Clark Griswold

On the original topic of this thread, has the Navy started to experiment with shortening their pilot training syllabus and/or introduce technology to compensate for less flight training time? I saw that two Navy guys went thru PTN but as far as changing their program, is the Navy looking to this also?

Copy that If Air Tractor could modify the AT802U for a liaison / light cargo version without breaking the bank, there's a contender if the USAF wanted to get back in that business. AT's website says the AT802U can launch with an 8k payload, use some of that payload capability for a rugged cargo pod and 4-6 pax seating with a stretched model. AF would need to get comfortable with single pilot utility ops, not sure they could get on board but the times are changing (sort of). On the subject of Light Airlift / Liaison Aircraft, I'm not sure if this is the right one for this proposed mission but I just know the AF needs it:

This maybe related to that idea: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2019/09/04/controversial-changes-coming-soon-in-air-forces-next-budget-its-top-civilian-says/ Probably more aimed at older systems vice one in procurement but it's possible.

All true but here we are and there is no turning back from acquiring the F-35 nor should there be any attempt to abruptly stop procurement but I think there is a reasonable amount of room for a serious debate on whether or not to buy the full lot.

Copy. Agreed un-fornicating that which exists now is preferable (cost/risk/timing/possible) but... if restarting the Raptor line is a NO GO, then while the 35 line is open, exploring what is possible (perhaps not practical) would be wise IMHO. A reverse of the process that developed the A-7 from the F-8.

Article on deficiencies: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/ Like Brabus, I think getting the F-35 right is the best outcome but LM getting a correction vector in the form of a truncated buy might be necessary. As to the F-35 replacing the Eagle, maybe if they could optimize the outline for lower drag. Longer fuselage, lower cross-section with a slightly taller airframe, additional third weapons/mission bay forward of the existing two, finback conformal fuel tank, etc... if this variant were ever designed/built I would base off the A model to attempt to maximize commonality between the two to mitigate one of the major problems of variant incompatibility with parts/sub-systems. Lower drag, two more missiles, a bit more gas. Japan might be interested in this as they have expressed interest in a 22/35 hybrid, this would not be exactly that but an air dominance focused variant, close enough.

Possibly, as to light fighters in greater numbers but we are where we are now but if we did acquire a smaller, nimble fighter like Gripen just as an example, a light airlifter force that meets the fighter at a dispersal or roadbase for a quick turnaround then launch again for all involved could be a viable concept to sustain launches while the threat of long range fires still exists. Ex: Two ship of light fighters recover to a road base approximately 200 NM from the FEBA and meet a light ground party who handle initial recovery and approximately 5 minutes later a two ship of light airlifters land at same roadbase with 2k of ordinance, 4k of fuel. Ground party turns the jets in 20 minutes and they immediately launch on next combat mission, turboprops launch immediately after them for RTB for next re-supply mission and ground party departs road base for next rendezvous. Small airport, roadbase or grass strip used for 30 minutes max to keep from attracting long range fires or enemy RPA attacks. That scenario is a pretty tough triple flip off the high board coordination trick for ops, mx and logistics but a likely example of what will be required if we go bare knuckles with Russia/China.

No doubt, that is what the authors with a better platform than my erudite postings on BO net should argue with, concept/platfrom/application (admin, costs, capabilities) Another in the series (Airpower Orphans) this one on Liaison Aircraft: https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/airpower-orphans-part-ii-whatever-happened-to-liaison-aircraft/ Like the Carbon Cub but you always want more, Pilatus PC-6 would be my choice: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-6

Concur on it being primarily a sustainer after the momentum is established by the Medium/Heavy Airlifters and that could be (enough airlift if we drank the adaptive base kool aid, I believe we should as the Russians & Chinese didn't build 6.9 thousand surface to surface and cruise missiles for nothing) but having a little bit of a plan B would not be bad or too expensive, IMHO. As to your point that the arguments being made now for another light airlifter are the same as have been made before, true but that doesn't invalidate them necessarily. Light and nimble are two things the AF is going to have to learn, not that acquiring a few light airlifters is going to completely build out a robust mobile combat capability in the AF that but it would be a step in the right direction. Low foot print, dispersion capable attack/fighters supported by Light Airlifters capable of quick resupply then hop back out of range of the enemy's long range fires; low cost high availability military airlift to move the small loads during normal ops, win-win.

Roger that - that's a possibility.and agree with you that the concept not the details are what is to be argued for. What is it the customer wants or what the authors think the customers need but are not getting supplied by the AF right now? Faster light airlift and more direct interaction with the airlift supplier. How do you do that? From the cuff, I could see Lt Airlift Dets with light FW capabilities on tap for pax/cargo that's not palletized, requires no special handling (hazmat), not a regular re-supply, less than 4,000 lbs. (just a number to start with) and parties of less than 12 (another starting number) that need movement within 36 hours. Requests can not be placed in both airlift request systems (main and mini AMD) to prevent gaming the system placing two requests and seeing which one gets service first. Every 36 hours the slate is wiped clean and new request queue built. Smaller cargo requirements to remove those requests from the big AMD's plate, inside the typical planning cycle with some restrictions on the type of requirements to keep it to small cargo/pax movements that need direct customer service.

