Clark Griswold

Yeah but we swore an oath to support and defend the Constitution - my pontificating is trying to "formalize" how to tell when our pols are code 3 and we (the military) may have to act independently to uphold our oath - I am thankfully confident this has a low chance of ever happening but beyond the discussion of not obeying illegal orders how could the civilian government set boundaries that if it crossed (written before a governance crisis) that the military could act not to run the country but to restore conditions so a civilian authority could reestablish order? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No argument on that, as it is done at sea I think in some ways it is an out of sight out of mind thing for why the CG doesn't get the resourcing it needs.

I could have used a better verb than tempted, forced would have been better and by forced I mean it is absolute chaos in the streets, we are being threatened by foreign enemies trying to use the chaos to attack, the civilian government is non-functional, etc... I mean a real emergency. We would never be the same nation again, but at least the nation would survive in a new form, for the better probably not. On the subject of GOFOs participating in politics in retirement, not for or against but it does seem to be unseemly. I think that is really a product of the opinion of our elected representatives and the esteem the public holds the military and particularly high ranking military officers, rightly or wrongly. We know that democracy is of a transactional nature vice a system where individuals hold true to their principals but find some common ground with their opponents and manage to compromise accordingly and get things done. These transactions are where the sausage is made and it's not pretty, now imagining these esteemed individuals in that business just seems wrong... True, the military doing anything but standing guard will be crossing the Rubicon but what if there is no choice? That is question, where is that line? It has to exist somewhere but it is just very very far away from where we are now or probably (hopefully) ever will be.

Good, anything can happen and a Plan B has to be ready. I don't know why but sometimes when you discuss the unlikely but possible with some people on issues of basic stability of American governance and politics they just want to blow it off like it could never happen here, no we have a good history of stability but shit can get wacky real fast. This is not that far fetched (death and disruption to American politics during an election), the assignation of RFK is not directly analogous as the primary was still underway but it likely had a radical effect as the 1968 Democratic Convention might / likely would not have been such a disaster and he quite possibly could have defeated Nixon. No political wishful thinking there as I lean right but as the election between Humphrey and Nixon was tight in the popular vote, 43.4% to 42.7% (wiki), RFK might have closed that gap. Had he been POTUS versus Nixon, history would likely be much different... What I think is more likely to cause a political crisis and foment the idea of American Military involvement in American domestic politics is an accusation the Executive is not faithfully executing the laws vis a vis inaction on illegal immigrations and accusations of an "Executive Amnesty" - whether real or perceived. So far, no one has made that case beyond posturing but if it were made in Congress by an article of impeachment, especially if we saw an major influx of illegal immigrants, persons / family units requesting amnesty along with fast / questionable efforts to naturalize persons not lawfully present in the USA, etc... I think this would quickly precipitate a crisis as one side of American politics would see it (rightly IMO) as an existential threat to their political representation by the other side illegally trying to skewer the American electorate by importing new voters / supporters and then pushing to minority political status their opponents... That's not to say it would go to a full boil so quickly the military would need / be tempted to intervene but it does set the stage...

True US-2 would be cool, surprised the Coasties never tried to acquire it or a similar aircraft Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why do they get all those wonderful toys? https://www.janes.com/article/63341/china-and-ukraine-agree-to-restart-an-225-production

That would be my desire also, if the Speaker of the House succeeded the POTUS our democracy would get about 10x stronger if he/she agreed to only one year and declare they would resign allowing for another round of political kabuki theatre known as a modern Presidential election. An emulation of Washington's example of walking away from power for the good of the Republic.

Not on the role of the military in a Civil War but a good article on a potential situation that might get a Civil War discussed in mainstream political discussion and could lead to factions in the military arising: https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-30/candidate-death-could-delay-or-eliminate-presidential-election There are good mechanisms in place for succession of a candidate legally and by policy of the political parties it seems but if one of the candidates did die mid-campaign either by assignation or suspect circumstances, real or perceived, what does the military do if a significant body of the one branch of the government basically claims the election is a fraud by the death of their candidate, the process of election decided upon after that death and the result thereof? I am thinking Congress in mass by political party refusing to accept the result if the Executive and/or Judicial moved to a special election procedure, if all the members of one party just refused to meet for a quorum to be made and would not accept that decision, backed by their respective state legislatures, we could be on the road to becoming Barter Town. Does the military step in at that point for national security of borders, strategic deterrence, national cohesion?

