Clark Griswold

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.

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.

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-mysterious-sea-skimming-ekranoplan-seen-in-full-view

Yes https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/06/why-the-u-s-needs-200-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-not-100/ So what’s the bill payer if no plus up ?