Clark Griswold

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.

No worries and nothing taken.

Valid assessment that the risk taken / change was not a window shaking sonic boom but it was at least something, even a small token. Not to get too into the weeds with you on the intricacies of the Global Chicken but it is always on autopilot, just a matter of whether it is on the flight plan or being directed by the pilot. The takeoff and landing itself is directed by the pilot, nothing is exactly automatic. Having been a badass Global Chicken driver and flown several manned aircraft, the GH would be an ideal fit for a WO program IMO, particularly the rebirth of one in the AF. Just a sidebar point. I am not sure it will take dead Airmen to prove the need for change, there is that sense now we can't pretend everything is fine. It is just like everything else in our huge Byzantine and risk averse government, it takes too long to get done and it never gets completely finished. As to NM and the subject of this thread, no doubt but as I hail from a Southern state and we send the same jokers back term after term to develop seniority so they can bring home the bacon, I can't blame them for it. They have an industry, bilking the federal government. They're good at it. Do what you're good at.

Possible but I have some hope - while I am not in agreement with the policy of enlisted RPA pilots (would rather seen and E to WO program) but the fact they did something different, even if it is small scale and possibly fleeting, is a sign there is still some of the wild blue yonder left in the overly corprotized, overly risk averse, modern day AF...

The typical shields used by feckless "leaders" Be bold AF, rollout an aggressive strategy to stop the exodus of 11Fs and grow their ranks. Fighter Pilot Recovery Plan (F-16/15 centric): - Surge the ARC, recapitalize MX and training, and prioritize where you use 11Fs, every staff / non-operational billet that doesn't actually need an 11F that is manned by one is just another straw on the camel's back, scrutinize every one and even if you can only get rid of 50 or so that is 10% of the 500 or so 11F deficit you need to fix True, this will likely be a 3+ year bill to pay by the AF to fix the loss of experience and quantity in the 11F community

Can't deny that problem

Legit critiques, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul but I think I could pay Paul back with interest in this case if the program (a 3+ FY ARC IP, MX and MEO personnel surge) runs for at least 3 FYs, grows more IPs first and then in years 2 and beyond to train the newly minted 11Fs from IFF Make it the objective to not only solve the AC 11F shortfall but to grow in your RC the 11F IP cadre, as the program ran, specifically in the first year or so, focus on growing you IP cadre by training first new IPs, the AC and RC F-16 pilots ready to IP qual and in year two and beyond then focus on the FNGs to getting them their B qual (terminology check - is the the first qual for an 11F when hey go thru their FTU?) It will likely cost 100+ million to move the 40 jets and 800 folks from Hill to Holloman, that is about 640 man years of MPA depending on the O to E ratio. Spend about that on an activation (partial unit) of two F-16 wings with the units not inside of 3 years for their AEF rotation. 3 years, two sites, surged training and MX. Sugar it with a bonus and the ARC will have multiple units volunteering. Just a thought.

No - I'll throw my ignorance of that fact right up front as I believed (incorrectly) that Luke was the only FTU for the Viper. My comment was on the idea of transferring the Hill 16s and personnel to what was billed as "interim" squadrons - sounds permanent likely and unnecessary as there are many other 16 bases that could stand up for a temporary surge training, with an IP program pulling from the ARC and leveraging the resources there or from there. Hill for instance where the planes and people are already based

2 I had to say that which is painfully obvious to a Demo-drone who could not grasp the fact that money doesn't actually grow on trees. Every health insurance policy that is government supplied or subsidized is a wealth transference device to some degree, I am not even saying that as a pejorative but just as a simple fact that libs can't / won't admit. If that fact could come honestly into the public conversation (or what's left of it in the civic society wasteland) the other fact, that people who make less money will not have the same approximate lifestyle as someone who makes much more money, this even includes healthcare, regardless if it pisses libs off or not. If you make 30k per year you won't have the same healthcare as someone who makes 300k per year, if we try to totally even out society in this area (and others) because we are uncomfortable with disparities in lifestyle, we'll wreck the place. Ref: USSR, Venezuela, NK, Cuba, etc...

What's really driving this? There's a lot of room at Hill and the airspace/ranges are a plenty (UTTR) and are they moving all the other things you need for an FTU (sims, academics, etc.) or is it a split plan with studs going to Luke first then to Holloman for flight training? Why not just stand up a training program at a Guard / Reserve base(s) for 3 years, surge production as required and not do something that will likely make the 11F problem even worse by probably encouraging the 7-day opt? A spasmodic flinch when a strategic punch was needed...

Not me, I know that flying a 4 engine swing wing 475k+ GW bomber with an adhoc targeting pod added to it that will need to be air refueled at least once during a mission and probably costing around 60k+ per flight hour is the real way to deliver air power in a permissive environment where air to mud effects are sometimes called for but ISR is in really in demand. It's nuts to use an inexpensive turboprop that can do both of those missions at probably less than 3% of the cost per mission.

Logic and reason supported by data to argue for a LAAR therefore this will be ignored... https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logistical-fratricide-the-cost-of-fast-jet-tacair-measured-in-purple-hearts/

Another fire, B model inflight. Pilot landed safely but plane was a Class A. https://www.businessinsider.com/marine-f-35-fighter-fire-2016-11

Yup https://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/russian-drone-threat-army-seeks-ukraine-lessons/ Counter UAS has got to go to the front of the line for development

Not a bad point. A new tactical / highly mobile / low logistics AAA system: Smaller than a Patriot and air deliverable from a 17. System contained in one vehicle. 15NM+ or so WEZ for its missile and a DE weapon with a 5NM+ WEZ. Basing those ranges as what would keep a MiG or RPA from shooting a Maverick or Hellfire equivalent weapon. Shoot on the go capable, not necessarily as good as stationary but at least capable. No missiles or radar on this CGI but a good approximation. Laser may be on GCVs fairly soon: https://futurism.com/laser-mounted-combat-vehicles-are-set-to-roll-out-in-2017/ Not to be too Machiavellian but we have good laboratories in Syria / Iraq / Ukraine (thru proxies) to begin testing these future out of the container ideas as the battlefields there are hybrid warfare (asymmetric tactics and belligerents mixed with some conventional forces and capabilities), these type of systems need to be rapidly fielded just to see if they work in operational conditions and are worth the effort.

Interesting article. https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/offsetting-air-superiority-with-air-force-special-operations/ Not 100% on board but does beg the question (as a sidebar) whether or not we should develop / acquire new smaller SAM systems, good example being the Israeli SPYDER SAM system: or resurrect the SLAAMRAM?

Code 3 https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/02/u-s-kc-10-aerial-refueler-loses-refueling-boom-that-falls-in-a-hay-field/ No one hurt thankfully.

Good article on what a theoretical A-X could / should be: https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/its-not-about-the-airplane-envisioning-the-a-x2/ It didn't get far in development but the MD 226 concept would be a good place to start from

Probably the later 80's I saw him at a mid-sized airshow in the SE USA.

Time to leave Incirlik? https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/10/get-ready-walk-away-incirlik/132585/ My suggestion for a new location...