usaace/uas/US Army UAS RoadMap 2010 2035.pdf

You are correct sir. The article I referenced with the 60 was the step down from 65 the SECDEF ordered to get the FIRE light in the T-handle to go out. Found another article with the former CSAF quoted on the subject: That will include a decision by the Pentagon to increase department-wide caps to 90 per day. Defense contractors would fly 10 caps a day using government-owned RPAs and would focus only on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. The rest of the flights would be provided by the Army, though Welsh said he did not know the timetable for that service’s increase. https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/07/rpa-flights-increase-70-day-training-and-bases-grow-too-welsh-says/81454190/ So the AF has 60, Contractors 10 leaving USA with picking up the other 20 or are the USN & USMC getting into the Tier II (USAF definition) RPA business also for CAPs in OIR or wherever?

60 https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/589196/air-force-moves-to-bring-about-rpa-mission-relief.aspx Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/air-force-selects-finalists-for-new-rpa-base From the article: The service has been looking to expand operations of the MQ-9 Reaper outside of the current base, Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. The first four finalists are: Eglin AFB, Florida; Tyndall AFB, Florida; Vandenberg AFB, California; and Shaw AFB, South Carolina If selected, one of those bases would hold a full Reaper wing, with launch, recovery, mission control, maintenance, and operations support elements, with an expected fleet of 24 MQ-9s. The Air Force is also looking at five bases to host mission control operations, though no RPAs would physically be located on the base. Those finalists are: Davis-Monthan AFB, Arizona; Moody AFB, Georgia; Mountain Home AFB, Idaho; Offutt AFB, Nebraska; and Shaw AFB, South Carolina.

Good Lord... 90 CAPs? https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/07/rpa-flights-increase-70-day-training-and-bases-grow-too-welsh-says/81454190/ After reading that I was reminded of a quote from "Under Siege" - cheesy movie yes but appropriate: "...we're puppets in the same sick game. We serve the same master, and he's a lunatic and he's ungrateful. But there's nothing we can do about it."

Yup - very interesting indeed. Another favorite of the Herc variants out there is the JC-130 recovering CORONA canisters and Fulton recovery system volunteers Pick up happens at 1:50. Follow on: I see clips from the Air Force of previous years from when we didn't stress out and weren't ruled by yes men who avoid risk because flying airplanes and doing the mission is secondary to MICT, TMT, etc... I can't imagine the AF of today being able to even conceive of doing cool shit like this. We're going to catch in mid-air space canisters and balloons floating cables to pull dudes off the ground / water and winch them into the plane, no sweat. I think the ORM score for this is about 69,000,000 which may require waiver.

Got to give a pound of flesh sometimes to the AF... ABQ isn't bad and if the AF has a giant boner to keep the RPA enterprise basically HQ'd in the SW of America for remote training areas then Kirtland is not a bad place for it: town is adequate, snow skiing in the winter, decent scenery... don't live there but have passed thru a few times for business and this seems like something the AF could be persuaded to supporting... Vegas... maybe but as an FTU location that would probably go over like a fart in church with the shoe clerks for all the distractions possible. Don't get me wrong, if Clark Griswold was allowed to decide this arbitrarily I'd reward those RPA folk with an awesome location for an FTU / spiritual HQ as a consolation prize since a lot of them were non-vols.

Hopefully so. I am just repressing memories of mid-shifts and would do anything (including spending millions as a taxpayers) to avoid them. Just a suggestion for basing RPAs to maintain AD CAPs: Anderson, Hickam, Elmendorf, Vandenberg, Beale, Nellis, Creech & Cannon (unfortunately too much invested), Kirtland, Tinker, Columbus, MacDill, Robins, Langley, Puerto Rico (Ramey AFB)

"I see" said the blind man. Thanks. Maybe that is better from the resourcing infrastructure cost but I would still argue for a mostly distributed strategy. Span the time zones and try if you can not only for QOL but to seed the base for Congressional support / friends to the RPA enterprise (if it is ever needed). There's the Operational strategy of not being concentrated and vulnerable with all eggs in one basket, the HR strategy of offering many basing options for QOL (homesteading for example) to encourage retention in the career field and the Political strategy of more congressional districts / senators having a base with an RPA operation there - all politics is local; it may cost a bit more but ultimately it is not always a cost minimization problem.