Lawman

You know... I hate myself for it a little, But "Shadow Fortress" sounds pretty damn cool. If not for a bomber than for the name of some Norwegian Metal band. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well done Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed IG and ICE. Both of those get civilian run departments full of check the box answer green/blue suiters off their ass in a hurry. Go ugly early to avoid the run around of "we can't make that decision/approval without..." complaints to IG or ICE get the person that is authorized to make that decision on the phone because it's not Airmen/Specialist Snuffy that has to just ignore the fire anymore. My personal rule is if the person in talking to has spent less time in the military than the number of stripes on their sleeve (IE anybody but an NCOIC or OIC) I'm going up the chain immediately to that person when I get anything but a "yes sir" to correcting problems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I wonder if you could do with the Hawk what the Navy did with the A-4s with the big hot rod motor. It wasn't after-burning, but it allowed that plane to be a perfectly good ACM training adversary. If possible that seems like it would make the Hawk the low risk option for a trainer since they already have a logistics system in place in the US. Won't help Boeing or Lockheed maintain market stock prices or constituency jobs though so that's probably out. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Completely on the ground of aesthetics.... They screwed up not locking the tails in a neutral position. Doesn't really mean anything to people familiar with aircraft but from a showmanship standpoint it dirties up that "going fast while standing still" look that a marketing department would be wanting to push. Sorta the same reason you park airplanes with missiles and cool stuff not just wing tanks hanging all over them at arms fairs. It appeals to subconscious elements in potential customers. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There's a reason we paint all our TH helos Orange and White. Even then it's still like talking to retards some days trying to get a guy to spot traffic.

That's some cool stuff right there. Kinda reminds me of the early mothership fighter concepts that were tried in the early days of the Cold War. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They'll die off in the first few weeks. Without a lot of gas saved for this exact reason you won't get out of the region of the US where you need water, food , and arguably AC available just to survive. What's left down there will consume it's self for survival. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree I just don't think we will have the capability or in a lot of ways the focus to operate as a National Military. I think what you are more likely to see is some sort of marriage of small units and regionally defined commands so that we function as more a modern version of the colonial militias of old. Something like a basic formation of regional government combined with a military functioning on the idea of a police/stability role. That's gonna eat all or most of the combat power leaving any kind of "North vs South" function woefully under supported. If anything something like this might be what leads to a reset of States Rights. Without an outside threat of say a China or Russia rolling in to conquer the fractured whole I doubt any regional group would want to spend precious resources to try and unify and support areas around the country. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hey I can tell you right now, I love my country.... But when the day comes where I've gotta pick between supporting a government I can't even see/didn't elect/etc while my kid(s) go hungry and my wife is sitting in the house day by day hoping this isn't the day some band of raiders/criminals pick my neighborhood to rape and pillage.... Sorry but I've got places and people that need me.

I think it would be a lot like exercises where they randomly kill key leaders to see you function.... Ok let's do that with logistics and communications too. My guess is it would lead to a reevaluation on what we are allowed to keep "on hand" since having stuff you have to pull forward to then meet your OR rate works great in peacetime. At the same time I think a lot of commanders would fail to take a good hard look at maintaining a sustaibable OR status and would push stuff out early in a furious "get after it" approach which would piss away combat power they are gonna need latter. Now the unit is on its ass, the situation is deteriorating, it's not clear who is giving orders, and Joe has not been paid or heard from his family (or has and it's bad). Cases of MREs are gone, trucks aren't in the motor pool, and the Armory is suddenly sans a lot of rifles and ammo.... "1SG we need an accountability of our people and equipment!.... 1SG?" It would be an interesting study to see that's for sure. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think a large part that is missed in this theorized scenario... How long before the Military command structure (like the civilian one) and more importantly the support structures completely fractures. Personally I see a lot of mass defections with government property going on in a real post major break up of the country. Especially if it has to do wi a mass attack/crises like some EMP knocking out the power or terror strike that beheads the government resulting in regional fracturing. People are gonna stop getting paid. Some may be doing this for God and country and all but a lot of troopers, airmen, etc are not going to go marching into work to fix he strategic problems when civil disorder abounds and they can't get money to buy diapers and groceries. I think you'll see stuff in the Armories that can be carried off by hand disappearing quick, and the bigger stuff breaking down fast and being left where it sits for lack of logistics. Essentially our military capability would look like a lot of our 3rd/2nd world partners who buy nice stuff but can't seem to keep it running.

Looked like a hull strike or a hit on the track and drive wheel assembly themselves. No massive cook off since the spall and penetration would have been concentrated in the hull and not the turret ammo storage. All that fire is constant and save for one small secondary which since it didn't shoot straight up in a concentrated stream appeared to be something mounted or stored outside. Fire rapidly looses intensity probably fuel storage mounted on the outside hull for extended field ops. If it did hit drive wheels or power pack that'll eat a lot of the explosive effect since it's now effectively having to penetrate layered metals dissipating/misdirecting the chemical form penetrator. Probably why 2 crew members survived. All of Turkeys tanks are Western style builds (US M series and Leo types). No doubt had that been a Soviet build T series that would have been a whole lot worse and more spectacular since all the rounds sit down in the bottom of the hull. Definitely a firepower kill but not nearly as catastrophic as some of the TOW/HF vs T-72 kills from desert storm. Either way, don't park a tank exposed and stationary on the front slope of a terrain feature in full view of an anti tank team. That's just asking for them to try it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That place really is trying to be the Portland of the South.

I know armed Mohawks in Vietnam were basically the "let congress sort it out" reason for the Key West fights that ended armed Army fixed wing for the next 3 decades. It's a great plane from talking to old guys that worked with it. Stupidly simple and using the same engines as the Huey when they were literally everywhere so parts were easy. I could see it being an easy plane for a lot of our partner nations to keep and feed but they haven't been used in nearly 30 years so they aren't like the Bronco or others that enjoyed a life after the US military. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's funny that singular argument of a scenario is used as a justification for a line of funding COA and usually ignores the exact same logic with the 5th gen argument of "what do you do for CAS in an SA-2X environment." If we are planning for every contingency and money is no object, hey great let's have all the airplanes. We unfortunately don't/can't live in that world though so 80-90% solutions have to be adopted with leaders who have the understanding and forethought that they leverage their operations to stay inside that 80-90% as best they are able.

You aren't the only means for fires out there. TTPs and mission criteria on the ground can and do evolve. Nobody is saying you can completely take the fighters or rotary wing CAS out of the Coin fight, but doing something like this takes the pain and suffering out of those communities of participating in that 99% of the time where they legitimately don't need to be there. If you can get away with 3-4 Hawgs or Viper where we used to need whole squadrons because the stacks are much more self sufficient it'll still be bigger savings than trying to add what is essentially a less effective (TOS/speed/armament/etc) lower cost airplane where you still have 3-4+ aircraft where you could get away with 1-2 almost all of the time. And I get it the Hawg guys keep leveraging that card of "what about if" with weather eyc, but to get down that low you are well into the RW envelope anyway. And if we can get out of wasting time in stacks that don't need is we can be more places when called. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is exactly what I'm getting at. If we are really after savings I think a mid sized commuter plane like the Dash 8s (which we've already proven we can own and play with) are a great way to get out of the box we've put ourselves in. 1. It lowers the visual presence of our aircraft vice somebody deploying strike eagles or something more military in style like a special mission 130. There are a lot of countries that could more readily allow this position because of nationalist/anti-US sentiment at home. 2. Maintenance can go to a more civilian type because those airframes are being used in a normal 1-2g capacity they aren't playing around at other times. 3. It will strengthen ACC because since we don't need the commitment of crews and airframes to that mission there are parts, people , and money to train at home, or deploy to multinational training like sending Vipers or Hawgs to Sprang or Japan instead of spending 4.8 in an orbit yo-yo'ing off a tanker whose Majcom also doesn't face the commitment requirements. 4. Equipment doesn't face near the difficulty in where to we put box X,Y,Z. You guys should see some of the optics our ground vehicles can deploy because they have the ability to build in a space bigger than a sniper/lightning pod. You've got lots or room for antenna and radios to support all those comms, you've got space for multiple crew members to combat boredom/fatigue drain on mission effectiveness. Seriously with the ease of employability of a lot of new small size PGMs like Griffen or P/R Hellfire it's not like the strike thing is going to be some impossibility to teach those guys. We already have and maintain that gunnery skill set in the ISR community. But alas I'm not running the donkey show, I just mop the floors around here. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ah crap yeah that's to close to home and too late to edit... Mods?

