Clark Griswold

Copy and understand, I believe @ClearedHot mentioned in this or another thread the Israeli AWACS based on the G550, same platform for the new Compass Call, I could see that as a selling point for logistical support and their jet has some very high end capes True, I’m just thinking the politics factor can trump the military capabilities factor here if not addressed Just as emotions often over power logic, it has to be considered https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-cancels-e-7-wedgetail-citing-survivability-and-cost-concerns/ From the article: During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concerns that the E-2D might not be able to match the E-7’s capabilities, and cited prior statements from Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein that a space-based capability wouldn’t be available until the early 2030s. “We just haven’t heard, in my view, sufficient justification for the cancellation of such a critical program,” Murkowski told Air Force leaders. Jobs, money, prestige, etc… politicians want their constituents to have their fair share plus whatever else they can get. I want my Congressman to do the same, I think trying to meet her plus other politicians half way on this while developing the orbital systems is the best way.

Yeah if the Bobs change their minds and continue supporting a manned/unmanned aircraft a smaller plane might be better / more budget friendly Probably could acquire more, plug more gaps as required, support more CAPs, possibly ACE employ, etc… I think the 73 for admin/legal/acquisition/political reasons just might be more likely to happen with less drama If Boeing and the ABM career field really want this aircraft to happen, methinks going forward they need to show how viable/useful the E-7 LOS C2 of unmanned systems could be, that’s a new capability plus the traditional C2 that makes the platform relevant IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid points from the article but wondering if this is a case of thinking only about WW3 when there are other levels of conflict on the spectrum where an ad hoc C2 would be useful, unless the space based option is truly global coverage 24/7, atmospheric and space weather resistant, defensible to ASAT weapons, robust comms. All that could be asked of a manned or unmanned aircraft but before I put all my eggs in one basket I’d keep a back up option. Anyway, I’d keep it real, get the 73, minimum mods, learn from the Aussies.

Not force structure per se but more composition… https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/27/us-air-force-to-retire-all-a-10s-cancel-e-7-under-2026-spending-plan/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X-32…

Yeah, it was not a shock that he was retired Army, methinks he believes divide and conquer, more smaller branches mean easier pickings for the… Army. We need reform but not disestablishment. I hope there is a retort in the works.

Yeah, good point Just thinking there was a way to throw a flag on the field Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That what I was thinking too Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/2025/06/26/split-to-win-why-the-air-force-must-become-4-services/

Just curious but in all these machinations on UPT NEXT, FUPT, etc… has the Air Force Safety Center been asked or done an analysis on the effectiveness/impact of curtailing/changing pilot training? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PC-21 would be great I could post again this plane or that one, this many hours in this one then this one but really it’s all about getting the institution of the AF to admit that the effort to privatize too much of UPT, to cut from UPT and to radically change UPT is the problem. Not the fact and inherent costs of owning training aircraft(s) at dedicated training bases. I don’t know how you get a champion(s) with equivalent authority to those who wish to cut everything but the upcoming T-7 but if ever a training mafia needs to be formed ala the fighter mafia it is now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Updated, cache thing, refreshed and their site had these links, Day Man 1 Clark 0 https://thedefensepost.com/2025/06/18/us-texan-aircraft-avionics/ https://www.govconwire.com/article/borsight-t6a-avionics-replacement-usaf-military-trainer

Bit more info on it https://defence-blog.com/t-6a-trainer-to-get-new-avionics-in-2-2b-deal/# Nothing on their website curiously https://www.borsight.com/

Damn it that’s diabolically probable So where the hell are the CODELs where these aircraft that the AF wants to and already has divested, the T-6 and T-1 respectively… I get it that the Missouri CODELs are advocating for and getting the T-7 into production (along with others) but if I were a Congressman/staffer from Kansas I’d tell the AF to pump the brakes on this divestment of T-1s and if I got word of T-6 divestment, someone would be going to the woodshed… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha would need to be a new additive program I could see this as part of a new way forward if the AF wasn’t hell bent on divesting everything but the T-7 and outsourcing basic flight instruction Mil IPs, standardized instruction not at existing UPT bases, make it a Total Force program, AD with Guard/Reserves, 3 x bases at desirable locations, Golden Apple tours for retention, good long tour orders to get ARC support, better GA training aircraft, etc… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ruminated on jetip’s post some, not sure if this has been discussed here on this thread but if the pre T-6 phase, really a flight screening phase, were done by AF IPs, in the same way as T-6s are taught (standardized) would that have the intended effect? That effect being higher degree of knowledge, skill and ability to adapt and master a higher performance aircraft and flight maneuvers? What if the T-6 assignment meant dual qual for the IPs? They would fly/instruct in both the T-6 and whatever GA aircraft was flown? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not saying regime change but I’m just saying empowered disaffected minority groups who are sick of of oppressive corrupt theocrats like pallets of AK-47s, claymores, IED kits, drones and RPGs dropped from the sky https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/news/2025/6/20/a-simple-visual-guide-to-iran-and-its-people When you have your enemy on the ropes, don’t stop Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also a FAFO demonstration for other opponents far from our mainland, occasionally AirPower demonstrations real or simulated serve secondary purposes

This was inevitable A state fueled by petrodollars, exporting and supporting terrorism, tacitly backed at times by Russia and China with the capacity to threaten the stable trade of hydrocarbons and freedom of significant parts of the global commons was/had to be struck. The reestablishment of deterrence, the definition of the new free world, the update of our alliance structures and trading relationships, the extension of friendship and establishment of inroads to the developing world to choose our system versus the Chinese system and the reformation of our military-industrial-technological-intelligence-development system. This is the challenge for the next leaders on deck and at bat now (Vance, Rubio, Cotton).

Gotcha, tactical retreat vs turned into twisted parts. I was surprised the Russians didn’t push them or kinda make it a deal or no deal offer for their MiG-35. They need / want to keep MiG in business and as they only operate them for one of their aero teams, I figured they would tell them after X number of drones delivered it’s this or nothing. As they already have 29s, seems like a way of telling them these are the planes you really want. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

E-7 doing cool shit https://www.twz.com/air/mq-28-ghost-bats-controlled-from-e-7-wedgetail-in-loyal-wingman-test Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Didn’t the Iranians get Flanker 35s in exchange for drones with Russians? Ran away or still being hidden? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yeah, persistent presence missions I agree will mostly be filled by unmanned systems but I’ll still argue for the need for some manned capabilities, particularly for dynamic/short term missions, what exactly that looks like is not my call but I see an overlapping of effects required in major future conflicts, a sensor-shooter-node in the link of systems, being optionally manned gives you the best of both worlds IMO.

Was thinking the same thing, I’m wondering if another system could be used clandestinely but conveyed to the PRC to dissuade cross strait adventurism Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk