A new force structure?

[12xu2a3x3]

you guys are going to want to line me up against the wall but (nationalize them)

[Clark Griswold]

What the defense nerds are thinking about in terms of force structure:

https://warontherocks.com/2022/03/the-wisdom-of-crowds-insights-from-the-defense-futures-simulator/

I'd consider myself a hybrid of the 6 schools of thought, but mainly a Big Spender, I say that but I cringe at the thought of growing the tail along with the tooth, feeding the DoD more money at this time absent major reform will grow more shoe clerks relative to door kickers.

And on AF force structure:

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44954/air-force-wants-to-retire-33-f-22s-buy-more-f-15exs-in-new-budget

Retire some Eagles, Hogs, Vipers, look for an E-3 replacement, slow roll the 35 train a bit till Block 4 configuration is ready, retire older Raptors, etc... to get money for new toys.

[Clark Griswold]

So I read this article after seeing it discussed on CW Lemoine's channel:

National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage (airandspaceforces.com)

Air National Guard Critical Fighter Shortage (youtube.com)

and got to discussing it with some buds, retired now Guard and only one still active as an O-6, just to set up context.  

Not sure why but it got me thinking that maybe the issue is that the world has changed (not just operationally but in terms of what is possible financially) and that we are stuck trying to keep up a model that worked 30 years ago but not really now.  That is the ARC as part of the Total Force flying the same (expensive) iron as the Active Duty when we are not willing to spend that much to do that.  Maybe it is that the ARC is a twofold, a strategic mass to be fully generated when the big red ballon goes up and an operational reserve to be used when a certain amount of augmentation, capability, deterrence, etc... is needed in theaters / operations not requiring the exquisite and expensive capabilities to be brandished to maintain the peace.

We're running 1.7 trillion deficits and as the DoD is discretionary, if you want more bang you gotta come up with more bucks, I don't see a huge increase in DoD appropriation so why not look for less expensive ways to have the right amount of airpower but not so much you can't afford it?

Light fighters, light tankers, light airlift, attritable CCAs / UCAVs, organic base defending GBAD, a huge arsenal of less expensive but effective weapons for these platforms, etc... I'm not arguing for a return to the old old days when the ARC flew iron that was 2 generations behind the AD but modern, new iron different from what AD flies but cheaper to own, probably flown / made by allies to further integrate capabilities and security relationships with them (SK, India, Sweeden, etc...) not all of it but some of this new fleet(s)

Does it make sense to try to have an all gold plated force?

[Boomer6]

4 minutes ago, Clark Griswold said:

So I read this article after seeing it discussed on CW Lemoine's channel:

National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage (airandspaceforces.com)

Air National Guard Critical Fighter Shortage (youtube.com)

and got to discussing it with some buds, retired now Guard and only one still active as an O-6, just to set up context.  

Not sure why but it got me thinking that maybe the issue is that the world has changed (not just operationally but in terms of what is possible financially) and that we are stuck trying to keep up a model that worked 30 years ago but not really now.  That is the ARC as part of the Total Force flying the same (expensive) iron as the Active Duty when we are not willing to spend that much to do that.  Maybe it is that the ARC is a twofold, a strategic mass to be fully generated when the big red ballon goes up and an operational reserve to be used when a certain amount of augmentation, capability, deterrence, etc... is needed in theaters / operations not requiring the exquisite and expensive capabilities to be brandished to maintain the peace.

We're running 1.7 trillion deficits and as the DoD is discretionary, if you want more bang you gotta come up with more bucks, I don't see a huge increase in DoD appropriation so why not look for less expensive ways to have the right amount of airpower but not so much you can't afford it?

Light fighters, light tankers, light airlift, attritable CCAs / UCAVs, organic base defending GBAD, a huge arsenal of less expensive but effective weapons for these platforms, etc... I'm not arguing for a return to the old old days when the ARC flew iron that was 2 generations behind the AD but modern, new iron different from what AD flies but cheaper to own, probably flown / made by allies to further integrate capabilities and security relationships with them (SK, India, Sweeden, etc...) not all of it but some of this new fleet(s)

Does it make sense to try to have an all gold plated force?

