Clark Griswold

I tried finding the video where they discussed this but to no avail this morning, i think WOMBAT, was in that episode, anyway they said if you follow the current matrix it would lead to directing to a shore landing and if it was blue water ops, I think they said barrier but I will eat humble pie if wrong. Mover, WOMBAT and Gonky were all skeptical of the loss of a carrier capable trainer, same for me as I am skeptical of less flying in mil trainers with mil instructors for AF pilots during training. Just posting plane porn here: What should have replaced the T-1, Pilatus PC-24 Add a UARSSI (no plumbing, just for dry contacts) to it, NVG friendly if not fully compatible cockpit, mil radios, HUDs both sides and boom a great multi engine trainer and mobility lead in aircraft.

Mover n Gonky discussed this on their channel, USN’s reasoning is that if PLM is not working they’ll do a land recovery or take a barrier anyway, their jets their rules but a bold strategy Cotton… ———————————————— If there was a program to replace the T-6 and expand the syllabus taught in phase 2 M-345… took a big sip of the kool aid… it’s probably the best jet for an intermediate+ trainer PC-21 / AT-6C if the Bobs wanted to stay turboprop for intermediate+ trainer

True, I mention as it they seemed to be there for specific training, drones, and how to use asymmetric capabilities / tactics to fight conventional forces. Bodes ill for stability in certain areas poorly / loosely governed methinks.

Textron / Leonardo ready to get the USN a new trainer now https://theaviationist.com/2025/07/28/textron-unveils-beechcraft-t-346n/ I wonder if they could offer the same partnership for the AF for the M-345… https://aircraft.leonardo.com/en/products/m-345 Making this jet the standard intermediate trainer, companion training aircraft and an aggressor/support aircraft.

So this is good news… https://www.twz.com/news-features/cartel-members-fought-in-ukraine-to-learn-fpv-drone-skills-report

Meh it’s just Monopoly money to the AF at the prices we’re talking about here but an RV could work too An airplane that is not too challenging to fly but more to handle than a 172, can enter the pattern at 200 knots, can put on Gs for the break turn, etc… not perfect but before studs hit the T-6, this trainer plus a syllabus to give them a transition from a 141 training environment to a quasi mil would pay dividends methinks If FUPT (really?) is it then polish that turd as best you can. PPL + Instruments, AMEL, TW + transition to mil flying, probably around 130-150 hours flight time.

Then begin Operation Shoe Clerk Subversion Standardize the part 141 training, shift from existing ESAs to stand alone programs at aviation schools; get more training at these schools before they report to UPT, flight time in something fast (relatively) that can put on Gs to build fast thinking and high SA in a busy mil pattern, etc… basically more UPT just before they report to UPT. I don’t have any tail dragger time but after a PPL, instrument and AMEL courses, could an average student get the endorsement in about 10-15 hours then get another 20-30 hours in something like an Extra 300 (as an example) to get experience in a fast(er), maneuverable aircraft before the T-6 and would that increase the chance for success? I’d rather see UPT resurrected but that is not likely to happen so like aikido, go where the energy is going till you can direct it where you want it to go. Edit: make that a Game Bird 1, read this review and googled training in an Extra 300. Probably too much to use a 300 for initial tail wheel but a Game Bird seems like it could hit all the wickets. https://www.flyingmag.com/we-fly-gb1-gamebird/ in this phase, students first TW qual, then train for two ship form, no form acro just basic maneuvers and fly form to mil bases to train there, form arrivals, overhead pattern, etc…

Ozzy, RIP

One more from Roger Alan Wade

Turkish Typhoons https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2025/07/23/turkey-uk-agree-on-eurofighter-exports-in-step-closer-to-deal/

Half turboprop half jet biz jet https://www.autoevolution.com/news/gulfstream-american-hustler-half-turboprop-half-turbojet-100-percent-a-weird-idea-218444.html 3 built and tested They reused wings, tail and empennage in the proposed but not purchased Peregrine 600 trainer concept jet

Yup Never gonna happen but the need for a light inexpensive (in airplane money) to operate aircraft capable of the mission demanded by the light attack armed reconnaissance mission has overlap with primary / intermediate military flight training, seems like the AT-6 could have been not just an answer to LAAR but also an evolution over the T-6 without as much disruption to that part of the UPT enterprise. Rugged & reliable for high use rate / repetitive sorties. Benign flight characteristics for student pilots, inexperienced foreign pilots in training but capable of acro / defensive maneuvers for missions. Economical costs in acquisition and sustainment. A simple training sortie would cost as much as much as a complex sortie, in flight hour cost, normalizing over a syllabus. In your intermediate phase of training, it would give you a wider syllabus before you tracked and specialized. Just my opinion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Question for any 11F who flew the AT-6B, did it have enough power with the new engine and prop combo to sustain energy to be useful for some lead-in fighter training?

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.

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.

Big Air Force to AFSOC:

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

The official end of Liberty Lifter https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/07/09/darpa-ends-cargo-seaplane-program-eyes-new-uses-for-tech/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn 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

T-7 Thunderbird

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.

Fat Amy’s been on HGH apparently

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

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.