I think we are like this dog, we got stuck in a shithole ( the ME in general and specifically the Sunni-Shia proxy war(s) ) and can't find a good way out... If we pull out (sts) Al Assad, Russia and Iran win. If we stay, we have to commit a lot of resources (lives, money, time, effort, etc.) that will probably not get a win, but merely an acceptable end state, whatever the hell that is exactly we don't even know. CATO institute opinion on the matter, decent opinion piece: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/its-time-admit-american-intervention-cant-fix-syria

Valid - the discipline to regress to lower automation has to be instilled and enforced. If I were king, every flying wing would have access to an aircraft like this for basic airmanship skill building and maintenance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aermacchi_M-290_RediGO AMC was my first MAJCOM also so I know what you are talking about. Referencing the above fantasy program of a low cost, recip powered, acro capable light trainer - that is something that could help dudes whose flight hours are probably 75% autopilot time (yours truly included in that also) but AMC and the AF don't see it that way. Unless there was some demonstrated need, basically a rash of accidents, they would never allow an ACE program, even a watered down one that is budgetary peanuts, ever happen again. What you saw is what is the most easily observable problem in the culture of the AF or an aspect of "the problem" - the belief that the administration / management of the AF is either indicative of military leadership potential or the performance of military leadership. Not true as the titles to the job sound like the performance of military duties (mission execution, military leadership, etc...) but in reality are almost all mundane duties of paperwork, meaningless regulation compliance assurance, and exercise with the sole intention of just looking busy / productive. I am digressing into a stream of consciousness riff probably better suited for the "What's wrong with the AF thread?" but I suspect that in the heavy community the respect for flying skills / airmanship is not necessarily low but just secondary to office politics and the infatuation with office work proficiency. Not sure about the CAF and SOF flying world as I have not served an assignment there, worked with them, but not a full 3 year tour to give me enough first hand knowledge to make a semi-informed opinion but I suspect that as the likelihood they will be in harm's way is more often, it gives them more focus, not a slight of the MAF, just my opinion. As to crossflow for fighters for a heavy driver if you are offered and you want it, go for it, don't look back 10 years later and regret not trying. If I were in the position of someone who could apply I would. You have to make the right call for you and your family but if you want to, don't just think about all the shit that can go wrong, think of the shit that might go right. Be honest with yourself and consider your ability to pass all the schools you will have to attend but worse than the self-imposed, unnecessary shame a lot of Type A personalities will impose on themselves if they fail at something is WAY less than the shame of not doing or going for something that you wanted and when life gave you the chance to go for it, you passed because you were afraid of the stigma of possible failure so you did not even try. Just my 2 cents, I have no skin in this game but an opinion worth what you paid for it.

Partly true but you just can't get jiggly with it when your jet is G limited to 2.0 and 1.5 would get raised eyebrows Follow on - not excusing very basic airmanship skill lapses - heavy drivers should give George a break when appropriate to keep the hands ready Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ouch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Follow on question for 11Fs: there's all this talk of shitty manning in rated staff jobs that require an 11F - are most/any of these jobs worth doing or "ops staff" type jobs? If they aren't manned now and haven't been for a while are they jobs that actually need to be done? Both an honest and rhetorical question

Yep, basically my model for incentivizing the two sides has the conservatives at a disadvantage (typically the Hawks protecting DoD) so non-discretionary spending with their own funding vehicles (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) would have to be in there too, requiring statutory changes to the programs stewardships to keep the Dems feet to the fire, the 1% increases in taxes could / should be from the elimination of tax credits, subsidies, etc... rather than raising income tax rates. Gov worker salaries / benefits would have to be on the table, as there are a shit load of millionaires in Congress this has limited effect but their staffs, military, federal employees would have to be hostages in this scenario or Congress would have to pay them at the expense of operations of departments. How shitty when you can't imagine ways other than pain & punishment to get things done.

