Clark Griswold

Yup - trust but verify but never completely trust... the government is just in need of a wholesale purge to reign it in... of course with that comes against the wishes of the army of lobbyists, PACs, Super PACs, corporate donors, billionaires, bullshit non-profit advocacy groups and other purveyors of legal bribery...

Yup http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

We're thru the looking glass people... SOF is using abandoned Wal-Marts connected by underground tunnels to allow for a Chinese invasion force to first subdue the southwestern USA then you'll be in a re-education camp with your Chairman Obama book eating rotten rice... /sarcasm... Behold the rant of Alex Jones... http://www.infowars.com/the-truth-about-jade-helm-they-dont-want-you-to-know/ Conspiracy is nothing new to the USA or any other country, in fact it's a helluva lot less here as we have a multitude of press outlets that somewhat balance each other to deliver mostly true but slanted liberal / conservative / corporate or kooky reports and our government is somewhat transparent but becoming byzantine with little direct accountability for obvious malfeasance - Fast & Furious, Clinton e-mails, Lois Lerner. Just listing some of the last few obvious screw ups / cover ups for which no one's cock was put on the chopping block when it was clear that someone needs to be held to account... conservatives have had theirs too... all that typed, that power and no accountability is fueling the recent spike in paranoia, the solution would be for the powerful to hold them selves accountable but I will not hold my breath for that.

I finally read about the conspiracy theory on this exercise, other than imposing martial law on Texas to pave the way for theft of precious bodily fluids and prepare the population for mass brainwashing, what's the big deal? OPSEC considered, is anybody here going to support this LFE? Ok, Wolverines...

Thanks but damn it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just went to the hiring page but still says no ANG or Reserves but the page is dated 1/21/2014 - did the email open it up to the ARC? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is still a lot of room for new innovation but as SurelySerious and dvlax40 said we (the military) don't necessarily have the best technology anymore but we can buy it just like anyone else but everyone else is usually concerned about money so they get it done faster, cheaper, better. These two referenced articles are not explicitly related to a new trend / advancement in air to air warfare but these type of trends: advanced rapid prototyping and manufacture are the antidote to the stone tablet technology of our current requirements / procurement system This Obscure Skunk Works Jet May Help Team Win New Stealth Bomber Bid 20,000 3D Printed Parts Are Currently Used on Boeing Aircraft as Patent Filing Reveals Further Plans

Yep, but we are well past V1 with F-35 so it is now a matter of how do you mitigate or maximize it depending on whether your outlook is glass half empty or half full. AESA missile guidance seems like another advantage to improve the odds when the 35 will have to do air to air.

AESA radar missiles. Worth the cost and effort to develop? Bad News for U.S. Warplane Pilots: Russia’s New Dogfighting Missile Can’t Miss (Just the title of the article, they seem to be selling it rather than reporting on it) Japan Upgrading 60 F-2s With AAM-4, J/APG-2 Continuing with that idea of better missile, is that the realistic solution to the F-35 and its compromises? Maybe it's not the best fighter but has one helluva missile (if we put the money into the effort). Lockheed Test Pilot Calls For Longer Range AIM-120

We'll worry about the money later? Sounds awesome, that's how you wound up with only 187 F-22's, great idea.

Stillion makes the argument that would contradict your assertion about maneuverability and BVR effectiveness. From page 39 of his report: Costs of Maneuverability Just as with speed, there would be no need to reduce the maneuverability of combat aircraft designs if it could be incorporated for “free.” Just as with speed, however, adding features necessary for high maneuverability to a combat aircraft imposes constraints that force aircraft designers to make tradeoffs in other areas of performance and add weight and cost to the aircraft. For example, maneuverability is enhanced by a relatively low wing aspect ratio and a high thrust-to-weight ratio to allow for tight turns and sustain energy at high G-loads. Low wing aspect ratio tends to reduce aerodynamic efficiency, and, as previously mentioned, high thrust-to-weight ratios result in inefficient engine cruise performance.61 High maneuverability also requires strong aircraft structures, and these add significant weight. The load-bearing structure of an aircraft with a design goal of maintaining 9-G turns must be three times as strong as one designed to sustain only 3-Gs. For any given level of aircraft structure technology, this will make the 9-G structure significantly heavier than the 3-G structure if both aircraft are to have the same range and payload. Since aircraft cost is closely correlated with empty weight, adding maneuverability contributes directly to aircraft cost. Another potential drawback to high-maneuverability designs is that they require significant vertical tail area to facilitate high-angle-of-attack maneuvering. This was not much of an issue before the advent of stealth technology. However, large vertical tail surfaces add significantly to the side radar cross-section of aircraft.62 So, while increased maneuverability certainly contributed to the combat effectiveness and survivability of fighter designs in the past, it is much less clear that its future value will outweigh its costs. 61 Wing aspect ratio is the ratio of the square of an aircraft’s wing span to the area of the wing. For a given wing area, the longer the span, the higher the aspect ratio. Higher aspect ratio wings allow for lower induced drag and greater cruise efficiency, but have higher bending stress for a given load requiring greater structural weight, assuming similar materials, and generally lower roll rates because they have a higher moment of inertia to overcome than a lower aspect ratio wing of the same area. Lower-aspect ratio wings offer higher roll rates and produce more lift at high angles of attack than highaspect ratio wings. Both of these factors have received high priority in fighter designs resulting in relatively stubby wings compared to aircraft designed for efficient cruise flight like airliners. And page 26 From his report also on Gulf War Air to Air Engagements: TABLE 1 . SUMMARY OF FIRST GULF WAR AERIAL VICTORIES Detection and Identification In twenty-seven of thirty-three engagements against fixed wing aircraft (82%), AWACS provided target information and identification before U.S. fighters detected enemy aircraft. On average AWACS detected and identified enemy aircraft while they were still over 70 nm from U.S. fighters. In the four engagements where ACM occurred, U.S. pilots first detected enemy aircraft at 5 nm or more on radar. Air Combat Maneuvering (ACM) In only four of the thirteen visual range encounters did U.S. fighters engage in significant ACM to attain firing position. Only 15% of all engagements and 38% of visual range engagements involved ACM. BVR Engagements Sixteen of thirty-three engagements between fixed wing aircraft occurred BVR (48%). On average, U.S. pilots detected enemy aircraft on their own radars at 42 nm and launched missiles at 10 nm. U.S. pilots fired twenty-eight AIM-7s. Twenty-two of the AIM-7s hit their target or the debris (79%). Speed At no time did any U.S. aircraft exceed 650 knots (Mach 1.03 at 12,000 ft), even against targets moving at 700 knots or more. I think it is a matter of degrees, obviously a fighter should not be load limited to 3Gs but if you could have significant range improvement, sustainable high cruise speed, RCS reduction, more weapons / ECM, and enough maneuverability would that not make a better fighter / interceptor? I still disagree with his idea / concept but I respect his research and presentation of argument. Maneuver is still a major factor and will continue to be in air to air engagement, it just needs to share the stage with SA, LO, range and high cruise speed. Edit: poor posting technique for referenced material by the sage of food additives.

Guys we only paid averaging the costs of the F-35 models together $178 million per copy, did you really expect quality for that bargain basement price? How Much Does an F-35 Actually Cost? Up to $337 million—apiece—for the Navy version and the program is only a $163 billion over budget, c'mon stop min running this and put some real money in. 60 Minutes: F-35 Cost Overruns Total $163 Billion For the cost overrun, we probably could have gone to Mars twice on manned missions.. Mars, red rocks...

Neither am I on GMTI SARs but it is the size, cost and footprint of the HVAA assets is something we have to look at as the big ones time out on the airframes or are just not supportable with old avionics, TF-33s and vacuum tube powered computers. The next generation needs to be on a big business jet and be supportable at a FOB without a wagon train of logistics vehicles and have an endurance on station great enough to not need AR. Not to be a salesman for IAI, but the Israeli AWACS is the way things should be done, 8+ hours on station and their AESA radar updates every 2-4 seconds vice every 20-40 seconds with a rotadome. Nothing against ACC but they are probably not the Major Command to have these assets in, not sure who would be better but the AWACs and JSTARs should have been replaced by modern systems, even at the expense of a new pointy nose airplane, like the F-35A. Yup

True - the day after especially if it is a trading day on the NYSE and at the UN would be very interesting. I think China has made the calculation that military action itself is not a good idea but the credible threat of military action is better as they pursue their idea of One China - Two Systems. Right now, Taiwan ain't bittin' but who knows as things go on... Taiwan rebuffs Chinese leader's new pitch for unification Back to the topic of the thread though... Looking at the J-20 which seems to be kinda interceptor-like and with probably better combat radius from the size and fuel capacity compared to the F-22, the PLAAF seems to still want a maneuverable enough fighter (canards for the J-20) but will sacrifice some of that for range, speed and additional weapons or other capabilities (ECM, EA, passive sensors, etc). One AF is voting with its dollars in where it thinks Air to Air is going. Referencing Col Boyd's E-M theory and the way we have designed 5th gen fighters, have we put too much into that? That is maneuverability / rapid energy change is important but not as much as now as great BVR, good missile load out, combat range, power for speed / altitude to maximize 5th gen engagements and SA capabilities (Data Link, Passive Detection, etc.). I ask this as Stillion makes that point in his presentation but he takes it too far in my opinion with the idea of C2 mothership controlling UCAVs firing missiles separately but from 1990-2002 about 80% of the kills were with BVR or AAM, and have we reached the point where the fighters still need maneuverability but not at significant expense of speed, range, stealth, sensor capacity, weapons load, etc. Not arguing for an F-111 or a Thud but does a 9G thrust vectoring capable fighter still make sense?

Started looking over the report, while the air superiority situation is not good for us; the naval and amphibious landing situation for the PLA is very tough. They basically have to clear mines, quickly erected barricades, defensive positions, air defenses, enemy fighters and strike aircraft and mobile artillery all while under fire and having limited resources to absorb and replace losses in their naval task force. Just scanning the report, RAND seems to think they can maintain local air superiority over the strait, maybe over the island but with PGMs, the invasion force crossing the strait will be atrited to a point they will not be operationally effective when on the island. Pretty much if the PLA invades, they probably could get on the island, establish air superiority over the Taiwan strait maybe over the island but then they are in a bloody slow grinding fight to take the island. A military operation with a significant chance of failure. From page 118 of the report: We nonetheless conclude that, even under these circumstances, an invasion of Taiwan would, in the face of properly prepared defenses, remain a bold and possibly foolish gamble on Beijing’s part. There are three main reasons for this. 1. China has never actually done an amphibious landing offensive military operation. Taiwan has prepared to defend their territory & defense is inherently easier. 2. China does not have enough (as of now) amphibious landing ships for the size of the force needed to be landed and in an operationally feasible time frame. 3. China would be concentrating forces for landings and initial force movements that would be ideal for PGM engagement and likely to be bogged down in Taiwan's multiple layered defenses when on the island. While China could initially keep us from using MOBs like Clark and damage Kadena, Misawa, etc...eventually we would be in numbers in theater. They would get mauled pretty badly in the invasion and even if it is successful, it would likely be a Pyrrhic victory at best.

You have to un-hide the text that explains we only plan to fight circa 1990's Desert Storm massive air campaign style. You HAVE to have a $1 million logistical chain to support every mission you fly. If you don't, you might give Congress the idea, that - gasp - we might need to buy some weapons that don't cost a $50,000 an hour to fly and are tailored to fight these low intensity long term conflicts. Don't worry, your job is not going anywhere. JSTARS is funded for another 5 years but if I were king, then I would have the USAF fly the Sentinel R1 to fly something modern.

Agreed on contracting out AAR. i think the KC-767 mentioned in the article might have been a better choice but I'm not sure it could meet all the requirements like EMP hardening, bio/chem defense, etc... I agree with the sentiment that the new tanker doesn't necessarily need to be a some huge leap in capabilities necessarily but just something reasonably capable, reliable and supportable. I liked the High-Lo concept with the KC-767 and the SSTT concept but the Big AF is just not that creative or interested in efficiency for that. Every MDS has to be huge, ultra modern, unique and costs be damned. Bigger, Higher, Faster, Farther - no matter the cost and no matter whether that is appropriate. Referencing Coram's book on Boyd from this website: Be True to the Mission, Not to the Apparatus As Coram puts it, the generals “looked at technology rather than the mission. And if they did consider the mission, it was always the fashionable mission of the day” (156-57).

There's an app for that Good point but compared to the AF and our typical pattern of either over thinking the wheel (KC-46, F-35, etc.) or only believing a gold-plated system is the only viable option I think the Army has more common sense or less money which keeps them in check. Our mistakes of late have way to many zeros at the end of them. Copy - my answer to your rhetorical question is yes, we will fly a 5th gen fighter to drop a JDAM on a Hilux with 4 dudes and some AK's, don't forget the two tankers to keep the fighters on station, the JSTARS and his tanker, the Reapers and their FOB, etc... If there is a right way to do something and an expensive way to do something, we'll figure out a way to do it both ways.

Ditto. Not sure what the question is.

2 This may be off the mark but I think the AF is setting itself up for a nasty surprise with some of the VTOL designs coming up that the Army and maybe the USMC may procure, attack variants are proposed and they may take the CAS mission by a fait acompli. Watch the Valor 280 sales video and the Army is planning on building the capacity to have its own CAS in an attack tilt rotor variant, who needs the AF for CAS now? The performance is pretty good - 280 KTAS, 500-800 NM combat radius, 12k useful load - not sure if the attack model would mirror that as I think those are the utility specs but probably pretty close. If that attack variant of the utility tiltrotor is successful, following the historical model of the attack Huey then the Cobra, I think the USAF is going to get cut out of a mission.

Broken Booms: Why Is It So Hard To Develop & Procure A New USAF Tanker? Long but good article, waxes philosophical on procurement and why is it so FUBAR now. Worth the time to read.

You may be right about the Navy being less than interested in buying the full compliment of F-35Cs Navy Leans Toward Building More Super Hornets After F-35C Delays

It can be done, for a metric ton of money but it can be done. The 130 and the B-2 are roughly the same size and weight. That by itself doesn't mean a new LO HVAA platform should be that level of signature reduction or could be done affordable for an operationally relevant fleet size but it is an example of large aircraft built with stealth in mind from the beginning. Stealth tanker / airlift has been proposed and nothing done about it but a common platform with a modular mission bay could be a significant change to put stealth into the least stealthy part of how we do major air ops, namely the tanker, airlift, ELINT and EA missions to support the Night 1 strikes. Cutaway of a Speed Agile proposal: Take a platform like this and make it modular to be an LO tanker, airlift, ELINT, or inside a WEZ stand-off weapons delivery platform. Not that you have to build the capability to roll on roll off in 4 hours from one mission type to the next but a basic modular airframe to support these missions. I don't think you could convince the remaining bomber generals to support this but I think something like this rather than an LRSB that comes in under 550 mil a copy is more feasible.

No, but they could initially deny operations from MOBs like Kadena and Misawa while delaying or denying deployment to Clark AB. Guam is still just outside of the range rings but not so far that an improved DF could not reach it without too much effort or money spent improving it. My argument is that the way we plan to fight and the losses we are willing to accept make preparing to fight with conventional HVAAs at very long range orbits just necessary. A compliment of LO HVAAs will enable us to fight the way we do now in A2/AD environments with an appropriate amount of risk. Going back to the start of the thread, Stillion argues for a radical departure in tactics / systems to achieve and sustain air superiority and I think an evolution (LO HVAAs) is more feasible and far less risky.

Don't doubt they exist but just curious and keeping OPSEC front and center, are you saying that the tankers, AWACs, Rivets, etc.. could get closer? I think that (the 500-750 NM standoff) is the worst case on Day 1 but they have a some serious reach from the mainland, HVAAs are going to have to keep their distances as China has learned from watching us fight for the last 25 years. If we went to fisticuffs, there is no way they would let us either operate our force enabling assets in orbits close to them (inside of 500 NM) nor from MOBs just outside that range (Clark AB). Reference these missile rings: They would crater the shit out of any runway on a daily basis (unless we intercepted the daily SSM barrage) to keep our HVAAs from operating anywhere close. My idea for the trend in air to air combat is that LO needs to be incorporated into some larger, non-fighter aircraft if we want to continue to fight with AR, AWACS, EA, etc... this is just an example of where it would help to mitigate the A2/AD threat