Clark Griswold Posted May 20, 2017 Posted May 20, 2017 (edited) 4 hours ago, di1630 said: No, not a F-35 joke. It's a combination of not caring about CAS and not understanding the fundamentals. Other missions as well such as CSAR, SCAR etc. I'm not real sure what BAI is. Most training I see in Europe is perfect if the cold war 1986 kicks off. Really frustrating, depressing/ eye opening. The really scary thing is that they don't know how bad they are. They assume they are doing the same thing how the USAF does. 75% focus is on A/A, 20% airshows and 5% on supporting ground troops. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums BAi is Battlefield Aerial Interdiction. It's a term for AI performed in vicinity of friendlies while they are engaged but without the type of detailed deconfliction that CAS requires. It's not part of the Joint terminology now and as I recall there was resistance to the idea of it as it seemed to imply that Air would strike independently in or just behind the FEBA without coordination / direction of a GFC. Crap - well to light a candle and as this is a thread on light support aircraft maybe that could be another mission for it - an inexpensive training platform for the NATO partners to use also to build a cadre of expertise in CAS, SCAR, etc... would also give them some capability to participate efficiently in long term COIN / LIC operations if they wanted to or were willing to... maybe... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited May 21, 2017 by Clark Griswold
Lawman Posted May 21, 2017 Posted May 21, 2017 No, not a F-35 joke. It's a combination of not caring about CAS and not understanding the fundamentals. Other missions as well such as CSAR, SCAR etc.I'm not real sure what BAI is. Most training I see in Europe is perfect if the cold war 1986 kicks off. Really frustrating, depressing/ eye opening. The really scary thing is that they don't know how bad they are. They assume they are doing the same thing how the USAF does. 75% focus is on A/A, 20% airshows and 5% on supporting ground troops. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsSince the majority of NATO countries have no effective ground maneuver to support anyway that's probably in line with the rest of their joint capability.Denmark was the only country I saw actually use tanks in a way similar to how we would use them (massed formation). Everybody else tanks were just mobile bunkers that would go somewhere and assume a security posture. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clark Griswold Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 Another idea for OA-Xhttps://warontherocks.com/2017/05/field-of-dreamsSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
nsplayr Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) Couple of thoughts on the above: 1. The "minor league" mentality should never get off the ground. Associating "big league" with big threat and "minor league" to permissive is not helpful or correct IMHO. Any platform closely integrating with ground forces and dropping weapons is, to me, big league by definition. Not sure why in the author's construct a new OA-X pilot would be mission qual'd and killing bad guys downrange after 12 months when T-1 track pilots for non-lethal platforms and FAIPs would continue to take longer to produce. Perhaps the author envisions greatly shortening UPT/IQT/MQT for all non-4th gen/5th gen fighter platforms? 2. The author mentions, of a potential OA-X platform, that, "...its small size and off the shelf procurement could leave little room in the airframe to add new capability without removing existing pieces." I will say that for one competitor in particular this couldn't be further from the truth. By design it is modular and has a TON of room for growt in both the airframes capacity to carry new toys as well as the overall mission systems architecture. This is at least somewhat true for all four of the competitors, to an extent that I'm not sure the author correctly acknowledges. 3. Directly chopping an OA-X squadron to an ASOS isn't a great concept IMHO, even as a guy who greatly appreciates the value of building personal relationships with the ground teams you are supporting. The army uses and abuses the air that it "owns," and I still believe the USAF is independent for a reason, even for a ground attack platform. 4. I always lol at the concept that the AF considers something a "niche" capability if it is permissive-only, and the author seems to agree. What % of all combat has been done in a high- or even medium- threat environment since Vietnam? Even there you had plenty of permissive-only-type platforms doing great work. Not that it'll never happen again, but after 30+ years of fighting this way I'd call the need to provide air-to-ground kinetic effects in a permissive environment enough of a trend that we can allow communities and platforms to specialize in that with no shame or "minor league" mentality. Overall good conversations to be had, thanks for sharing Clark. FWIW the upcoming competition is now branded as LAE, light attack experiment. Edited May 26, 2017 by nsplayr 2 1
Clark Griswold Posted May 26, 2017 Posted May 26, 2017 (edited) 3 hours ago, nsplayr said: Couple of thoughts on the above: 1. The "minor league" mentality should never get off the ground. 2. ... By design it is modular and has a TON of room for growt in both the airframes capacity to carry new toys as well as the overall mission systems architecture... 3. ...I still believe the USAF is independent for a reason, even for a ground attack platform. 4. ... after 30+ years of fighting this way I'd call the need to provide air-to-ground kinetic effects in a permissive environment enough of a trend that we can allow communities and platforms to specialize in that with no shame or "minor league" mentality. Overall good conversations to be had, thanks for sharing Clark. Your welcome and good points. I don't agree with his idea of shortening SUPT as the pilots tracking to OA-X would (wrongly) be treated as second class aviators I suspect. I don't have a problem with maybe giving them a focused / slightly shorter Advanced Trainer phase if a slightly longer primary phase that is fused with some IQT / MQT for OA-X can be had. They need the same minimum hours / training everyone else gets, it is just they could possible get a bit more done in primary along with some work towards their OA-X Qual. This assumes (as I suspect the author of the article implied that OA-X if it happens is the AT-6B). The more interesting idea would be for studs to do primary in the T-6 and then do their advanced phase in Scorpion (in a trainer configuration) then go to a shorter MQT phase in Scorpion as they now have their wings and IQT in Scorpion also. Edited May 26, 2017 by Clark Griswold grammar fix
Clark Griswold Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 Textron hires the former SECAF https://www.defensenews.com/articles/textron-appoints-former-secretary-of-the-air-force-to-board-of-directors Helps or hinders getting a Scorpion or AT-6B? Ready made conflict of interest problem if selected?
