Clark Griswold

They can go the extra mile this last FY Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has anyone gotten an ETP to perform all AFTPs over 2 quarters but not exceeding the 72 per year?

The adsc should be linked to the amount of / quality of training The more they cut in flight hours the less Congress should let them set high adscs

Yup - just a bit awkward One more for today Smokin’!: Chain-Smoking Chinese Runner Completes Marathon in 3.5 Hours https://www.breitbart.com/sports/2022/11/14/smokin-chain-smoking-chinese-runner-completes-marathon-3-5-hours/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Keep on rocking https://www.tmz.com/2022/11/14/100-year-old-man-celebrates-birthday-strip-club-dallas/?adid=social-fb&fbclid=IwAR0D96ZlQCWhXzHM38ajuHFuS6h8H1Pb0fAIdpgh5hOZBjRNjj6dQHykAG8 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Drop that telephone pole, count 2 Mississippi then maneuver I imagine... non-fighter pilot's opinion but the long range interceptor with a VLRAAM will be able to shape the fight by first look / shot if they enter the ring off the top rope coming down on a 4th gen opponent, 5th gen would be different due to less SA till the players are closer and the interceptors get a radar hit they can use Just a DCS video of a 2 ship of 31s vs a 2 ship of Vipers... but being put on the defensive first as you close on the Foxhounds looks like a problem... again just a DCS video without all the other support assets that would assist this Viper two ship but to illustrate the problem of not getting the first shot

The RF-4 would be a good inspiration for a revitalized capability in that mission set, that mission is different now but still present me thinks... Anyway, for info and to stir the pot... https://www.mcara.us/RF-4B.html https://flying-eyes.fandom.com/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_RF-4_Phantom_II RF-4s with upgrades under Project SURE. Inspiration but not necessarily a design starting point, this is just a theoretical requirement I would still prioritize altitude, endurance over speed so a larger, straighter (sts i guess) wing but maybe a delta for whatever fuselage form would be selected. Sensors over weapons but the capacity to weaponize as a must have.

What I think it can solve or bring to the fight are capes we now have on HVAAs that can not survive in the A2AD space and bring a capability (arsenal) that we will need when outnumbered I’m somewhat skeptical of a converted large cabin biz jet but not totally discounting it but if it’s to go forward and support a package on night 1, probably having to get closer than we want to get effective sensor coverage on targets due to heavy EW, a jet that can self defend seems like the best COA. That self defense is comprehensive: speed, altitude, maneuver, ECM, etc… The big idea I think with this type platform would be it brings benefits and not liabilities to the strikers, doesn’t detract or need AR, can defend itself and has enough range to not require a forward basing presence that could take up space from an ACE based fighter. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough I’m not adamant about it but intrigued by the idea, it’s on the Firebird concept jet that NG has developed https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/firebird/the-flexibility-of-firebird/ Their website doesn’t really give any reasons why you would want that just touts that you can, you might be right that it’s just a party trick, any hooo… Maybe optionally manned in this sense is not one that is field switchable but at the factory/depot level can be configured manned or unmanned. Now thinking a bit more on this and considering Danger41’s point on the need for performance if you want a good arsenal platform, would this be a candidate for a modern swept wing platform? Sweep for supersonic loft maneuver to launch VLRAAMs, egress then extend for endurance orbit? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe arsenal would be a dedicated mission with some equipment removed to enhance loadout, launch maneuver capability (a lofting maneuver). Might be multi mission, just not on every mission.

True, but for the active sensor(s) for this mission, a second engine for power and cooling at the sacrifice of operational altitude might be the ticket. Maybe, modifying a design like the Saab Swordfish for a new mission might be a COA. Hardpoints, bumps and blisters are already worked out to look down at the ocean, probably not too far of a stretch to modify to be A2A focused. Concur on sideways looking radar - two ideas Swivel plate mounted AESA like the Gripen E has Extended length radar cone should let it rotate beyond 90 degrees Or a side fixed AESA radar antennae like the Felon Optionally manned might have some inefficiencies built in by having more equipment than is absolutely necessary but I think a platform that could do both, maybe not on the fly but after a relatively quick field configuration could be useful, just a thought.

So question... as BO dot net is a highly secure forum we'll be able to discuss technical details and numbers /s but... I saw this, historical photo of a RAF Canberra bomber with ASW missiles: and wondered what the 11F crowd thought of instead of a loyal wingman (unmanned) why not a manned high flyer (above 50K) with another fighter radar in its nose, node in the link, BLOS that data up and other data in and X-teen missiles to call on from the high ground? One platform, optionally manned, crewed not solo, that does high altitude ISR, C2, BACN, UCAV LOS C2 and arsenal missions. Too much for a community to do all those missions?

We put up with their shit because we want the dollar to be the currency you pay for oil. If the KSA said let's change that policy and the other OPEC members followed suit, we'd be screwed, it is the commodity that backs up the dollar. They need us to stay in power, we need them to keep the dollar the petro-currency of the world.

Reprise of the Interceptor? Good article on MiG-31s in Ukraine with interesting links https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/russias-mig-31-foxhounds-proving-to-be-a-threat-to-ukrainian-aircraft

Dog spotted in Mexico running with human head in its mouth https://www.foxnews.com/world/dog-spotted-mexico-running-human-head-mouth Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But how LO can AR be? The amount of at least somewhat reflective material / RCR for the formation when rendezvous has happened could more than quadruple Now that could 4 x 0.069 cm2 but still you get the point An LO tanker to refuel relatively short range strikers near an ingress point might be a paradigm that full up air warfare in the 20’s and beyond is not possible Massive jamming, drone swarms, suicide drones and loitering munitions with much longer ranged strikers using much longer ranged weapons. Supported by big/medium conventional tankers dragging them from launch, some tactical tankers and AR drone wingmen close to the A2AD area, then the new bigger longer (sts) ranged strikers and flying cannon fodder (attritable drones) go in, shoot and then egress bravely - rinse lather repeat Tangent complete. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As long as your link(s) are resilient yes. Just my guessing, but if I were a PLAAF officer analyzing Operation Cluster Fornication the Russians are currently executing, one take-away would be the lack of effective EA in disabling C2 links of the Ukranian Air Force's UAVs, the PLAAF in preparing for a fight with us will not be caught deficient in the capability. Anything we deploy that is unmanned or capable of being operated unmanned against a capable foe will need to be operationally effective with or without link back to an LRE/MCE. Maybe not as effective while under control but not a liability. But as the size of an aircraft increases the value of unmanning it decreases as the percentage of mass dedicated to crew for control and sustainment decreases as a percentage of the total mass of the aircraft, it has a diminishing level of return on gain in performance in some areas (endurance, range). You get some more space, power, weight but the profit delta between manned and unmanned starts to diminish as the vehicle gets bigger between manned and unmanned. You may still get some more fuel, cargo, stores, equipment whatever onboard but it may not be enough to warrant the cost of unmanning it. Might.

Net Assessment episode on subject https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/net-assessment/id1437812041?i=1000584195554 Good discussion Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ex USMC Harrier dude arrested in Australia and to be extradited for maybe too much helping https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/ex-marine-corps-harrier-pilot-who-worked-in-china-has-been-arrested Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Defund the Police Seattle Councilwoman Wants Police Protection After Feces Thrown at Her Home To whoever did this

My work here is done Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Can't argue with that, probably time for a Goldwater-Nichols level defense reform Copy all and as you noted I'm intentionally stirring the pot. If king for a day, it's a mixture (not an even mix) of both. We need the strategic assets to assure all allies we can get to them in mass and the tactical assets to assure the near to the threat allies we can get to them and operate to free them or ideally deter aggression in the first place. What that mix is, is the 69 billion dollar question. Even more so to that, where do we explicitly define, we will intervene immediately / deter directly with prepositioned forces? The world as we know it now is expensive to maintain and we're approaching the point of having to actually live inside of our means, that's gonna force inevitable prioritization and somebody's gonna be below the line. We in the West+ (Japan, South Korea, India maybe, etc...) need to be explicit in who's responsible for what and to what are their responsibilities to keep it free and/or developing. Enough of that tangent. Referencing @Lawman and his point on we haven't figured out or have drifted from an overall joint strategy, this platform could be a point to begin the discussion or reinvigorate it as to who has the strategic, operational and tactical missions / responsibilities for X contingency and in X theater(s)? Back in the weeds and more on the actual requirement potentially driving the acquisition for this platform, if I were a staffer at the Puzzle Palace considering this, I guess it's a matter of questions if you have decided that yes you need it and no nothing you have now can do it (sts). How much gas do you need in the air at most at any one time? How far do you need gas in a relevant quantity to be available for receivers? How many AR orbits do you have to support at most any one time? How long do you have to maintain your max effort AR mission? How much in logistical support does it cost to sustain your max effort AR mission? Can the logistical support network sustain your tactical AR capability without detracting from other missions unduly? Other considerations? The SCS and Taiwan scenario is front and foremost in considering this but looking west from Australia, the Indo part of the theater is looking like it will need some of both very heavy strategic big wing AR and tactical AR to give options for other shenanigans (Iranian or Pakistani adventurism, aggressive Chinese operations from HOA, etc...) Big wing enables / supports Tactical over the tyrannical distances, Tactical supports inside the WEZ of A2AD. Probably only support on initial ingress or as able after the A2AD bubble has been shrunk but it's part of the plan(s).

I know but a proven road warrior is what I think we need to go with the theoretical KC-390 This would be an augmentation to the existing and more logistically needy fighter fleet (not a swipe at them) How to afford all this new iron? Divest H model Hercs, oldest F-16s and probably the A-10s (don't taze me for that) but if we wanna get ready to fight the next fight, we're gonna have to sign up some new players and retire others, we're not gonna get more appropriation

Can his handlers do a better job with creepy grandpa? New video of Joe Biden inappropriately touching a girl - TheBlaze

Good stuff and playing the foil… I guess my next turd in the punch bowl question is can we reasonably expect our existing and coming online 4/5 gen fighters to be able to operate with the tactical tanker at these dispersed austere locations? Gas is only one component of support but parts, mx, ammo, logistics, etc… The tactical tanker is one part of ACE, I’d like to see but as a fanboy of gripen, a new fighter from the wheels up built for austere ops (high reliability, STOL, focused capabilities, etc…) or a USAF version of gripen to go with the tactical tanker along with the whole road show to support to include naval resupply capabilities to get mass fuel, potable water, food, etc… that’s survivable on its own, no escort required This is starting to sound like a second Marine Corps but with their pivot and force restructuring I think the USAF could fill this hole (sts) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk