Clark Griswold

Yeah, I see your point however with MRTT already flying the technical risk is low and fleet complexity manageable, I think.

True, the need for a very large fuel load for either offload and/or loiter while ideally the situation cools down is highly desirable AI Google says loiter for 4 hours at 1000 NM from launch and offload 110k, that’s time to decide whether to execute Wing Attack Plan R or not. #strangelove Tactical tanker is KC-390, Standard tanker is KC-46, Strategic Tanker is KC-45 (A-330 MRTT+). Build it in the Airbus plant in Mobile. Tactical and Strategic are each 20% of the tanker fleet, 60% are Standard tails.

Yup, heard the same. Things change, different operational environment now so time to adjust. The report pushes hard (sts) for the Blended Wing Body (BWB) and Collaborative Tanker Aircraft (CTA), as the long term solution I think they are right, short term a new paradigm is needed though. If king for a day, if the KC-390 and A-330 MRTT+ could be acquired with an appropriate last tranche of KC-46s, I’d spin down the -135 fleet for this new iron while BWB design which would double as NGAL was spinning up. Those two designs somehow being acquired in compliance with the Made in America laws/policies. It’s a two fold problem, two fold approach. Big tankers to launch from relatively safe hardened bases with 1000+ NM set back from operational areas, AR to the next asset who will then AR the strikers assuming more risk going modestly into the A2AD bubble. The BWB will likely simplify this paradigm a bit (reduced signature, better range/offload, better organic defense) but we gotta crawl before we run.

They would still go thru the full training program at airline X even with the type but it might make them more competitive to the hiring algorithm… The 787 tanker is a long shot but just for the interwebs. The A-330 MRTT NEO would be my recommendation (interim bigger wing tanker) but politics would likely be insurmountable. Still it brings up a good question, should the AF become more strategically oriented? That is focus on long range strike and effects, coming from a distance to mitigate the proliferation of short to mid range fires? I’m not saying the whole of the AF should be bombers and big fighters but part of the force design.

Big tankers Breaking DefenseUSAF should buy newly designed air refuelers to meet Chin...Although there’s a “temptation” to keep buying KC-46s, a plan to procure 75 more of the Boeing-made tankers should be an “upper limit” followed by a new, longer range tanker, the Hudson Institute’s TiFinish and fix the 46, interim big tanker 787 tanker while developing the BWB. Needs a cargo door but a looker, especially as a Guard tail.

Gotcha, their x post (JBSA) didn’t mention the hard landing and just seeing that part now from this thread. The venerable T-6 though is showing its age, 53% MC rate. https://www.airandspaceforces.com/air-force-mission-capable-rates-fiscal-2024/ I’d prefer a return to a jet based primary trainer but that ain’t happening, the T-6C is the easy button so press it Air Force.

Glad they got out, controlled ejection, new iron people (leaders lurking on this forum), AETC needs it ASAP.

One more T-7 render, aggressor

Probably the scale of a resurrected ACE program if applied generally across all flying Wings receiving UPT grads in their first flying assignment might be pricey. Organically manning it might be cheaper, might… Wings or aircraft not taking first assignment UPT grads (probably not many but to be accounted for) are not many but to clarify the focus of the program, if those few Wings are suffering the same problems of sorties and flight hours, expand it then. Mover and Gonky discuss the BSTAR program here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=fo1xL6ZG6lg&pp=ygUUbW92ZXIgYW5kIGdvbmt5IHNob3c%3D Thought Mover brought up a valid point, is ACE or BSTAR intent on making them better B1 pilots or just better / more experienced pilots in general. He then asked the legitimate question, is this flying really similar enough to develop the pilot skills for this community? What do we want out of a new ACE program? An analogue aircraft or an aircraft to just keep building pilot skills generically?