Quite a long way to say you want us to buy the gripen. Dude we're not buying gripens.

[Clark Griswold]

Quite a long way to say you want us to buy the gripen. Dude we're not buying gripens.

No not platform specific, not this thing or that but a paradigm shift
Yeah I can say this light fighter or that one but really it’s mission bounded by financial reality


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[raimius]

You guys arguing for a high/low mix...pshh...so Cold War...when we actually tried to have technology AND enough mass to do things on two fronts...

[Clark Griswold]

You guys arguing for a high/low mix...pshh...so Cold War...when we actually tried to have technology AND enough mass to do things on two fronts...

That’s a better way of saying it, high low mix or maybe high capability modest quantity & modest capability high quantity mix is what I’m saying we need / can actually afford

The strategy might have to be going forward is 1 major war (China) plus multiple operations (kinetic and deterrence) in other theaters simultaneously (deterrence against further Russian aggression, regional deterrence against Venezuela, NK, pop up NEOs, etc…)
Our allies who can afford capable militaries need to understand that you’ll be supported but probably not with the AD high end stuff but the medium forces to augment you when/if necessary, you provide the 85% solution if the Bear comes over the mountain we augment you with the other 15% because we’re deterring or fighting a dragon 7000 nm away from home and it’s taking the lion’s share of our high end forces
These smaller platforms could be that 15% if needed if things go hot and the affordable systems for day to day operations


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stoker]

On 6/7/2024 at 12:28 AM, Boomer6 said:

Quite a long way to say you want us to buy the gripen. Dude we're not buying gripens.

I feel like the Gripen was well suited for European nations that wanted to say they had an air force, but didn't want to spend the money on actually preparing to fight Russia. Seems like the use case for the Gripen has more or less gone away (except as a "well there's a factory going so you can actually get these rather than wait for F-35s" kind of way).

[Lawman]

I feel like the Gripen was well suited for European nations that wanted to say they had an air force, but didn't want to spend the money on actually preparing to fight Russia. Seems like the use case for the Gripen has more or less gone away (except as a "well there's a factory going so you can actually get these rather than wait for F-35s" kind of way).

It kept their pilot corps more in line with current technology for simple cost than any other aircraft in the option group. Pays off for those that suddenly get their priorities in order now.

It would be great to see a side by side comparison of the training hours, additional academics, retrain events, etc that occurred between aviators from later simpler aircraft like F4/Mirage/MiG-27/29 etc and then try to move to their new shiny F35s vs say a country that bought a handful of late model Vipers or Gripens. I’ll bet there are a couple people on this site that could offer anecdotal observations of foreign pilots coming from both groups to train up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, Stoker said:

I feel like the Gripen was well suited for European nations that wanted to say they had an air force, but didn't want to spend the money on actually preparing to fight Russia. Seems like the use case for the Gripen has more or less gone away (except as a "well there's a factory going so you can actually get these rather than wait for F-35s" kind of way).

Really? The latest version of the Gripen, the E model, brings a lot to the fight.

Caveat emptor but in the BVR fight with their full capabilities utilized they do good

https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/01/12/over-40-su-27s-killed-by-12-gripens-in-beyond-visual-range-fight/#:~:text=The Su-27 aircraft of,enhance its missile evasion strategies. 

I’m not a Saab troll nor arguing specifically for this or that platform, truth be told the Gripen E would likely be outside of the target price range for one of the light fighter types I could see being one of the core platforms of this lower cost ARC to bring mass to the fight(s)

light fighters, light to medium weight tanker/transport, light attack/arsenal platforms (manned/unmanned/optionally manned), light UCAVs/CCAs, etc… 4 capabilities to build around small mini AFs from individual ARC Wings, figure 8 wings to each of these mini AFs with 2 Wings with the same platforms

Because daydreaming is free I’d propose these platforms be selected on these criteria:

modern-relevant-reliable-supportable-available-affordable.

new or current in production platforms produced by allies that use our subsystems/technology that will easily integrate into their systems and ours while also integrating our mil to mil and industry relationships.

