Clark Griswold

Techy question but is a hardware translator between the two systems possible if the OEMs don't want to integrate their system? Just take the data to/from the pod and make it just another data stream on their bus to go to the BLOS links and keep command and data feed from having to be integrated into the platform system tightly Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vote with your feet if you have to, I wish I could say I see a turning point but it just gets to be more of a jobs program all the time with some Air, Space and Cyberspace power projection done for good measure. Pains me to say that without offering some kind of solution to the problem but maybe it (the AF) is just in need of a massive reset vs "fix the glitch". How to reset is the 64 billion dollar question.

You're right - the contractor has a profit motive that will get bigger F ups done faster and for more money with less iron bought - genius! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha - thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is more of symptom of what's wrong with the AF rather than the cause but it reeks of shoe clerkism & process worshiping versus professional, competent, confident decision making... Unprecedented: US Air Force Will Let a Defense Company Pick Its Next Jamming Plane Like the Boeing 737 Compass Call, would be a good part of a re-cap strategy for an 737 fleet for JSTARS, AWACS, RIVET, etc...

From your comment a sidebar question: If OPSEC allows... Has dual sensor (FMV) on a Reaper (or similar Tier II or above RPA) been discussed / proposed? Not the WAMI you mentioned earlier in the thread but maybe a SNIPER pod or another integrated sensor? Bandwidth likely a bottleneck but something akin to GORGON STARE with fewer frames per second for a secondary capability (general SA of the compound / area).

Automated boom AR Seems like a fairly softball test, smooth air versus appreciable chop.

False comparison - an A-10 may be / is currently tasked with missions that Scorpion if it is acquired will do but there are no plans to use Scorpion for the BAI in a contested environment that an A-10 is by doctrine / strategy tasked to Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? If the AF gets the Scorp, a luggage pod for the mission bay would happen. Plenty of room.

Probably so but fight the good fight / argue on BO.net Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Likewise Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got to be light vs heavy attack - now how light is debatable Scorpion seems the right weight (cost & capabilities) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur - I think we could have finished that op and many other fight stabilize missions by not expecting too much from the host nation - SK is a good example of how to save an ally stabilize then modernize them to self sustaining - it just takes decades, patience and not expecting a lot at first Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 years - even by our recent reluctance to admit mistakes and change course that would be epic My guess is another 5 and when/if we cross the 20 year mark without a viable partner in the NUG - we'll call Knock It Off and RTB Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God, I hope you're right.

Google is not coughing up an answer on AT-6B per tail cost but an A-29 is often quoted around $15 mil a copy so it is likely around that price. I believe Lawman said once that 15 million is actually lower than what it really costs, could be advertised without the sensor or some other shenanigans. $20 million a copy for the Scorpion I suspect is lower what the actual fly away costs will be if it lands a launch customer but I would not think it to be north of $25 million when all is said and done and it will probably cost about $2500-$3000 per flight hour, still a bargain as it will not need a $15k per hour tanker (assuming -135) twice a mission to keep it on station. That's where the real cha-ching is with a LAAR, lower mission support tail requirement. Probably you could get more AT-6s or A-29s versus Scorpions but probably not that many more (assuming the same procurement budget for a LAAR regardless of type acquired) but overall the cost would be more (more MX, Logistical footprint, manpower, etc...) and we likely need around 100 to 125 to round out our capabilities with our other systems doing these mission currently, versus a 200+ sized fleet, just my two cents.

The thing about the Scorpion that I think makes it worth the money (IMO) is that you bring to the ISR / Light Strike missions a range of performance and capabilities that is wide for the mission and compared to its competitors, a major improvement over platforms usually assigned to these missions, with a modest acceptable increase in cost. Ultimately that has to be point behind a "high end LAAR" - you get a wide range of capability and a large improvement to those capabilities for a modest increase in cost with a platform designed after an extensive period of COIN / LIC with those LL incorporated into it. I like the A-29 and AT-6 but you are basically constrained by the design as it is now, not so with the Scorpion. It has been designed to be modular and scalable. Again it is the range of capabilities / possibilities with this design. Need dual sensors, no problem. Open architecture, done. Modular payload bay for stuff you didn't consider on initial design, got it. About 40% faster than the turboprops, service ceiling 25% higher, endurance greater since you can keep the wings clean with the weapons capable payload bay, higher altitude on station orbits possible, slow loiter speed at 140 KIAS, etc, etc... That is just my rant for why I think the Scorpion should be the LAAR, my primal scream is for the AF to just get a LAAR, any LAAR at this point. Legit critique of the frenzy for a non-mission proven aircraft but I think that is an apples to oranges comparison, the small light attack jets you are referring to were likely designed years ago and don't have what makes the Scorpion as a light attack jet unique and much more capable for this mission, endurance. Which light attack jets are you referring to? A-37, Strikemaster, Alpha Jet? They are combat proven and effective but they lack the endurance of the Scorpion. Not to be cheesy but it really is game changing when you can have a tactical jet on station for 3 to 5 hours with no AR required.