An excellent answer to continue the deserved praise for the details you provided. I left the GH 8+ years ago and was there when the program was just about to "normalize" and all the old crusty guys there told me very similar but smaller scale anecdotes to why things were the way they were in the program. My line has always been the AF just took the test aircraft and called it good, never developing a real platform. Classic min run but ends up costing a bajillion more than necessary if you did the development & acquisition right in the first place. A good idea, a long endurance unmanned platform to compliment not replace the U-2 and provide a virtual satellite in essence for other missions, BACN being a great example of what it can / should do in addition to doing a certain type ISR. As I didn't actually fly it, the emotional connection is not there but overall my experience was positive and no hate for the RPA. It is definitely not glamorous or particularly exciting usually but important to do well as others may depend or use what you deliver for missions where friendlies are in harm's way. Have pride Global Chicken drivers but don't expect envy or many people to be interested in what you do... ever... not a cutdown, just the truth.

2 I would rather modify the intent and make at least Senators be elected members (previously or currently) members of a state wide legislative body. The people can vote on the candidate but the candidate must be a legislative member of the state government to put the perspective of the states truly into the Federal Government so you don't get the ever growing Borg Cube trying to assimilate every part of our government, economy and society, like we have now. Agree in spirit but as a practical matter we probably have to acknowledge the level of consensus the Federal Government requires to function as it was intended (passing budgets, confirming judges, enforcing the laws and borders, you know those mundane things) , as how it is structured now by the Constitution is probably not possible. We are probably too diverse for the levels of consensus required to function with the majorities the Constitution requires. I like the checks the Constitution puts to keep smaller population states like mine at the grown-ups table via the Senate but I see the problem(s) that these features have. If we go to straight majorities and proportional representation, pretty much our Federal Government will be the Congressional delegations of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL with a few other big population states making all the calls. Not acceptable either. Governing for mutual benefit doesn't seem to work anymore so let's try something different, governing for our interest(s) and tie our political opponents to the same fate also. Decide on a 2 year budget by simple majority, from October to June, 3 quarters of an FY, then vote / horse trade in the 4th quarter, with every day in the last month knocking 1% off the budget and adding 1% in tax revenues. No budget pass, the budget submitted minus 30% plus 30% taxes is your shit sandwich, enjoy. Lots of incentive to focus the minds of Congressmen. Liberals scramble like hell to get it passed fast before losing more money for their government programs and conservatives hustle to keep from sending more money to the Federal government. Everyone has an incentive not to lose, not to win and make the other guy lose, just not to lose. Like it or not, just not losing is the best COA sometimes.

Agreed - the crazies from both sides would come out of the woodwork with the probability of unforeseen forays into lunacy high I would like to see reform but without the Constitution put at risk, for all its quirks and problems it is still the best house of cards to keep a large and diverse nation together.

We haven't brought it up yet but is there any interest from the CAS community for a tilt rotor based CAS / Attack focused platform? Saw this article, https://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/12/bell-pitches-naval-variant-of-new-tiltrotor-attack-chopper/ , and have seen a few proposed concepts that don't seem too out there but wondering if it is still fixed wing only for this mission?

I wish I could believe there was enough citizenship left in the Republic to support that kind of involvement of the citizenry and lower echelons of government, all coordinating & deliberating to have national effect instead of the default solution now to just wait for the Federal Government, and really the Executive Branch, to by edict and unelected policy makers issue some decree, their echo chambers begin the repetition of talking points on legacy media and propaganda websites and the sheep follow, giving up freedom for a fairy tale that a bit more of the risk of life will be taken away and Big Brother will provide a little bit more, at no charge of course... When you see things like Constitutional law professors basically saying, "a republican democracy is hard when it is based on rational rules codified in formal documentation so let's just make it up as we go along", then you know we have crossed the Rubicon... https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&

