Clark Griswold

Just to join the chorus trying to keep you from jumping off the cliff or going into the dark room to check out a strange noise... Don't do it.

Remember what you learned in 7th grade English, take the road less traveled... Sounds like a great opportunity, congrats on the choice.

Iranian commander mocks Saudi offer to intervene in Syria I'm sure the KSA will brush this off.

Ghost in the machine. short version https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/02/f-35s-terrifying-bug-list/125638/?oref=d-channelriver long version https://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2015/pdf/dod/2015f35jsf.pdf LM made a pitch to the Indian Navy (article didn't specify B or C model) for the Indian Indigenous Aircraft Carrier project (old article but grist for the mill) https://www.indiastrategic.in/topstories462.htm

Yup, Antonov has gotten a few sales but after that slight and on-going falling out with Russia, they need some more customers to keep the doors open. On the trend to go to two engines, as with everything follow the money, cheaper to buy, operate & maintain two rather than four. Had An-178 been available when the JCA selection was being made, I think it would have been a serious contender, assuming Antonov could get an American partner.

Retired Aussie Wing Commander making a case for F-22s https://warisboring.com/articles/chris-mills-wants-america-to-export-raptors/

We can't even get out propaganda right Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TSP & ERI are fine and I don't think we should try to roll it all up or cut it in back in 2 years but putting their feet to the fire, especially Germany, to build larger modernized forces with an appropriate expeditionary capability is long overdue. They won't do this until they have to, WWII has been over for 70+ years and Germany is not the same country by any measure, nor Italy or any of the other less discussed Axis nations of Europe. NATO should primarily be a European affair with an insurance policy of American END, limited ballistic missile defense, and conventional support / some deterrence when necessary. Russian shenanigans being a good example of when to show the flag but overall a country with the 4th largest GDP (Germany) and spending only 1.1 % on defense by national GDP given their neighborhood, relying on a superpower 1,700 NM away to keep the neighborhood bully at bay is not a wise long term plan given our financial woes, political constipation, and stated desire to pivot to Asia and get the hell out of the ME. The Europeans have some pretty good capabilities, two nuclear armed members and others that punch above their weights but the natural leader of Europe, just an observation and my opinion, needs to step up and not be wracked by guilt but not forget its past misdeeds and provide the nucleus to build a stronger European military around. Pulling out halfway (sts) will help start this.

Smart people have warned us about this before, Gen Shinseki got shit canned by those damn geniuses who told us we could do Iraq on the cheap, quick and easy.

Valid point - as Charlie Wilson said : These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame. COIN and post-conflict stabilization is a bitch but for what we believe, we can't and should not leave chaos in our wake. Whatever the right percentage of assets for COIN / Permissive environments in long term operations, I'm for it. We've done ok with the expansion of the RPA capability (not the long-term strategy to manage the career field) but looking at the other aspects of airpower to support the Joint fight, affordably and with a smaller footprint in theater, we've need to do WAY better. I think you are right to be concerned about intervention without thought but we're already seeing that, the reluctance to intervene in Syria, with conventional boots on the ground. Given that Afghanistan / Iraq is like an albatross around our neck, no POTUS is going to get into another long term COIN / Nation Building operations if they can at all help it. On a related topic and just my idea, to afford more new toys, & spur our allies to build their own capacities: Cut our European footprint in half (or more). Except for the need for Logistical Hubs and a few MOBs so that we could surge there if needed to support NATO, or have MOBs for support to CENTCOM or AFRICOM. We cut the 30k personnel in half and the bases with them, just a WAG but you are probably talking 12+ billion dollars a year, there's the money for more high end assets or better yet build a force that can far more affordably prosecute long term operations in COIN like environments (Scorpion Jets, C-27s, etc...)

Yep - I posted in another thread I think the Syria one, a picture of the evac of the American embassy as Saigon fell, that haunts America and Presidents to this day, rightly so. The conflicts we're in are as LBJ said about Vietnam - "I'm a hitchhiker in a hail storm, I can't run and I can't make it stop." Ultimately we are going to just have to call it good at some point, declare our objectives met, announce a redeployment and just leave. We did it in Somalia when we saw you can't fix somethings because what you see as broken is just the way things are there. The problem our decision makers, policy wonks and talking heads can't grasp is these are not conflicts per se, conflict is part of what we are involved in, it is actually historical movements. That is the break down of nations that never existed until external powers made / willed them against cultural / geographic factors & strife between ethnic groups that fight each other because they fight each other because they fight each other... Our military is built, as is everybody else's military is, to fight a definable enemy and his machines, not to fix dysfunctional cultures and the anti-social behaviors they cause. We can use our military to win battles and address these conflicts but ultimately it will not win them, not that it can't affect things more to our interests but we can't bomb the crazy out of them. On the subject of the F-22, saw this article: https://aviationweek.com/blog/so-what-took-f-22-target-photo Google had no open source on a targeting pod for the Raptor and assuming it still has no targeting pod it made me think that if we really want to make it "F/A" then designing a conformal multi-mission pod like the one being offered for the F-35 might give the 22 more capes: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/farnborough-terma-displays-f-35-multimission-pod-374017/ Getting an integrated EOTS into a Raptor is probably a bridge too far but an LO conformal pod with a recessed EO/IR sensor and laser along with other goodies, might be worth the money.

Yep - there's often more than a binary choice than full on 250k boots on the ground, 3 carriers on staton and 15 wings deployed and doing nothing. I'm not 100% sure the COA we are currently executing (Precision Strike, Persistent ISR supporting limited SOF kinetic and Conventional Partner Capacity Building) is going to bring the results we want but for now it is enough. At best it will bring results we can tolerate. Total inaction is just not an option given who would take more action in our absence.

Valid point, but we have to have the capability for the high end fight, I don't think to the level we structure our forces now but keeping xxx % in high end capes unlikely to be used but necessary for deterrence and if the SHTF, to win the fight. There's no reason we should have to spend 500k+ per PGM delivered to a target in a permissive air environment, buy the right systems in numbers to make mowing the grass economical but never doubt shit does happen sometimes. Look at 1982 when Argentina invaded the Falklands, 1990 when Iraq invaded Kuwait, etc... or any other smaller unconventional conflicts that could have escalated further, you get a patron backing a rouge nation, like Russia, and suddenly you find you might need capes you thought you wouldn't in certain AORs, the deployment of Russian S-400s / S-30s in Western Syria being a prime example. They probably won't target or threaten us but what if they do and tell us not to fly in x airspace or else? We have to be able to tell them to pound sand and we'll do what we want, where we want, when we want and that's that. Not advocating warmongering or being a global a-hole but be able to follow thru and let that be common knowledge around the world. Look at the Iranians and their new toys, S-300s from Mother Russia. https://rusi.org/publication/rusi-defence-systems/why-iranian-purchase-s-300-should-worry-gulf-states When the Falklands were invaded, PM Thatcher was meeting with her cabinet, one of them said "if we do nothing, we will wake up in another kind of country." Meaning if people know they can push you around either by you not wanting to fight or not able to fight, they will push you around. Do you think Iran would wait 6.9 seconds if they thought they could close the air / sea in choke points like the Strait of Hormuz if they knew the US could not or would not operate there if we didn't have the capes to prove them wrong?

Good article on the Tomcat 21 concept: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/top-gun-day-special-the-super-tomcat-that-was-never-bu-1575814142 From the article and few others on the subject, the idea of one type fleet carried the day vs. multiple airframes, can't say that doesn't have some merit to it from the big picture management perspective and limited resources. Too bad, it would have been a sexy beast... F-22 replacement, 6th gen planning is beginning... https://breakingdefense.com/2015/01/kendall-unveils-sixth-gen-fighter-project-for-2016/

Because after the A-12 disaster nobody in the Navy wanted to try and fight to get a multi billion dollar fighter program through their own brass much less congress. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Makes sense - forgot the A-12 debacle Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sea Raptor https://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-230209-1.html Since we're discussing things that will never happen but question for the forum, why didn't the idea of a carrier variant for the F-22 ever come about? Looking at the history and seeing the programs at the time (ATF, NATF, etc..) why didn't the USN want to get a naval variant of the larger twin engine 5th gen fighter already in development, i.e the USAF has already paid for a lot of the development, rather than go with a single engine aircraft yet to be developed? The oracle of Google had no ready answer to this question, anyone know any backstory to this?

Yup - Planned Obsolescence is not what we should build into them but at the IOC / FOC of a new MDS, the planned service life and replacement should be discussed, they are now but those replacement dates just keeping get shifted to the right. Instead of waiting for a major accident to happen, having to figure out SLEPs, or other band aid programs, do what you tell Airmen every Friday night, have a plan. Flying a jet for 20-25 years is enough; it keeps the fleet healthy, the industrial base viable and fielded systems relevant.

Rollout. https://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/01/28/japan-first-stealth-fighter-unveiled-x2-sdg-orig.cnn https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/everything-we-know-about-the-x-2-the-future-of-japanes-1755710322

Good point(s). On F-22 related news, I guess what the 22 could face that would be a more capable threat, the PAK-FA got a new lease on life as India and Russia hugged it out and came to an agreement on cost sharing and capabilities required: https://warisboring.com/articles/russia-pulls-its-stealth-fighter-back-from-the-brink/

I'm arguing for (with -0.01% probability of happening) another 5th gen with more weapons capacity than the F-35. The FB-22 in this hypothetical would fill the role imagined for the B-1R concept. The 5th gen platforms we have now (or will when the 35A is FOC) are excellent except they need to be able to cue more weapons than they can carry as it is likely they'll be swarmed by 4th gen fighters or likely have to attack multiple times a double digit SAM site as it will have its own point defense systems, a Strike Raptor able to carry 12 or more AIM-120s or 30 SDBs / X JSOWs could be the part of that first night package to clear a path thru an IADS and not require a dedicated escort. Bringing on another 5th gen would be the ton of bricks that breaks the camel's back so the 35 will have to do, which it seems likely as of late, it has been quietly successful. If you were willing to give up certain capes or divest quickly whole fleets to fund this maybe but like you said if better decisions had been made this might have been possible, as they weren't it is not. If I had to choose something to jettison to pay for this, it would not be the Hog, if you're reading this ACC... probably not.

You may be right on the An-70 but Antonov is not giving up on the Western Market and competing in 100k payload range, with it's proposed An-188. https://www.janes.com/article/52287/paris-air-show-2015-antonov-reveals-an-188-strategic-transport-aircraft Too bad, the propfans would have been good tech to further develop. It's interesting, with a couple of exceptions, a lot of the new tac airlifter proposals (Y-20, UAC-TA, KC-390, etc..) are going to turbofans and swept wings (not too swept) forgoing the basic STOL design of straight wings with turboprops. I am guessing they have slats to augment flaps for STOL performance, maybe not down to 3500' at max GW high and hot but still shorter field capable and the trade for higher cruise TAS and service ceiling is worth it for them.

No doubt we would be building Raptor 2.0 with an FB variant but it should be pitched as the compliment to the existing Raptors, you get an LO strike platform and missile truck with the FB instead of relying on a 4th gen to go into the WEZ as the 5th gens press forward.

Maybe but competition my spur them: An-178, KC-390 and if you go up in capacity to An-70, might give LM reason to further improve the mighty Herc. An-178 has already secured some orders, Saudis notably,

Valid.