Clark Griswold

Yup This time I think we’re close but I have not heard of the things we think would be necessarily happening pre-invasion… Stockpiling hard currency/gold, food, fuel, parts, ammo production surge, information shaping operations, etc… with the drilling and massing of forces necessary for an invasion, a blockade strategy I don’t think would work for them Invasion with port(s) seizure and breakout in 2 weeks would be my objective if I were planning I do think that as Ukraine gets closer to an armistice that the probability of invasion increases, either side needs a partner not at war as a conduit to the economic system they’re now excluded from during their aggression Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hack… https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/04/china-will-launch-an-invasion-of-taiwan-in-next-few-months-intel-sources/

A good air naval land combined demonstration with live fire exercise is in order methinks… Rapidly deploy 20 fighters, set up a Patriot battery, maintain a CAPs, shoot down a few drones, air drop a 1000 19 year olds with guns onto the PI while sailing a naval task force thru the Luzon Strait. Fly a plane load a javelins and stingers to Taiwan and have them generate and demonstrate. Xi might get the message then

No time in a Pilatus but impressed with their planes (pc-12) that I’ve seen, flown with. My advocacy for them and specifically the PC-21 is just based on casual internet research in this thread but it does seem like Pilatus has cracked the code with the PC-21 being a possible, maybe one platform replacement for the T-6 / other mil trainers. I would prefer it to be a Phase 2 trainer for the US military, but if the money men demanded only 1 mil trainer (cancelling existing and forthcoming trainers) then I think it could achieve what is needed to produce a mil trained pilot. I think a good 125 hour syllabus in a PC-21, with a good 125 hour in GA training aircraft (single and multi engine) could produce a well rounded aviator. Still would want a third trainer but the end result could probably be met with 250 hours in those planes. I may have just drunk the Pilatus kool aid but I think they make a good plane(s).

Yeah, I doubt they would want that in their neighborhood, a reunified functioning democracy likely with a bend to the US. Labor would be abundant with the North and the work would be plentiful, probably enough to absorb most of the working age males of the North using the capital of the South, maybe the higher skill demand of this project would be enough to employ enough of the working age males of the South. Just a guess though. I think the sell to the PRC and to the NK regime is this is a way to lessen the presence of the US in Asia eventually, at least in one area on their border.

Time did a short article on this, brought up some interesting points, doubt they could reunify unless the South and likely the international community commit to aid I’m just WAGing here but likely 25 years. https://time.com/5255381/north-south-korea-kim-jong-un-reunification/# Doubt this could happen unless the world would let the North’s leadership leave with no accountability and likely a large payoff for the Kim family and 1000’s of mid level tyrants who have made life hell on earth for the people of the North, low probability of that. Would not surprise me that SK would be spending 15% or more of their GDP unfornicating NK. That might take them down too, economically and perhaps politically, but… here’s a question/thought: would/could it reinvigorate SK? Culturally and Spiritually? SK has one of the lowest fertility rates and is showing all the signs of problems the developed world gets as it rapidly advances, would reunification and opening up the North be like a frontier to tame, a challenge to accomplish and thus draw out and stoke what most advanced nations need right now, a rebirth of masculine energy?

Good man

This explains modern America and the billionaire / democrat relationship fairly well https://amgreatness.com/2025/03/31/grifterism-the-economic-engine-of-democrats/

Good stuff Another thought on KFOR or really any forward overseas basing, what capes are we providing and are they ones that allow free riding or under investment in the host’s own military capabilities? Maybe this question is not exactly for Korea though I’m sure to some degree it could be applied but is it boots on the ground in numbers or really things they can’t supply themselves that we should supply? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You got my vote This would be a good fit for a PACAF based Herc unit(s) - a detachment at each of seaplanes Video from the company developing them Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Idea: So there’s a military pilot shortage not just with us but our Allies as well, we’re in a rough patch with them right now so why not try to mend relations a bit and solve a common problem we all face by opening another base(s) here in the states, buy the iron ourselves or lease to go VFR direct to a solution and get ourselves caught up in production while getting our Allies caught up too, particularly in military pilot training. We want them to do more on there own, this would be one way to get that started and solve a problem we have now too. RAF, RAAF, RCAF, etc… are facing military pilot training shortages too, starting another base like the ENJPPT program at Sheppard, this justifies the purchase of new/different iron to train, different iron if current suppliers have no extra delivery capacity, reinvigorates mil to mil links without a new overseas basing mission and gets the extra production needed. Plan on it being a 10 year project, long enough to have impact but a sunset date with a legal extension option available. Old bases / airports are available, CODELs at these bases would support the MILCON money, there are enough vendors of capable training aircraft to get tails quickly as the facilities, syllabuses and logistics are worked out so that you could start I bet in 6-9 months with at least the primary phase as the intermediate/advanced phases are being set up. Nations buying into this can go al a carte, send studs thru all 3 phases or just whatever they want, pay/support as you go… ARC support might be forthcoming, loads/bookings are getting lighter in the 121 world and a ARC/low seniority airline guy probably would look at a good 3-5 year tour with a solid bonus (50k a year)…bases that have been divested are not impinging on existing MOAs… Solve a problem, bring the team back together and set them and ourselves up for success in the likely tense years ahead…

Lock Mart and Pilatus working on PC-21 upgrades / 5th gen training focus https://aviationweek.com/defense/light-attack-advanced-training/pilatus-pursues-f-35-focused-pc-21-training-system-upgrade Change course AF: Basics in a quality GA platform, Skylane. Mil training in a PC-21. Track studs to T-7 or T-54. Don’t overthink this.