No doubt (cost, overkill, etc..), just a sidebar discussion but if there was a widget that absolutely had to get somewhere as fast as possible with the greatest flexibility on destination requirements, a tilt rotor capability would be it. For what the authors of the article are advocating for (light intra theater affordable quick responding on demand airlift) it's a FW solution. What the requirement exactly is what keeps me a skeptical believer. The requirement as to how many tails, how much do each of those tails need do? Payload, speed, takeoff/landing capability, other capes (NVG, Defensive Systems, etc...). Just a WAG, but a 25 tail fleet of SkyCouriers figured at 2 sorties a day per tail at 3,000 lbs of cargo/pax with 10% sortie attrition gives you the capability to move 135,000 lbs over a range of about 640 nm. Now is that enough or too little? That was just a guess but you see where I think this needs to go, how much gap coverage is needed to cover?

I thought about the Osprey too but the per flight hour cost I don’t think fits with this capability / mission Not a terrible idea though for tilt rotor delivery and there are other tilt rotors that could work this mission like the Bell Augusta 609 Smaller but could be a solution if timeliness needed to be increased considering the effect on cost Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe but argue for more manned aircraft where and when you can. The Seagulls and Bobs will always default to no, don’t just take no and give up. These are good articles with corners of recent military history I was not aware of but they need to get above the argument for platform X or Y and argue for Light Intra theater airlift as a sustained non-regionally associated capability the AF should maintain for the Joint Team. They refer in both articles to the likely need for this if war with Russia breaks out in Europe, but the same capability would be needed in a Pacific, S. American or ME/African theater. The C-27J could have been this capability (bit overkill but not as much as a 130 would be for these light airlift missions) but that ship has sailed. With dispersed operations being considered due to the growth in our potential foes abilities to target with long range fires and the likelihood of dispersed operations being a reality, the support capabilities to enable this, light on demand airlift, should be acquired, IMHO. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wise words, the authors don’t address that but I imagine they envision cargo loads light enough not require a serious support effort from the aerial port flying into or out of and likely I would see them advocating this organic lift being under the purview of a deployed OG. To me those seem not unreasonable but to effectively execute the platform there would need some higher level visibility to prevent hoarding of it for just in case but then how does that fit the light/on-demand service direct to the customer? I’m a skeptical believer but think you have a point that would have to be answered prior to green lighting this Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not bad but if the AF chose to acquire a new platform to fulfill this role I would focus on the cargo mainly, people sometimes role the authors warn is not currently being fulfilled by the OSA jets the AF currently has. Seems the ASEL Cessna Caravan or Qwest Kodiak would be good people haulers but a bit shy on cargo options, exactly what the cargo requirements is since it is a small, utility hauler is the 640 million dollar question. Not just trying to TLAR it but what exactly is the requirement and what should be the practical solution to that requirement? How much cargo/people (max) and how far/fast? Other capes for the platform? Discussed a bit earlier in the thread but grokking on this idea, I think working backwards from a dispersed element of fighter/attack aircraft and what their reasonably conceivable resupply needs would be is a good starting point. Deliveries to fill the gaps between major or regular resupplies. Either the SkyTruck or SkyCourier seem the best options. SkyTruck has a ramp, loading system and rear cargo door for airdrop, SkyCourier has better cargo capacity (load) and is optimized for a common container system (LD3 shipping container). Just my two cents but as this is mainly to be an air-land light cargo/pax platform to prepared and semi-prepared fields, the SkyCourier would be my choice.

Legit critique but as an institution we have used said AAD and PME indicators as discriminators for military rank promotion, just my opinion and experience they were given more weight (incorrectly) than K, Q codes or SEI. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another interesting read from WOR on OSA / Light Airlift: Airpower Orphans, Part I: Putting the “Operational Support” Back in Operational Support Airlift History and purpose/rationale of the cargo centered OSA better explained IMO than in the first article at beginning of thread. Authors again don't mention the C-145 or 146 but do the Twin Otter and SkyCourier curious but whatevs.

Same as it was at Beale... easy setup that was a decent selling point to attract volunteers, no accidents, incidents or violations to my knowledge for the Global Hawk Companion Training Aircraft Program to my knowledge during its run. From my perspective, about 5 minutes after I graduated SUPT. Second order effect of the on again off again credentials arms race that has only gotten worse with the advent of online master's degrees and the growth of the Professional Military Educational Complex. Data block on your surf showing likely worthless Advanced Academic Degree? Yup Data block on your surf (if aircrew) showing Advanced Primary Operational Skills (Instructor/Evaluator/FCF cert/etc.)? Nope Think about that, Academic credentials (masters and/or pme) matter more in the great scheme of things than actual Operational credentials and hence experience/ability. What's wrong with the Air Force? Many things but trying to reduce it further down to root problems... model career progression/paths envisioned decades ago and the credentials/education considered necessary for said old models and not really updated for today's reality, would be my choice for today.