I was about to ask you your two cents as you fly / have flown the L-39 The L-39NG would be my if king for a day choice (or other light jet: IA-63, M-345, etc…) but the cost would make this nigh impossible Gamebird seems to hit the right wickets: affordable, supportable, domestically produced, capable performance (aerobatics, range, speed)… but it’s not IFR certified and while I don’t think doing mind numbing repetitive IAPs is what ACE should do, I could see the naysayers using that as an argument against. I’d still argue for it just trying to bring up what the argument(s) might be against it. ACE as a program of Professional Military Flight Education and Training might have a better chance. Multiple programs, teaching, reinvigorating or reinforcing aviation skills while bringing together the different parts of the Line of the Air Force to fly together. Classes run with heavy, fighter, rotary (if fixed wing qualified also) pilots to fly together for their own personal and professional development. Gamebird based program could be one. Others maybe (STOL flying, powered glider, etc…) There’s a camaraderie built doing a challenge together, incorporating flying into rather than flickerball I think would build not only better individual pilots but a better pilot team.

Yup, the L-39 NG is probably the best solution if this is the answer to crew proficiency and experience building (ACE 2.0). If ACE ever got traction, for each base / wing / mds community it was attached to it would likely need a bit of structure / defined objectives to address observed crew flying issues to get institutional support. Use ACE for experience building in formation, generate high count patterns for SA building, x-country with training objectives (enroute rendezvous, dynamic retaking, training diverts, etc…). The dollars n cents, jet availability plus wear n tear on the heavy iron would be the data driven reason why. Cross currency would be critical to also justifying it. Some percentage would / should be set aside for crew planned good deals but kept to a reasonable amount.

TWZRetired KC-10 Extender Tankers Could Get A Second Life Wi...The USAF wants to know what it would take to regenerate a quartet of KC-10s for an undisclosed operator, and there are a couple of likely suspects.

Further musing on an ACE 2.0 model The main and best argument against it is the cost of multiple/many ACE platform bases across the Air Force so why not a hub and spoke model using 2 platforms maybe 1. Concentrate the logistics and program infrastructure in a few bases, operate them on trips out of those bases, 4 to 5 day trips, based near major domiciles, drawing on ARC members there to man the IP cadre and flying crew chiefs. Fly the ACE jets as a package to Base X, recurrence and proficiency rides, pilots fly their own sorties/local exercises/demos/etc, aircraft rotate back to base, cycle repeats. If the AF wanted to build out this idea, a commuter class jet or turboprop could be used for support (ferrying pilots, parts) to where flying opportunities are if jets aren’t at a base at the time pilots are available. Reliability would be key as jets would be on the road most of the time with support but likely a light compliment of mx, kinda leads back to the L-39 for its simplicity and mx concept. AMC ACE jet could be a PC-24 (cargo door) or Do 328eco (new builds) that also have a cargo and inflight door options.

ACC gets L-39NGs; AMC, AFGSC gets CJ-3s, C-12s; AFSOC gets PC-12s; AETC gets Gamebird GB1s. ACC program is red air, target simulation and large formations and some air demonstration work. Stick & rudder in an analog controls jet, reps and tactical air work experience building. AMC & AFGSC is proficiency building via light utility / liaison missions. Experience building learning a new type, seeing the commonalities among all technologically advanced, automated transport and commuter types and general operational experience. Jets and turboprops split, mix and match if appropriate with Wings based on iron they fly. AFSOC is reps and sets in a light advanced, turboprop. NVG, short field, exercise and team support. Airdrop utility door, EO/IR sensor, all options Pilatus offers on PC-12s now. AETC program is an IP enrichment assignment/duty and run by AETC for other commands, rated staff in non-flying billets and training activity for Nav, EWO, WSO, CSO, ABM, etc community. If capacity allows, fly Airmen of the moment, stand outs, etc as an incentive program. Tailwheel instruction is part of the plan and with the low footprint of this airplane, could be done as a traveling program. This sounds expensive but in reality it’s budget dust and saves money, wear and tear on the Crown Jewels, builds a better rated force and grows esprit de corps because pilots want to fly.

Finally they realize the genius of ideas proposed on base ops