ATR 72 float plane https://aerialfiremag.com/2025/03/25/bridger-aerospace-and-positive-aviation-announce-joint-partnership-for-the-development-of-water-scooping-aircraft/ https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/companies/bridger-aerospace-to-launch-amphibious-firefighting-plane-in-north-america/ar-AA1BEicl

Now you know who sang it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That may be but our foes fear and hate each other to varying amounts, we may get a coordinated attack from a new axis of evil but I don’t see it right now, they’ll help each other to a degree, by help I mean direct / almost direct assistance but I don’t see them right now acting as the Axis or Central Powers did. Still that would be a thorn in our side and boost their chances (PRC vs Taiwan in a fast action) to try to tie us up in too many places when they invade. Returning to the article, I think the more appropriate question is not whether to forward deploy but what is the purpose of the deployment? Backstop or a primary force integrated to provide daily and continuous deterrence for said country? My 2 cents, Europe, Korea, Japan, etc… it is to draw down to true backstop, enough to matter but not enough to use as your primary fighting force.

Yeah, I saw the author’s point but could not completely buy into his premise. Like Europe, we need some forward presence just less than what we have now as it encourages anti-strategic behavior from our allies. Probably a draw down to half of our forces over a set period then another draw down to something like a third after another period while the RoK builds up seems appropriate. From the article: The directive has rattled officials at the Pentagon and other agencies” who believed whatever had been must forever be, at least when it comes to military deployments. This is the crux… even though time and conditions change, the nat-sec blob thinks nothing should ever change in regards to our overseas presence, this is not a permanent mission of the US or one that is not possible or appropriate to change. We say we are pivoting, people think that should only mean the ETO and ME, it should include what I would call the stable Pacific area. Again from the article: Why spend the money and undertake the risk when South Korea doesn’t need the support? Sean King of Park Strategies opined: “The U.S. should be thanking Seoul for the opportunity to forward-deploy forces and equipment only a few hundred miles from rival mainland China.” However, it is an illusion to imagine American forces using South Korean facilities in a conflict with China. The U.S. Army would have little role in such a conflict. It’s likely they are a liability to an extent in considering the China Taiwan scenario at their current force levels (KFOR).

Read this: https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/03/donald-trump-should-end-americas-defense-welfare-for-south-korea/ Not sure if a forward presence as KFOR is now is the right choice… not saying bring everyone and everything back but food for thought.

You might be right but that time to end that is now. In everything big gov there is an element of jobs program / parochial pork, so long as that percentage is fairly low vs utility / value we can let that be as it’s the grease to make consensus happen. We have to shift the mind of the politicians to not allow obsolete systems to be continued but make them shift to a model where the amount of relevant systems is the trade space, at that point we may have a bit too much of this / that but at least it’s modern, reliable, relevant.

Yup I hate it but if Uncle Sugar is not feeling spendy then I see this as bill payers: Bone, Hog, oldest Vipers, remaining 15Cs, some spec ops 130s, some -38s Not saying I want all these divestment but with Sentinel, Raider and now the 47 there is a need for a lotta money reprogramming This executive administration is a spender if approached correctly methinks, Congress is TBD with what they did with the CR, held the line with no increase for inflation Pushing for a big swap/new iron in the AD and ARC is something they (executive and some congressional members) might go for though A new Air Force almost thru lots of new aircraft, weapons, systems, personnel reforms and structure. Smaller AD but the best toys, bigger ARC with newer iron/missions/responsibilities Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know but something will likely have to give

Gotcha That’s the rub…Boeing…

NGAS might draw the short straw… https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/08/uncertain-future-usaf-ngas/#

Alright here’s the 69 billion dollar question… do you divest the Raptors to get the money to buy the -47? Handling the interim risk with 15EX and 35

God bless them for trying though. IDK, if you really think your ass is on the line you can get better at something really fast. Now that might cause a guns vs butter debate that I think would be hard to persuade their people that it’s time to really rearm and invest in defense but here’s hoping that they would I guess that could spur a philosophical debate, do they (our allies) need that level of capability as that level is really there to give us the option to prosecute the attack, to take the offensive. Do they need to be able to do that? Maybe they can develop something relevant in the 2030 fight, concept son of Rafael

With 6th gen being the new hotness… GCAP model