The yearly flying hour budget for G-Hawk guys to fly the Aero Club Cessnas for the 12th RS was about $90k for the entire squadron for the entire FY. It was so little money ACC didn’t even know about it until they began the process of creating the 18XX AFSC and started to audit the existing RPA squadrons. We argued like hell for it but no soup for us or anyone else flying a robot. ACC said it would be too much trouble at OCONUS locations because GA type aircraft are almost exclusive to CONUS US airspace... #totalbullshit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As to a T-6, no doubt there would be cost savings in commonality but the DART would be cheaper to buy and fly, maintain as a fleet of ACE aircraft, not sure about that... Agreed, this has negative 6.9% chance of happening but it never hurts to argue for it over BO No argument also as to how screwed up things have gotten thanks to the Higher, Farther, Faster crowd that Boyd fought at the Puzzle Palace. Also, I see no end to it with current crop of leaders at the controls now or in the future, no one is going out on a limb to say not every plane has to be the absolute best in category or it's shit, the party line is continuing. In other threads I've argued for less costly, less sophisticated platforms to be an appropriate part of the overall AF fleet and will continue to do so along with others, only a total idiot or a corrupt narcissist would continue this delusion that we need overkill for 80% of the time we deliver airpower. Don't mind getting teased/chided for my incessant, cultish advocacy for platforms like the Scorpion or YA-7F, these are platforms we need, can afford and quite frankly, would be the easy A the AF needs to get it's mojo back with Congress and Media. Every time we dream up some science project that blows up in our faces and we have to go back to Dad for more money is that much more political and real capital we don't have in the future for the other things we will need to just keep the lights on, but hey that's the next guy's problem... Rant complete.

Concur A light jet (or t-prop) that's inexpensive, light footprint and can fulfill the range of flight training (acro, spin, close formation, instruments) and keep the CT beans manageable is feasible. DART 450 would likely fit the bill.

Would a "Golden Apples & Known Follow On" program / assignment encourage retention? Thinking mostly of pilots (aircrew generally) but could be applied to other career fields (not sure exactly what but this is not necessarily exclusively for the rated community). Reading this thread and seeing that there has been some elimination of queep, shoe clerkism, bullshit, etc... not much but some and that is apparently all the Bobs are going to get rid of, could they win over the masses (or at least enough of them to mitigate the talent arterial bleeding) with assignments/programs to stay for a bite of a Golden Apple and the inevitable payback? Ex: 3 year flying assignment of choice (jet, location, both, something cool, etc..) followed by a known follow on assignment of equal length that meets the needs of the AF first but also is acceptable to the member (ex: UPT, RPA, Staff, etc...). All of this covered with a decent retention bonus also. If the follow on assignment can not be honored, the member would have the option to reject the re-assignment and either 7 day opt, Palace Chase/Front or accept the new follow-on, potentially with a new, larger bonus if the AF really needs this assignment filled, sts. This would pressure the AF to keep its word to and give the member certainty. Likely the initial bonus would be smaller but what the military can not match in the civilian world in monetary terms (by policy choice) it could offer in unique and personally rewarding work. Revival of the ACE program, Aggressors, more Special Flying Assignments, Light Attack, etc... Say there would 200 aircraft in these programs, coming in at about 500 hours each FY, averaging out at $5k per hour that's $500 million. Not chump change but if you retain about 145 pilots per FY you offered it as people came in and went out of the program, you break even. That's figuring an average pilot at the end of his/her ADSC cost $3.5 million to train (conservative estimate as some cost $8+ mil). Even when you figure in the support cost per tail, WAG that at $1 mil per FY, you only need about another 60 pilots to sign up per FY. Secondary benefits include reduced pressure on SUPT to graduate substandard students, reduced pressure on training fleet, reestablishing esprit de corps, not screwing over your guys, etc... Light a candle and crack a beer, if leadership really wants to fix retention, they have to do something different.

Publicly propose sweeping changes to the AF and DoD, engage Congress and the media, if there is no traction on reform, resign en masse. If you truly want to change the system you must be willing to sacrifice, rationalizing that you will fix it from the inside is bullshit. If GOs, started punching out and saying that which is known but not acknowledged at the highest echelons, you could potentially build the consensus in Congress for necessary change. That's an if and it is a risk/sacrifice but that is the only way to get the pols and relevant media's attention to make a persuasive argument. Easy for me to say as an internet nobody but that's all I got.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Viper today. Is this the first Viper to hit the private market?

Might but contractors don't do certain things so maybe not.