[Clark Griswold]

So the AF has gotta make some choices probably…

https://www.twz.com/air/crisis-brewing-over-air-forces-future-air-dominance-plans-which-it-cannot-afford
 

Retire the Raptor to try to get NGAD?  Not mentioned in the article but as Willie Sutton said “that’s where the money is”  Or pick another system that has several billion dollars of money to reprogram but it’s gonna have to have some juice to be worth the squeeze 

We’re now seeing what has been warned of for years, a wave of new iron requirements coming due all at once and the door that is the budget not being wide enough to let them all thru at once, so something has to give

What do we give up / redirect funds assuming no budgetary grow above the inflation rate?

[brabus]

I wonder if you were to completely shutter the Raptor, would that be enough to get NGAD across the line in enough numbers on a reasonable timeline (and we’re not even talking about the “short term” loss in capability)? I don’t know the answer, but my guess is this won’t be enough, especially considering the massive capability hit we’d take in the interim. In an alternate reality we could easily afford NGAD, but we’d have stop wasting billions by completely redoing our acquisitions process, slash and burn all the bureaucracy…basically put Elon in charge. But that’ll never happen.

[Lawman]

I wonder if you were to completely shutter the Raptor, would that be enough to get NGAD across the line in enough numbers on a reasonable timeline (and we’re not even talking about the “short term” loss in capability)? I don’t know the answer, but my guess is this won’t be enough, especially considering the massive capability hit we’d take in the interim. In an alternate reality we could easily afford NGAD, but we’d have stop wasting billions by completely redoing our acquisitions process, slash and burn all the bureaucracy…basically put Elon in charge. But that’ll never happen.

“Somebody is waiting for you to say you don’t need your money…”

That was a very smart statement made by the Army Aviation POE after the decision to cancel FARA didn’t net any improvement to the budgetary constraints is the departments we sacrificed it for. I’m about 60-70% sure FLAARA is going to die both due to mismanagement of its program and to other mouths at the big table of money seeking to shark it for their own needs.

Right now Fires in the form of rockets and loitering munitions and Sensors (ie UAS/SUAS/etc) are the big shiny amongst our competing requirements. And there is no defined way for an ear marking of requirement to requirement funnel of money.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HuggyU2]

Money for new programs:

its why SecAF is trying to kill the U-2. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I wonder if you were to completely shutter the Raptor, would that be enough to get NGAD across the line in enough numbers on a reasonable timeline (and we’re not even talking about the “short term” loss in capability)? I don’t know the answer, but my guess is this won’t be enough, especially considering the massive capability hit we’d take in the interim. In an alternate reality we could easily afford NGAD, but we’d have stop wasting billions by completely redoing our acquisitions process, slash and burn all the bureaucracy…basically put Elon in charge. But that’ll never happen.

Probably but IDK either 

As crazy as it sounds not restarting but developing a Raptor 2.0 is probably better / feasible vs developing a new type gen 6.9 while simultaneously acquiring other new platforms, my historical reference would be the Hornet to Super Hornet.  Not a perfect evolution of a platform but pretty good and it got done… a Raptor 2 with mo’ gas, range, bigger weapons bays, etc… would be expensive, likely $200 mil a tail, but possible methinks.  Gen 6 fighter with our acquisition process seems like a pathway to hell while shoving money into a nuclear furnace 

https://www.twz.com/11728/study-on-restarting-f-22-production-has-finally-arrived-heres-the-verdict

$44 billion quoted in the article but that’s just for 194, go all out get above the original min 380 something, around 600+ but with a plan to use this as a replacement for F-15Cs, Strike Eagles, some percentage of the oldest F-16s, the A-10 (would replace at some ratio not 1:1 with 35s focused on attack mission set, do not try to do A-X) and maybe keep the F-15EX buy modest

The strategy of this COA is to get to fewer high end types but ultimately more of them by trying to get economy of scale in a Gen 5 and Gen 5+

An AD CAF composed of F-22As and F-22Cs, F-35s, F-15EXs and CCAs.  Other platforms in the AD CAF but that’s the offensive line…

The ARC would get hand me downs from this process (Strike Eagles) and would take over the majority of the Viper enterprise, maybe getting into light fighters but with as many Vipers that might come available they might not need too

1 hour ago, HuggyU2 said:

Money for new programs:

its why SecAF is trying to kill the U-2. 

And others… RIP T-1, E-8, E-3, KC-10, RQ-4… soon to be following the B-1 and A-10s

[BigE]

1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said:

Probably but IDK either 

As crazy as it sounds not restarting but developing a Raptor 2.0 is probably better / feasible vs developing a new type gen 6.9 while simultaneously acquiring other new platforms, my historical reference would be the Hornet to Super Hornet.  Not a perfect evolution of a platform but pretty good and it got done… a Raptor 2 with mo’ gas, range, bigger weapons bays, etc… would be expensive, likely $200 mil a tail, but possible methinks.  Gen 6 fighter with our acquisition process seems like a pathway to hell while shoving money into a nuclear furnace 

https://www.twz.com/11728/study-on-restarting-f-22-production-has-finally-arrived-heres-the-verdict

$44 billion quoted in the article but that’s just for 194, go all out get above the original min 380 something, around 600+ but with a plan to use this as a replacement for F-15Cs, Strike Eagles, some percentage of the oldest F-16s, the A-10 (would replace at some ratio not 1:1 with 35s focused on attack mission set, do not try to do A-X) and maybe keep the F-15EX buy modest

The strategy of this COA is to get to fewer high end types but ultimately more of them by trying to get economy of scale in a Gen 5 and Gen 5+

An AD CAF composed of F-22As and F-22Cs, F-35s, F-15EXs and CCAs.  Other platforms in the AD CAF but that’s the offensive line…

The ARC would get hand me downs from this process (Strike Eagles) and would take over the majority of the Viper enterprise, maybe getting into light fighters but with as many Vipers that might come available they might not need too

And others… RIP T-1, E-8, E-3, KC-10, RQ-4… soon to be following the B-1 and A-10s

Raptor doesn’t have an active production line. But you know what does?  F-15EX….

My guess - NGAD as a “manned platform” dies, we are told to buy a lot of F-15EX and the F35, B-21, and EX get CCA to replicate “NGAD” capes. And oh yea - a stealth tanker is a pipe dream. 

[Clark Griswold]

51 minutes ago, BigE said:

Raptor doesn’t have an active production line. But you know what does?  F-15EX….

My guess - NGAD as a “manned platform” dies, we are told to buy a lot of F-15EX and the F35, B-21, and EX get CCA to replicate “NGAD” capes. And oh yea - a stealth tanker is a pipe dream. 

As to a stealth tanker, concur.  If money grew on trees then maybe…

You may be right but I would argue that whatever level of survivability or capability is offered by 6 gen, even if it’s unmanned it’s probably unaffordable unless you let that crowd out other missions 

We will just accept risk and some attrition as will the opposing side(s).  To be effective as a family of systems (NGAD) it’ll have to be the right mix of manned / unmanned / autonomous, low observable / reduced signature / dgaf about signature 

[Lawman]

As to a stealth tanker, concur.  If money grew on trees then maybe…
You may be right but I would argue that whatever level of survivability or capability is offered by 6 gen, even if it’s unmanned it’s probably unaffordable unless you let that crowd out other missions 
We will just accept risk and some attrition as will the opposing side(s).  To be effective as a family of systems (NGAD) it’ll have to be the right mix of manned / unmanned / autonomous, low observable / reduced signature / dgaf about signature 

What exactly is the end goal of a stealth Tanker?

Like whatever follows the 46, let’s make that airline derived bitch Low Observable? That seems kind of insane since by their nature most of our big wing stuff is just adapted civilian aircraft.

And if it’s small scale to extend range like the way the Navy does with the SH, that feels like a buddy tanking option would be the more achievable extension operating from some forward AR route and the big tanker operating from sanctuary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MT near]

Sounds like it's time to retire

[Clark Griswold]

What exactly is the end goal of a stealth Tanker?

Like whatever follows the 46, let’s make that airline derived bitch Low Observable? That seems kind of insane since by their nature most of our big wing stuff is just adapted civilian aircraft.

And if it’s small scale to extend range like the way the Navy does with the SH, that feels like a buddy tanking option would be the more achievable extension operating from some forward AR route and the big tanker operating from sanctuary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with this too
It’s been a while since I passed gas to another jet but doing it in an LO platform and doing it EMCON smart seems challenging, not impossible but it sounds like trying to extend a concept beyond it’s logical conclusion
A small LO platform (unmanned) that comes with the right amount of fuel to the right receiver at the right time dynamically sounds better vs a manned large LO platform refueling in the WEZ
A 46 or other manned platform in AR is still relevant and necessary but as we are resource constrained, a manned LO tanker is likely a bridge too far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lawman]

Concur with this too
It’s been a while since I passed gas to another jet but doing it in an LO platform and doing it EMCON smart seems challenging, not impossible but it sounds like trying to extend a concept beyond it’s logical conclusion
A small LO platform (unmanned) that comes with the right amount of fuel to the right receiver at the right time dynamically sounds better vs a manned large LO platform refueling in the WEZ
A 46 or other manned platform in AR is still relevant and necessary but as we are resource constrained, a manned LO tanker is likely a bridge too far


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah I feel like the Navy is already way ahead of putting an LO buddy tank capability in the field. I feel like there has to be a technological way to get around buddy drogue and making something of smart buddy boom.

To me, teaching that unmanned system to follow and refuel off a big wing is easy. If we can teach helicopters to land in the dust unmanned (and we have) teaching it to get on the boom or into the basket is easy.

The hard part and really the reason anybody would consider some massive big wing AR platform to be needed is the fact the Air Force doesn’t have a probe drogue refuel system outside its rotary wing…
Ok, so a boom needs to happen on an already LO aircraft.Somebody look at programming the B-21 in a less capable mission equipment airframe? Maybe we come up with a package to bolt on a set number of airframes out as tankers after the fact and just buy 20 more? Now it can tow its buddies close, because let’s face it there is nothing really super tactical about a refuel orbit or track. We’re just trying to not get pushed out 1500 miles from the mainland in INDOPACOM.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[brabus]

Give the tankers a capable, kinetic missile defense system and WGAF if they get shot at. LO not required. 

[StoleIt]

11 hours ago, Lawman said:

Yeah I feel like the Navy is already way ahead of putting an LO buddy tank capability in the field. I feel like there has to be a technological way to get around buddy drogue and making something of smart buddy boom.

Automated boom refueling has already happened:

And the Navy's Boeing MQ-25 is LO and obviously a drone. I'm sure it does a lot more than just buddy tank too. Hell, the even Navy did automated receiver AR in 2015 with their X-47 off an Omega KC-707.

 

So, LO tankers aren't "that" hard. But scaling from fighter size vs transport size is definitely a challenge. It'll have to be a custom build like the B-21. Why not just build bigger fighters, I dunno...let's call them interceptors...and stuff them with enough gas to make it the fight and back (ie: MIG-25/31, F-14, J-20, etc). A lot easier than building LO tankers, IMO.

[SocialD]

13 hours ago, MT near said:

Sounds like it's time to retire

 

 

The best time to retire, was yesterday.

[Boomer6]

On 11/11/2024 at 8:16 AM, StoleIt said:

Why not just build bigger fighters, I dunno...let's call them interceptors...and stuff them with enough gas to make it the fight and back (ie: MIG-25/31, F-14, J-20, etc). A lot easier than building LO tankers, IMO.

A jet that's big, fast, guzzles fuel, has poor turn performance, and poor cockpit visibility is every fighter pilot's dream. If we just make them big enough to be nuclear powered they won't even need to carry their own fuel!

Edited Wednesday at 03:52 AM by Boomer6