Duck Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 What an idiot. Selfie queen herself. Why isn't she held partially responsible for the VSP/RIF debacle of 2014?Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
Clark Griswold Posted June 2, 2017 Posted June 2, 2017 (edited) 20 hours ago, Kiloalpha said: Because accountability is a banned word when it comes to the SecAF. Let me put it this way. I thought the Scorpion jet was a cool concept. Now I hate it. Surely I'm not the only one that feels this way. Textron might have just hurt themselves more than helped by hiring her... Possibly (screwed themselves) but the sins of the mother don't follow the son. Scorpion is still the best of the lot. We're buying the jet not the company - even if Skeletor worked there, it would still be the right aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Edited June 3, 2017 by Clark Griswold
nsplayr Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 If y'all think that putting a former SECAF on your board hurts your chances when trying to sell an aircraft to the USAF, I'm not so sure you understand how this game is played. Regardless of that former official's reputation one way or other amongst the proletariat... 1 1
Clark Griswold Posted June 3, 2017 Posted June 3, 2017 (edited) 56 minutes ago, nsplayr said: If y'all think that putting a former SECAF on your board hurts your chances when trying to sell an aircraft to the USAF, I'm not so sure you understand how this game is played. Regardless of that former official's reputation one way or other amongst the proletariat... Just seems like extending your jaw for a left hook of a contract award protest if Textron is awarded a contract. It's ready made for a company to protest and launch a media campaign against. With our infotainment oriented journalism these days how long before Textron is under the microscope / segment on name your cable commentary show with "Grinds my Gears" diatribe? An opportunistic Congressman who just happens to be from FL could royally f up a legitimate but outwardly suspicious acquisition decision and we end up with no toys and rotten egg (again) on our face. Edited June 3, 2017 by Clark Griswold parting shot 1
Clark Griswold Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 The view from the other side, uniformed arguments against a LAAR: https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2017/03/06/air-force-light-fighter-concept-seems-a-bit-light-on-logic/2/#2ccc4a4d478b Posted only to show the if the AF is serious about this, making persuasive arguments that inform and dispel ideas like a LAAR is completely helpless against MANPADs / AAA and that it makes a whole lotta sense for fights in semi-governed shitholes, is going to be necessary.
nsplayr Posted June 7, 2017 Posted June 7, 2017 (edited) From that "article,": "Disclosure: the F-35 is produced by Lockheed Martin, which contributes to my think tank and is a consulting client." Pretty straight-forward hit job masquerading as journalism from LM, nice try fellas. Don't worry guys, with the money saved by passing on a light attack aircraft we can by 1/3 of another F-35! The author is not a qualified, rational decision maker who need to be convinced, he is an industry partisan that seems to lack any relevant experience and who needs to be ignored. Edited June 7, 2017 by nsplayr 1
HU&W Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 "It has invested heavily in smart bombs and tactical communications since 9-11, so that close air support can now be accomplished by all of its bombers, all of its fighters, the lower-flying but highly survivable A-10 Thunderbolt II, and even drones. In other words, close air support is the least risky, most heavily resourced combat mission the Air Force has." Lost all credibility with this quote. 2
Clark Griswold Posted June 8, 2017 Posted June 8, 2017 "...In other words, close air support is the least risky, most heavily resourced combat mission the Air Force has."Lost all credibility with this quote.That level of clueless is stunning but it really matters as he has a soap box from which to make mischiefSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Clark Griswold Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Those wings look so awkward for the airframe.Curious as to why you think that - do you think it should be low wing or with more sweep?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Cooter Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 6 hours ago, xaarman said: Those wings look so awkward for the airframe. 2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Curious as to why you think that - do you think it should be low wing or with more sweep? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Endurance, observation, and loiter speed (130 kts). Purpose built. Cooter 1
Clark Griswold Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Endurance, observation, and loiter speed (130 kts). Purpose built. CooterNo argument in fact I thought the first wing was better for the missionSent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
ClearedHot Posted July 21, 2017 Posted July 21, 2017 5-6 hour endurance and can get to the target at 400 knots...crushes the other offerings.
Clark Griswold Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 Scorpion testing a gun(s) on the jethttps://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-scorpion-tests-20mm-cannon-ahead-of-oa-x-438703/Article doesn't specify if they are incorporating it (20mm) into the airframe - anyone know if this is the case?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
di1630 Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 Scorpion testing a gun(s) on the jethttps://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-scorpion-tests-20mm-cannon-ahead-of-oa-x-438703/Article doesn't specify if they are incorporating it (20mm) into the airframe - anyone know if this is the case?Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkThey should not waste their time. More rockets instead. I bet it's a pod. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums
Clark Griswold Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 They should not waste their time. More rockets instead. I bet it's a pod. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network ForumsProbably so - just a guess but is this gun testing/demonstration for price conscious potential operators?Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
nsplayr Posted July 22, 2017 Posted July 22, 2017 (edited) It is a pod-mounted gun and it's a requirement for the LAE to demo a gun. The one I've seen is a .50 cal; haven't seen the 20mm personally. I fully agree that if I'm giving up a hardpoint or 2 for small caliber guns on a fast moving fixed wing, I'd much rather not and have more gas/laser-guided rockets/bombs/hellfire/etc. Edit to add: LAE = light attack expirament, the new acrynom du jour rather than OA-X. Edited July 22, 2017 by nsplayr 3
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now