Jump to content

Clark Griswold

Supreme User
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    3,521

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    43

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Clark Griswold

    AF Light Air Support Aircraft

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    4 hours ago, Pooter said:

    Such a wildly out of touch quote. Pretty sure the entire T-6 faip mafia would give their left nut to fly a weaponized version with 50% more horsepower

    Yeah, I was taken aback, said 2 star had been at a couple meetings, visited my boss to talk shop / bullshit a bit and seemed ok overall.  I was surprised that a fighter guy would crap on it, LA posed and still poses no threat to the manned fighter mission.  They operate in different roles now and really even during GWOT.

    When A-1s and AT-37s were introduced in Vietnam, they didn’t take missions from -105s, -4s, etc… same thing in GWOT and now.  
     

    AF Light Air Support Aircraft

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

    It’s not certified.  Why isn’t it?  I do not know.  The U28, which this is designed to replace, received each modification due to combat demand from various TF who had a lot of sway and money during the GWOT.  With that pressure gone and those organizations mostly focused elsewhere I think the sense of urgency which characterized U28 upgrades is lacking.  Or more accurately, what limited attention those entities have for small wars (versus peer) remains on the U28 which is still doing the Lords work, and bandwidth hasn’t spilled over to this new thing.  That’s my read anyhow.

    Combine that with the fact it’s a lot harder to do specialized things in aviation than people appreciate, and here we are.  It doesn’t help that the last 2 AFSOC/CCs left the command listless and bereft of strategic identity or focus.  HQ AFSOC has serious issues with jealousy & small dick syndrome, every community feels slighted by others for reasons maybe real but certainly perceived.  It needs vision and leadership and cohesion to effectively rise above squabbling tribes into an organization emotionally mature enough to be an equal partner in SOCOM and therefore capable of advocacy for how its own vision serves the whole. 

    My understanding is it can’t shoot yet either.  Someone actually in the program please correct me, but I was with their commander last month and no one has taken it to a range & shot yet 🤷🏽‍♂️

    Not certified and why?  Lack of GO support, belief that the mission is not part of the core AF mission(s).  
    I could go on, heard as an anecdote a two star deride the AT-6 back in the 2016-17 timeframe with a “who’d wanna fly that” comment while at the Puzzle Palace.   If a GO can’t imagine himself flying it I think they just play along and kill it later, same with the C-27J and other small fleets.

    Anyway… they’ll continue shenanigans and kill the program eventually.

    FWIW, if a person is lurking here with the ear of a decision maker, we’re gonna be suppressing insurgents, criminals/pirates, and all manner of rabble at the periphery of the Free-ish World from now till the end of time… Reapers and other UAS are good but round out the team with a capable, modular, purpose built platform, the Scorpion.   Don’t overthink it, just acquire it.

     

    Expeditionary basing, logistics and seaplanes (yeah it's a seaplane thread)

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    I agree with Boomer here, our unconventional fight isn't on the high seas with big planes...
    I do think a small, specialized seaplane would be good for a lot of SOF related actives as well as CSAR. The USAF used HU-16s to support lots of clandestine operations worldwide till they reached their service life. USCG was still flying them when I was a kid. A C-130 on floats is the wrong answer and money is the least of the problems. I was at AFSOC HQ when this idea was in full force. The meetings were a riot, essentially the problem set was "the pacific has a lot of water" without much other discussion. Words were thrown around that had zero substance but sounded good: "sustain the fight" "ACE" "give China dilemmas." Obviously the corporate knowledge on seaplane operations has long left the building. Most nations divested of seaplanes for a multitude of reasons. The few that remain are typically small (exceptions are the C-415 and US-2) specialized aircraft (SAR & firefighting) and have multitude of operating restrictions.
    1. Sea state. Blue water ops are hard and often out of limits. Japan FAFO'd with this a few years back and lost a US-2.
    2. Surf break. How are you getting to shore? How are you getting back out to open water to launch?
    3. Reefs. I'm sure the draft on a 130K float plane is decent enough, tides are both your friend and foe here. 
    4. Cargo. How are you delivering it? Sand is soft, beaches have waves, the list goes on. You aren't just driving up to the beach willy-nilly and backing in to drop shit off. What is the expectation of realistically sustaining forces here? Do we have floating K-loaders? The floating dock in Gaza didn't do so great...
    5. Basing. Where are the seaplanes operating from? We had a fleet of seaplane tenders for a reason AND we had seaplane bases all over in various harbors. These planes need sustainment just like any other plane, even more so with salt water issues.
    I could keep going but you see the point. When people brought these issues up, the C-130 mafia scoffed dismissively....because C-130 on floats! So again, something small for SOF/SAR type things I think would be a good asset. Otherwise, let's focus on shutting the power off for a bit...
     
     
     

    Concur with that idea that if we acquired a seaplane platform it would have to be right sized in terms of platform and fleet size, with that in mind if I was asked in the matter I’d buy an existing one, pretty much the US-2 seaplane or maybe the FF72 ATR based floatplane
    I would not call it niche but optimized light-medium long range utility for the maritime environment
    Here’s where I’m guilty of putting the cart before the horse in this idea, I could see having to or choosing to buy specialized or new equipment to be transported by this hypothetical platform vs what we have now, especially if this platform didn’t have a ramp cargo door system.
    This would be to get more out of it, especially when doing resupply to remote and austere locations.
    That makes you question the rationale for it in the first place. Not managing the jenga puzzle of requirements/budgets/compatibility/constraints, it’s easy to just yes to cool seaplane, details later but reality always kicks in…
    If the price could be better; AFSOC, AMC, USMC, USCG & interested Allies could negotiate a mass buy, one configuration and each buyer tailor their planes as desired.
    Keep it right sized but enough to get Shinmaywa interested
    AFSOC gets a maritime lift/strike/ISR/CSAR platform
    AMC gets a long range mobility and probe/drogue tanker
    Other services would probably use those two configurations
    WAG fleet size (all users) 100-125 tails


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Concept aircraft

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted


    Low RCS tanks (conformal or drop/otherwise) have gotta be on a roadmap somewhere.

    If not we’re just playing lip service to the IndoPacific problem set.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Concur, everything will need to have high MPG to be relevant
    I wonder if a technological capable non US user (looking at you Israel) has already worked this out and we could just buy their mod?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    A-10 retirement

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Good video and explanation from Pako on the COCOM demand / no feedback problem.  

    As to the A-10s and replacing it, my druthers would be to ask for as many EXs as possible to replace the retiring Hawgs.  Make it simple enough that Congress can understand it and end up with more 4+ long range modern fighters while beginning to consolidate the AF to one type of 4+ gen fighter, the EX.  

     

    • Upvote 1

    Expeditionary basing, logistics and seaplanes (yeah it's a seaplane thread)

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    If we're going to look at unconventional capabilities I'd rather we spend money on something like turning their electricity off indefinitely over finger banging with some boat planes.

    Get both, the exotic unconventional and the regular unconventional (no paradox intended)

    That’s the deterrence we want, not only will your military be blunted but your economy and society will be destabilized
    Don’t even try it

    But to the seaplane, I’d argue generally it will give more bang over more missions with more flexibility in basing vs a water based ground effect platform


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Expeditionary basing, logistics and seaplanes (yeah it's a seaplane thread)

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Boomer6 said:

    Where have I heard this thinking before...

    c00b94e5-bbb3-4ea9-a078-7a1a21b87bc5_text.gif

    Oh yeah, there’s truth in that but if the shift to the Indo-Pacific is real, if we want to be able to sustain forces after destruction of bases, runways and docks, if we want to project power on multiple axis to complicate China’s problems we have to begin to look at unconventional capabilities 

    The problem is money mainly as usual, to do this a bill payer would have to be found, changing out our tactical air mobility systems seems to be where to start.

    Expeditionary basing, logistics and seaplanes (yeah it's a seaplane thread)

    in Squadron Bar

    Posted

    1 hour ago, FourFans said:

    Meh.  More proof that China has finally entered the 80's.

    Yeah but they are moving on something where we seem to be navel gazing a bit when I comes to the new logistics platforms we keep saying are gonna be necessary for runway independent ops

    Along with 69 other projects, it’s time to get the USA a modern seaplane

    Military, Coast Guard, Aerial Fire Fighter all from the same platform.  That can get a bit of economy of scale and get the price per tail to something reasonable.  

    Money for anything but the shiniest and pointiest planes is not easy to find but a plus sized version of the US-2 is probably feasible if the money could be had.

    E-7A Wedgetail

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    Why can’t you have both in a platform, BACN and AWACS, links boosted and an additional sensor feed from a radar(s)?
    This plus the C2 for UCAV & UAS.
    This might / probably would push the capability to a platform that can comfortably operate in the high 40s but go big or go home


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    E-7A Wedgetail

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    The E2D is great for current day; weird, a senator doesn’t know shit. 

    Nor sure her motives, could be the economic footprint of supporting a smaller platform or could be legit performance concerns

    Didn’t catch all of her comments but if I were a staffer or mil liaison working for her, I’d make the argument for an E-7 not just for the combat C2 mission but for long range patrol and monitoring, peacetime to contingency planning. Air and surface surveillance.

    The Arctic, maritime regions and maintaining a watch on long range patrols and joint ops occasionally being conducted by the Russians & Chinese are all examples of how not just in WW Taiwan how a long range multi sensor capable platform fits into the team.

    Just dreaming and if money grew on trees…
    Develop a MAX 7 based platform, the MAX is not a NEO but worth it for domestic considerations.
    Referencing the defunct E-10 project, develop a GMTI capability plus long range EO/IR.
    Develop this with the Israelis, leveraging their capes into a domestic modern platform (if not using the G550 based platforms)


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    E-7A Wedgetail

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    3 minutes ago, LookieRookie said:

    It’s not about smaller plane, biz jets can fly higher and faster which makes their sensors more useful.

    Also, Boeing is terrible at producing aircraft now.

    Copy and understand, I believe @ClearedHot mentioned in this or another thread the Israeli AWACS based on the G550, same platform for the new Compass Call, I could see that as a selling point for logistical support and their jet has some very high end capes

    2 minutes ago, brabus said:

    Those are all excellent reasons to NOT stick with the E-7 shitshow. E-7 would have been nice about 15 years ago, but obviously we’re well past that and it’s very sensible to drop that hot pile of garbage (from a programatic POV) in favor of better tech.

    True, I’m just thinking the politics factor can trump the military capabilities factor here if not addressed 

    Just as emotions often over power logic, it has to be considered 

    https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-cancels-e-7-wedgetail-citing-survivability-and-cost-concerns/

    From the article:

    During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concerns that the E-2D might not be able to match the E-7’s capabilities, and cited prior statements from Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein that a space-based capability wouldn’t be available until the early 2030s.

    “We just haven’t heard, in my view, sufficient justification for the cancellation of such a critical program,” Murkowski told Air Force leaders.


    Jobs, money, prestige, etc… politicians want their constituents to have their fair share plus whatever else they can get.  I want my Congressman to do the same, I think trying to meet her plus other politicians half way on this while developing the orbital systems is the best way.

     

    E-7A Wedgetail

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    For sure. I don’t think manned ISR should go away, but for those “non-WW3” situations, something like a G550 (or U2 if available) is a much better option. 
     
    [mention=405]StoleIt[/mention] What does that article have to do with the topic at hand? And yes, in peer war, manned C2ISR is substantially less survivable and capable than several other unmanned technologies, including space.

    Yeah if the Bobs change their minds and continue supporting a manned/unmanned aircraft a smaller plane might be better / more budget friendly

    Probably could acquire more, plug more gaps as required, support more CAPs, possibly ACE employ, etc…

    I think the 73 for admin/legal/acquisition/political reasons just might be more likely to happen with less drama

    If Boeing and the ABM career field really want this aircraft to happen, methinks going forward they need to show how viable/useful the E-7 LOS C2 of unmanned systems could be, that’s a new capability plus the traditional C2 that makes the platform relevant IMO


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    E-7A Wedgetail

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    44 minutes ago, brabus said:

    https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-cancel-e-7-wedgetail-buy/

    Valid points from the article but wondering if this is a case of thinking only about WW3 when there are other levels of conflict on the spectrum where an ad hoc C2 would be useful, unless the space based option is truly global coverage 24/7, atmospheric and space weather resistant, defensible to ASAT weapons, robust comms.  
    All that could be asked of a manned or unmanned aircraft but before I put all my eggs in one basket I’d keep a back up option.

    Anyway, I’d keep it real, get the 73, minimum mods, learn from the Aussies.

     

×
×
  • Create New...