Clark Griswold

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

Probably so but the cost to acquire, operate and sustain is greater than an adapted commercial aircraft and for some AMC missions, a commercial aircraft with some mods is perfectly fine. Save money to get the NGAL going and fielded vs an all military fleet. I’d prefer a Mobility fleet of all grey T-tails but the resources are getting tighter, it might not be affordable. This is all just guesswork though and this hypothetical adapted commercial fleet would have missions in op plans during contingencies but exist mainly to serve steady state low risk missions as efficiently as possible with military owned iron.

Saw a talking head today throw out there these may be just criminals (low functioning) hired by Iranians, seems reasonable as they could have used several layers of separation to keep attribution deniable at least publicly Throw some money out there see what happens, gather intel on how well your networks are surveilled / compromised even if it doesn’t happen, maybe…

True, it’d be a total redesign of the engine nacelle and pneumatic supply for the blowers so a lotta non recurring engineering and money so probably not and maybe not necessary, these MAX 7s would be not really be tasked with landing on the good half of a runway that just got cratered from a ballistic missile, but other missions to relive pressure on the systems that can do that. I’d argue for a jet and specifically for a MAX 7 for the range, 3800 NM, that gets you Hickam to Anderson if you needed it.

That would be a COA, double down on the -46 assuming the teething problems are fixed Like you mentioned, the ratio of outsized/vehicular vs palletized/containerized cargo requirements would factor into this plus others (short, unprepared field delivery requirements, air drop, etc) If AMC decided to leverage commercial types for some of its routine, low risk, cargo missions, I’d go with the extremes and leave the -46 to handle the middle. 777 pax/cargo type, no ramp but a lot of people and pallets/ULDs for theater resupply and rotations. 737-7 MAX with gravel kit and Short Field Performance package, NG mods but Boeing could probably adapt to the MAX. This would be you island hopper, medivac, jack of all trades transport.

Oh yes, I agree a regular cargo jet(s) from the commercial world is probably 50% of the solution for AMC. With the growth of long range mass fires though (TBMs, drones, cheap cruise missiles, etc…) I see the utility in having short, rough field or road based capabilities (need high floatation, good tire/truck weight distribution, high wing). Our bases in CENTCOM have absorbed a lot of shots so far in the war with Iran, with China the runways in Japan, Guam, the PIs, Saipan, etc… it’ll be 50x that. OEF and OIF have some lessons for us but a lot of concepts that won’t be repeated likely for a while or ever again, namely long term steady state stabilization and support operations without air or long range fires threats. Even proxy forces now have capabilities only states would have, ala the Houthis, the democratization of technology and low price points now enable this. This is why we need some expeditionary heavy capabilities for Air Mobility, capable of short notice, ad hoc operations from many different airfields, roadways, suitable fields, etc… to give the enemy a harder targeting problem. But not everything in AMC needs to be this, half and half fleet would probably suffice. There have been legit proposals out there for this, https://www.aeroflap.com.br/en/boeing-777-could-become-a-tanker-for-the-us-air-force/ You could probably add enough mil capes for low threat ops and necessary communications/links without breaking the bank to more economically support our OCONUS forces, on demand airlift for NEOs, routine force movements, etc… Those 10 777xs not being accepted by Emirates would be prime candidates for this methinks https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/stocks/articles/emirates-refusing-delivery-first-10-140451290.html

Stabilization mission planning https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-groundwork-potential-action-cuba-trump/

From left field and to spur conversation, googled a bit and it might be 8 billion to restart the C-17 line and for how many jets? What if we bought A-400s instead with the Europeans purchasing an equivalent amount in American aerospace products? Not the same airlift capability but a very capable platform.

Valid, that was one of the points that killed the sale of the F-20 to allies, if its is so good why aren’t you buying it?

Yup This is the time and opportunity to bring innovation and advance Air Mobility.