But we've proven you can do coin with less than an A-29 every day by doing it with a Caravan of all things. Look if the point is finding a way to both save money and keep hours off our high cost fleet buying something that's 3/4 the price of what they are flying in place of that only removes that fighter from the stack doesn't net you real savings. What's more since we are talking about an aircraft without air refuel capability I now need a lot more lines on the ATO to give the persistence over target and the ability to be retasked for follow on or mission change so the savings is probably a break even at best. If you've gotta put 3-4x A-29s in the air what did you really save off not launching a Viper etc. The most efficient way to make what is effectively an airliner is to look at airliners. Flying around in circles at 14k for hours on end to not drop steel and watch guys walk into a village is something we are already doing with ISR platforms. If that's the case let's look at a future generation armed ISR or mod and buy planes we have that can do it (MC-12 being an example of type not the go to) and not try to teach a light attack plane how to be an ISR platform like that isn't 99% of the job in the stack because that's the reality of COIN. That will net you savings. Because now you simply don't need the lines for FW CAS since the ISR can already do it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which we can get without going down an umpteen million dollar rabbit hole. If we are gonna ask these platforms to perform "today's mission" then let's be realistic about what today's mission is. You don't need a Hawg or an Apache for that matter. You need efficiency in time on station with a small strike capability. At this point we'd be better off teaching a small simple aircraft designed to be an economic point to point cruiser with lots of gas, payload for several sensors, multiple crew to run same, and a light but effective weapons load. We would get more bang for the buck investing in non sexy systems like some kind of armed MC-12 or other air transport based airframe, not the nostalgic sexiness of a Turboprop fighter plane that reminds people of a P-51. People are on hear defending the LAA concept on the idea that using an F-16 to shot and IED emplacer is overkill, I'm saying its the same overkill for "today's mission" with the A-29. It's funny because we spend hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fight this exact argument with our foreign partners who want a hot rod when what they need is something unsexy that works. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm aware of all that you just mentioned. And I've employed most of it. I'm saying even with these new systems (we've got all of them), the modification of TTPs to present the absolute lowest risk of dropping an aircrew into a crap zone makes planes like the Hawg, the A-29, or even the 64 in my case a poor investment. We aren't going to put these aircraft in an envelope to use them the way design intended, we are treating them as a non persistent ISR asset with a secondary on call Air delivered Fires platform. The only reason we are even doing this is because there aren't enough persistent ISR platforms with a strike capability available. At that point anybody could do it, so why buy more into a "CAS" specific platform that can't do peer fights anyway. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DIRCM/ATIRCM/CMWS/etc work great and last a long time but there are glaring limitations in those systems. Along with that its not so much the guided stuff Im worried about in a light single engine A-29 type aircraft profile. Isis has been doing stuff with light and med caliber AAA the likes of which we haven't seen in 15 years over Afghanistan. The Hawg has armor and redundancy of two engines but that's really only gonna bring a shot up airplane home to possibly write off. The people arguing for a nostalgic trip back to a A-1 Sandy type airplane are signing up to lose friends when those light low cost systems come up against 57mm AAA. The basic of it is yes we need something cheaper than Raptors to pull the cart. If the survivability issue is such that aircraft are performing med altitude delivery of small CDE limiting ordnance though that doesn't need to be a Hawg or one of these light attack airplanes. If pumping the money into drones like reaper and Pred and beefing up their ability to train pilots would net us more savings than keeping around the A-10 to do what Viper or Bone is currently doing (sitting at Altitude with a Pod). And just keep a couple of those expensive fast movers around for when something kicks off where you don't have stuff. If you could get enough UAS armed, or start strapping Hellfires and Griffens to C-12s/U-28s those gaps where dudes are exposed would lessen severely and we wouldn't need so many lines on the ATO of expensive high cost CAS missions from Vipers or Strikes. Yes drones aren't as useful in a full intensity conflict due to EW etc, but let's be honest neither is Hawg or a light attack jet when they either get beat up or require massive support and coordination to put them over the FLOT. Right now it's either those high cost high altitude guys or the Gray Eagle/Reaper/Pred guys that are doing all the flying where the bad guys are because we won't risk manned aircraft in the current political environment. So having A-29 or an upgraded Hawg etc doesn't really net you any savings. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sending a Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You need everything that's on a Dedicated AC or it's not gonna cover it. All that crap up there isn't negotiable to the ground force commanders that have their guys walking in the Kush with nothing more than maybe an AT-4 or 2 and some mortars. The sensors, the IR pointer, the metric F ton of available options. The Gunship and Rotary Wing fires are pretty much the non negotiable items specifically because we've gone without them in the past and it bit the crap out of us. Along with that equipment you need dedicated well trained crews. Getting a few more part time kits to tell a J model crew "hey you guys are covering SOF tonight" isn't a smart way to do things. And it'll take tales away from their real job, intra-theatre airlift. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk