Clark Griswold

Concur. From the article: McCoy also drew a firm line on culture. He does not want to outsource large parts of the training enterprise. Naval aviation is not a generic air force, and flying from ships imposes requirements a contracted model does not capture on its own. That’s leadership, they are using contractors for some of their training but the majority remains in house, for now we are too but I fear we will be mostly contractor eventually. I’ve thrown out a lot of ideas on this thread but opening a 4th regular UPT base (Sheppard is its own thing), primarily manned by the ARC and primarily for ARC bound graduates with their own syllabus and iron will alleviate the pressure. Give the state and wing that takes this mission confidence the rug won’t be pulled out from under them by making sending ARC bound students there as the normal paradigm. Steady business, steady program support from the Bobs. Keep it reasonable, PC-21 and KA-90 training aircraft, 150 hour syllabus.

https://www.twz.com/air/our-best-look-at-chinas-new-y-15-turboprop-airlifter

Where’s the RQ-170 assignment to?

https://aviationweek.com/podcasts/check-6/podcast-gps-spoofing-jamming-can-civil-aviation-adapt Bit wonky at times but interesting

https://theaviationist.com/2026/09/01/japans-massive-us-2-amphibian-teams-up-with-usaf-cv-22b-during-rescue-flag-26-1/ We need some seaplanes

Some good news https://www.foxnews.com/politics/inside-dangerous-us-mission-cleared-irans-mines-hormuz-shipping-lanes I would not recommend taking a cruise ship thru there but it seems like an improvement, not cheerleading for the war, special military operation, police action or however you wanna refer to it

Probably so, also to Afghanistan too https://www.facebook.com/reel/1854855728824750

I want these two missiles named Big and Little Enos https://www.twz.com/air/aim-424-malice-very-long-range-air-to-air-missile-emerges-from-the-shadows https://www.twz.com/air/tiny-air-to-air-missile-in-development-for-stealthy-u-s-navy-combat-aircraft

New boarding announcement

Yeah, I think they all do some variation of that about basically everything as our society has regressed; intellectually, culturally and politically. Getting a good majority 330+ million people to support policies that require personal sacrifice, delayed gratification and none to tangential material benefits to them is apparently too much for our politicians to attempt hence the lying, obfuscation, gas lighting, denial and wild overselling of all manner of policies. As to Iran though, if it were President Clark Griswold (God help us) I would explain in an Oval Office address: The history of aggression, terrorism and disruptive activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran against the United States and broader civilized world; probably releasing declassified information in that address to explain why we should fight them. What will be required of America, why this will succeed, how we will win, what victory means for the US and how the people of Iran can be helped. Why this is not imperialism, why it is right and why America half way around the world is responsible for this fight. Break Break As to strategy with Iran, had a stray thought on it… mentioned before in this thread I think but why not offer their provinces / non Persian areas that openly resist the IGRC weapons, support, reprieve from air strikes, etc… it would not be the only strategic LOE but one of them… Disrupt areas of the country not fully loyal to the revolutionary regime, deny oil export income, maximum economic sanctions but continuous delivery of humanitarian aid, block / control most air and maritime traffic, aggressively attack proxies abroad, lean on allies very hard to renounce diplomatic ties, continually execute long range strikes, split internal factions (Army vs IGRC) to offer leadership support and recognition in a post bellum Iran… basically everything short of a ground invasion while you prepare for a ground invasion…

Yup, that’s the problem / fact of life with American foreign policy problems. They are longer lasting than our election cycles, this causes politicians to gamble and occasionally get us knee deep without gathering the necessary public, political and institutional support to sustain and prosecute successfully said foreign policy challenge.

Yup, there is no tomorrow for the revolutionary government of the Iran if they lose hence why they spent 40 years getting ready for this. I did my own bar napkin math and I came up with a 1 million man fighting force to take, occupy and pacify Iran. Probably supported by another 1 million+ military members, 100+ CAPs, 3 carrier battle groups, etc… basically a doubling of the DOW budget, conscription required, the kitchen sink, etc… we can’t or won’t do that. We would end America as we know it, I’m not even opposed to military action against Iran to forestall nuclear weapons development but I know that if we decided that regime change is the only way to guarantee that the revolutionary Islamic government of Iran never acquires nuclear weapons, we would destroy our country in the process unless we as a country through a popular process decided this was worth it. One party making it their explicit policy, winning an election cycle and then executing it. I doubt that will happen so a lesser approach is likely required. My policy and strategy recommendations would be to consistently degrade conventional capabilities, factor and prioritize minimal collateral damage, deny economic resources to the regime; begin the diplomatic effects to isolate the regime; establish a new Iranian government in absentia that is a visible alternative to the revolutionary Islamic one and settle in for a multi year effort to collapse the regime. Did Israel trick us into attacking Iran? No. Did they encourage us to? Yes. The Venn diagram of Israel’s interests and America’s interests do overlap in Iran not having a nuclear weapons capability but Israel’s interest in this is much larger than ours, hence why they pulled every lever to get us to go kinetic. Others encouraged the administration to attack too, Israel was only part of the coalition. Totally neutral in that statement, I like the Israelis but don’t see them as infallible or without parochial interests either, they are a good ally mostly but not angels either, proceed accordingly. The Irony is the analogous behavior of President Trump and President Putin, both had successful military ops before that IMO encouraged them to try the big one. Putin had the successful operation taking Crimea and Trump had Midnight Hammer and Venezuela, they both misinterpreted the successes of those very different focused missions and thought they were indicators of likely success in a major conventional campaign. Nope, not unless you gear up and commit your country to a major military campaign, you’ll not lose what you start but you won’t win either. Putin has obviously gotten close to that total mobilization required if you want to win but even he thinks that is likely more than his nation will support. President Trump hasn’t even hinted at what would likely be required and/or doing that.

Commuter worthy read https://warontherocks.com/managed-instability-why-the-wars-against-iran-and-ukraine-can-go-on-and-on-and-on/

Nice My main quibble and the point(s) BURT made well in his article in support of the Rhino was the expeditionary capability inherent in it vs the -35 for a replacement if the AF wants to preserve the Attack community which I obviously support Changing the argument or adding to it should be the need for an AF expeditionary strike fighter focusing on the attack mission set. A force forward based to redeploy quickly to complicate enemy targeting and survive, to interoperate with the main branch leading the PACOM theater seamlessly, etc… Saving the Hog would be great but ultimately the mission and operational conditions have moved on and in particular the tyranny of distance necessitates new iron.