Yup. Two cliches apply, might makes right & history is written by the victors. The scenario is not to far fetched and I could see a constitutional / insurrection crisis coming from the Federal government's selective enforcement of laws of late, most notably immigration laws. If a Red State chose to press-to-test and began mass immigration law enforcement with arrest/incarceration/deportment (at least out of state) of known illegal immigrants, particularly when discovered via contact with LE, we could find ourselves living in interesting times. The state could argue self-defense via the presence of illegal aliens (legitimately when said illegal alien is arrested from the commission of another crime). The Federal Government would argue immigration is a Federal issue (rightly) but the state(s) could argue (rightly) to do your job with a subjective argument made that the manner in which the Federal government is currently performing it is in inadequate. To the Supreme Court for resolution or to a gunfight for resolution? My preference the former but America has a tendency every oh 75 years or so to have some major internal fights / family feuds, a show down may be inevitable or even necessary to decide it conclusively by one side of the argument literally vanquished.

Copy that and good details - I have heard it was well thought of and I found one of the sub-contractors mentioned in the article referenced, looks like they have 2 D models for hire. https://www.mohawk-tech.com/mohawktech.htm There was a proposed tandem cockpit version offered to the USMC for their LARA (Light Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft) competition they had in the 60's The OV-10 was selected and the rest is history but not a bad prop job concept.

Another concept CAS / COIN / LAAR aircraft that seems viable but have not heard anything about it for number of years, the ATK OV-1D... has anyone here seen it or knows if ATK got any takers for this plane? https://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/28/old-school-coin-planes-keep-coming-back/

Valid critiques but the aircraft is not in it's operational configuration (or one that will be offered to a launch customer) and those might be too much to keep the price right and they might be too much or not needed for the mission. To address your points and my meager two bits to the debate: 1 - probably not a big deal as the majority of its operational employment will be at 1G and as the probability of rolling in on a target with high G turnout after delivering unguided ordinance low, a better thrust to weight is not needed, would be nice but not necessary. 2 - Two cockpits are a plus for this mission, the missions are long, often boring but then become busy as hell and a good crew to manage the stack, radios and inevitable chaos (while not tripping over each other is a plus). Running longer missions (likely to be 6 hours) with a crew will likely be a plus. 3 - WX radar only is probably ok but I could see a radar like the Raytheon RACR being installed as an option for an anti-RPA role or to give it some self-defense against a fighter if you gave it a AMRAAM or two on a wing station. In truth the Thales iMaster radar in one of the available sensor turret mounts is the real mission radar and has already been used in demonstrations for organic cross queuing. 4 - AR, nice but not necessary probably as many customers would have no tanker aircraft to refuel it anyway. Could be added like the simple fixed AR probe the OA-37 had but probably overkill for the intention of the platform, appropriately capable and value priced in acquisition and operational cost with low risk proven systems. 5 - Gun, nice but for the light strike mission, probably not necessary and may put the aircraft into the WEZ of a system down low better dealt with X NM and X thousands of feet away after being acquired and dealt with via Hellfire rather than getting up close and personal. 6 - Threat warning to be added in operational configuration. As you said about price and the features I mentioned may take it above 20 mil a copy, likely if you really start to add capes like the AA capable radar, so an AT-6 or A-29 might be a better fit considering what resources our AF and other price sensitive Allies might be willing to spend on a LAAR. A modernized IA-58 would also be a contender, just my humble opinion also.

True. The domestic production / Congressional District problem can be solved with any of the on the table options out there now (AT-6B in KS, A-29 built under license in FL and Scorpion in TX) but the larger problem of the cultural change / acceptance in Congress & the Defense Establishment to needing a lower cost Joint Force for fighting 10+ year COIN / Stabilization / Nation Building is going to be the steep hill to climb. The US has only been comfortable with large scale conventional warfare, unconventional or irregular has never been completely accepted, either derided as morally questionable or unwindable, neither absolutely true or false. The historical precedent is not good as to what we did to our fleets of smaller jets / props that provided CAS / Observation & ISR / Light Strike at a much lower cost in Vietnam and to some extent the legacy piston powered fleet that served well in Korea. Like it or not, the Arc of Instability is going to keep producing problems that we can either ignore and hope don't produce trans-national problems (unlikely) or we (the Western nations, International Community, etc...) can intervene to keep the shit to shoe level at least. We should just not spend ourselves into oblivion doing it.