I see said the blind man. A-29, just buy it AF. Lowest risk, great capability, already flown by a number of AFs. I'd prefer Scorpion but LAAR will have to cost pennies compared to the Golden Calf to get any money.

Maybe, but as we have discussed and speculated on bringing back former attack aircraft for COIN / LIC missions we have a tendency to want bigger than is probably warranted for a Light Attack. I think it was only a desire and not a requirement for about $1,000 per hour flight cost but as long as it doesn't go north of $3,000 per hour and doesn't need much support to execute a 5 hour mission (AR, cueing from another airborne asset, etc..) going up to the level of Scorpion Jet is probably ok, IMO. Beyond that, it is probably too much to execute the anti 3 dudes in a Hilux mission.

Lighten up Francis Just fantasizing spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars reinventing the wheel Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Excellent post - discussing the points you made: Terrorism - possibly a primary reason for staying in Afghanistan but I think a minor one. I have no doubt the Taliban if they returned to power would allow some VEOs to operate there (besides themselves) but I think they would likely only allow VEOs that were regional actors. Last time they allowed International VEOs to operate there they got invaded by the US & NATO, occupied for 10+ years and generally had a bad time. My opinion they would be massive a-holes yet again when in power as they were and are now but would likely keep themselves from becoming targets of direct military action again. Strategic reasons you listed - concur but I would ask us to question the cost to benefit of direct military and expensive financial support to the NUG. China and Iran will get to the rare earth metals that are mineable in Afghanistan before we will be able to as they can merely walk there if they wanted to. Their geographic presence alone makes a supported friendly proxy that is a puppet that we will use in opposition or as foil to their regional plans unrealistic IMO. If Afghanistan were intrinsically stronger and by custom unified, then maybe but as they are weak by nation-state standards, they will be sucesptible to regional influence more easily than our support that we are willing to commit to can overcome. They will make deals with regional powers regardless if we disapprove of them or not, we are half-way around the world and don't want to be there any longer, they're neighbors are right there, they are not going away and they will be who they trade and work with on a broader scale than us. We made a mistake, spend an a$$ load of money and don't want to admit we were wrong - concur. That said, it doesn't mean we want just say to hell with it. There are only so many more billions Congress is willing to appropriate, no one wants to see that final Saigon moment when the end happens and the helicopters with the last of our folks are getting the hell out of there so let's acknowledge that is not what we want but some return of the Taliban is inevitable as we are not willing to pour another 500+ billion over 10-15 years to keep the inevitable from happening. 500+ billion can do shit load of good here, can it really do a shit load of good in Afghanistan? If CG were running for office and my opponent were a stay the course politician, I would pummel them with that sophistry mercilessly, surprised it has not been made in national elections as of yet. We have to acknowledge we are spending a shit ton of money to not support and defend the people of Afghanistan but the elites of Afghanistan we find less offensive than the Taliban, is it really worth it to keep them in power? Funding can keep the NUG in power / functioning for some period of time after we withdraw all or most of our forces - concur. So let's act on that fact and start to move towards the door of this party we want to leave while still chatting with the attendees. Relocate the mission slowly to Mazar e Sharif as the north is less Pashtun and hence less Taliban, fund as required the NUG, bribe as required local warlords / criminals to keep the Taliban busy, directly fund provincial governments to keep the shit to shoe level in there provinces and keep the NUG from stealing all the money and then at an appropriate time, probably in the winter as the fighting will be less then, pull the plug, cross the Friendship Bridge like the Red Army did in 89 and call it good. There will inevitably be some loss of national prestige (temporarily) and political clout/influence in Central Asia for a time but if you carefully and smoothly step back, you will not be or look like you got chased out with your tail between your legs rather you did your part, the NUG just could not pull it together and they failed. Charlie Wilson was right, we did amazing things and then we fucked up the end game, was true in the 80s and true now, the task is how to minimize the long term negative consequences of poor previous choices not continue making them.

Indeed... ;-) On a related subject to light attack aircraft, an article on an developing attack aircraft at multiple levels with actual strategy for delivering & sustaining capability not merely a successor to a platform currently performing a mission. Worth the time. https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/reclaiming-the-air-attack-mission-a-radical-return-to-a-proven-success/

Always liked the F7F - two motors would be good If we're going down (sts) the rabbit hole get a modernized F-82 Pilot and CSO get their own cockpits

Copy so probably not any US pilots of late. Brits did take a few home after the Falklands and fly them for a bit even thinking about them for COIN just curious if we had gotten first hand knowledge Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk