Clark Griswold

Found the RECREATE website: https://www.cruiser-feeder.eu Enjoy About 99.69% sure this is not necessary but interesting to see how someone else would approach doing AR Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This might be what actually brings the F-35 Joint Strike Money Black Hole to heel... https://warisboring.com/the-official-f-35-price-tags-are-bogus-99d67799e2ac#.viq3ct932 From the article: I suspect Trump can recognize when he is being scammed. In this case, the Pentagon is telling him American taxpayers can get F-35s for only two to four times what they originally advertised. It would be pretty much impossible to cancel the project now, not to mention Congress would never actually do that due to the well distributed nature of the sub-contracts but could/would a Trump administration punish the DoD, Congress and LM by proposing offsets to cover the growth of the F-35's cost? The USAF has to loose an MWS and/or X bases, the USN looses two carriers, etc... not rooting for this but as a taxpayer and semi-responsible citizen, someone/something has to be held to account for this.

Two place cockpit is a must for most potential foreign sales and IMO a plus. Not sure if they offer or have even designed a single seat variant, doubt it. Other branches of the military and most foreign buyers want a second crew position, give the customer what they want. On the single or dual seat argument with COIN aircraft, historically and currently, COIN aircraft had and have two seats as the workload from operational experience has demanded it. It has been mentioned in these forums before and I will steal the thunder from another member that we sometimes confuse manned ISR with CAS, I'll extend that idea that this mission I call LASO (Light Attack Surveillance Observation) is not CAS, where fires are delivered more readily than in the LASO mission. In the LASO mission because the fires are harder to deliver effectively, it lends itself to a multi crew platform. The fires or effects are not likely to be delivered against a readily found/unambiguous target; they require time, effort and coordination to action them. Two or more crew members managing sensor(s), multiple frequencies/playmates and potentially a long loiter over a target area with likely changing GFC priorities can do this efficiently and reliably, so can a single seat platform but usually only as a two-ship, so really it is not a one man job. The US has previously operated COIN aircraft and they usually had two seats, the OV-10 & OV-1, both true COIN aircraft (low cost, technically simple, light kinetic capable, observation focused, etc..). Almost all the other coin aircraft actually flown or dreamed up had two seats for the reason that fires in COIN / Irregular Warfare are not necessarily easily delivered and the operations tend to need two craniums, divvying up the chaos, developing SA and then delivering whatever air to mud effects are needed.

More on this idea... RECREATE was originally investigating nuclear powered continuously flying aircraft taking on modules in flight, gave up on it after realizing no one would ever let an operating nuclear reactor fly over their country, started looking at doing AR as it is done now, tanker on top receiver on the bottom, sts just to cover that. But decided a tanker on the bottom pushing fuel up to the receiver was logistically easier and safer, less receiver training requirements and safety was enhanced, put sexual innuendo comment here: __________________. Proposed routes with AR orbits for long range commercial aircraft: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/technology-science/technology/nuclear-powered-planes-could-see-passengers-5474910 https://airnation.net/hangar/threads/aviation-week-air-to-air-refueling-for-commercial-air-travel.18228/ Receiver on top AR CGI... From the last article linked: But as a near-term option, aerial refueling showed promise. Here the “cruisers” are 250-seat aircraft designed for 2,500-3,000-nm range. Optimizing the aircraft for a 5,000-nm flight with one refueling, by resizing the wing, reduced fuel weight just over 20%. Two refuels and the savings approached 25%.The “feeders” are purpose-designed tankers with refueling booms, able to offload 35,000 lb. of fuel over three contacts per 4-hr. mission. “Three refuels per tanker looks sensible, based on aircraft size and the load on their bases,” says Tomas Martensson, senior scientist at Swedish defense research agency FOI. 3 contacts to offload 35K total? Again, doesn't seem financially / logistically worth it...

They (advocates for this) seemed to be looking for a problem to solve, the closest I read in their proposals to a legitimate problem/reason was to have large long range aircraft operate out of shorter, less congested airfields having lower GW via low fuel loads to allow operation out of these fields and picking up their gas for their long range flights after departure. Still just seems easier to just land or get a bigger jet / better wing & motors. For long range, speed and short(er) field capability, the 757, IMO fills the bill, plus it was/is just beautiful. Too bad Boeing didn't think there was a case for making a MAX version of it. Sexy beast...

Yup, AR is easy and great when everything works and everything happens as planned, and that happens almost never. Not saying every AR mission was a life and death struggle but there was always some hiccup or change to deal with. If the AR gets slipped by 15 mins, that's (in my hypothetical 15K per hour comm tanker) another $3750 charged to the customer or absorbed by the tanker company, that could be the profit for the whole mission. Also, what happens when you delay/flex for one customer but have a contract to deliver to another and they now conflict with each other? Lots of moving parts to deal with. The military does AR because it has too, don't really see the Commercial Aviation enterprise needing to do this, but hey give it a try they might make it work. Boeing or Airbus equipment would probably be too expensive for this but Ukraine with it's An-112KC could probably deliver this hypothetical commercial tanker: https://image.slidesharecdn.com/an112kc-100710063555-phpapp02-100714232617-phpapp02/95/an112kc-100710063555phpapp02-9-728.jpg?cb=1279150020 They would likely be around 30% or more less expensive (not saying better but cheaper) and have a cargo mission capable aircraft to maximize potential revenue on each mission.

I'm skeptical this will happen or if there is really a need but there is a good bit of research going into this... https://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161220-the-aerial-tankers-that-helped-shrink-the-globe https://www.google.com/patents/US20030136874 https://www.range-unlimited.com/ https://theconversation.com/in-flight-refuelling-for-airliners-will-see-non-stop-services-shrink-the-globe-39931 Reading this and thinking about my own time flying the mighty 135, the only way I could see this happening and being profitable/logistically sensible is if you could synchronize the tankers and receivers by a reciprocative schedule/flight plan or rendezvous . If the receiver was scheduled to a destination that allowed for a convenient AR for the tanker which was also flying another revenue producing mission (they have intersecting or parallel flight plans) then maybe but putting a tanker up just to extend the range of 2 or 3 airliners doesn't seem commercially viable with relatively cheap Jet A and transport category aircraft getting more fuel efficient. Just guessing that a commercial tanker would cost about 15K per hour and would have logistical costs at it's MOB of about 2k per mission and WAGing an average 3 hour mission comes to 47k. Round up to 50k for just under 10% in unforeseen costs and that is a considerable bill for airlines to foot. Also, didn't see anything in the articles about what happens when things go wrong (tanker breaks, receiver can't take gas, WX sucks in the track, air traffic congestion interference). Not sure they are considering the entirety of the whole effort to pass gas in the sky. Still, an interesting idea, here's the linked sims flown by the RECREATE project to try this out in the Matrix before taking it live...

I'll raise you

You never know... Lockheed Martin CEO promises Trump she'll cut F-35 costs

First flight in production configuration for Scorpion Jet https://txtav.com/en/newsroom/2016/12/first-production-conforming-scorpion-jet-completes-successful-first-flight New administration with a pro military agenda, make a play for a new MDS AF...

Distinct similarities but what was interesting was the message I inferred was the Army shifting from COIN, not going back to a conventional focus but high end next generation focused conflict. As the WOR article mentioned: "The Army isn’t going to act as an anti-access enabler unless it is providing logistical support and communications or bothers to deploy its point defense systems to defend US air and naval facilities against cruise missile attack." This has to be realized by Army leadership and if they are truly serious about this concept, then would this drive the need for organic mobility, they apparently have confidence in tilt-rotor technology (Valor 280) and I am surprised that a large tilt rotor mobility platform hasn't been at least proposed to get the Army directly to the fight: Not sure if this is really necessary, direct air land delivery via tilt rotor but if the Army wants to lead the way they will have to get close to roll in...

Thread relight. Read this today: https://warontherocks.com/2016/12/no-end-in-sight-to-the-armys-dependence-on-airpower/ Thought it was a pretty good read and the AF is not going anywhere but the most interesting take away was the Army's new concept, Multi-Domain Battle. Summary: Army enables entry into contested AORs for Air/Naval forces thru long range precision fires and small ground force elements to take advantage of fleeting moments where they have the advantage, go static and defensive until the next moment of advantage comes up and advance, repeat until the enemy is cooked thoroughly. https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/under-enemy-skies-armys-multi-domain-battle/ https://breakingdefense.com/2016/10/miserable-disobedient-victorious-gen-milleys-future-us-soldier/ Not really buying that at all, also not buying that it will only be one service kicking down a robust A2/AD brick wall and knocking a peer foe on his ass. Grist for the mill but interesting.

Erotic Carp calendar... your welcome. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2327321/the-erotic-carp-calendar-you-never-knew-you-needed-is-here-in-time-for-christmas/

Godspeed sir.

No worries and nothing taken.

Valid assessment that the risk taken / change was not a window shaking sonic boom but it was at least something, even a small token. Not to get too into the weeds with you on the intricacies of the Global Chicken but it is always on autopilot, just a matter of whether it is on the flight plan or being directed by the pilot. The takeoff and landing itself is directed by the pilot, nothing is exactly automatic. Having been a badass Global Chicken driver and flown several manned aircraft, the GH would be an ideal fit for a WO program IMO, particularly the rebirth of one in the AF. Just a sidebar point. I am not sure it will take dead Airmen to prove the need for change, there is that sense now we can't pretend everything is fine. It is just like everything else in our huge Byzantine and risk averse government, it takes too long to get done and it never gets completely finished. As to NM and the subject of this thread, no doubt but as I hail from a Southern state and we send the same jokers back term after term to develop seniority so they can bring home the bacon, I can't blame them for it. They have an industry, bilking the federal government. They're good at it. Do what you're good at.

Possible but I have some hope - while I am not in agreement with the policy of enlisted RPA pilots (would rather seen and E to WO program) but the fact they did something different, even if it is small scale and possibly fleeting, is a sign there is still some of the wild blue yonder left in the overly corprotized, overly risk averse, modern day AF...

The typical shields used by feckless "leaders" Be bold AF, rollout an aggressive strategy to stop the exodus of 11Fs and grow their ranks. Fighter Pilot Recovery Plan (F-16/15 centric): - Surge the ARC, recapitalize MX and training, and prioritize where you use 11Fs, every staff / non-operational billet that doesn't actually need an 11F that is manned by one is just another straw on the camel's back, scrutinize every one and even if you can only get rid of 50 or so that is 10% of the 500 or so 11F deficit you need to fix True, this will likely be a 3+ year bill to pay by the AF to fix the loss of experience and quantity in the 11F community

Can't deny that problem

Legit critiques, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul but I think I could pay Paul back with interest in this case if the program (a 3+ FY ARC IP, MX and MEO personnel surge) runs for at least 3 FYs, grows more IPs first and then in years 2 and beyond to train the newly minted 11Fs from IFF Make it the objective to not only solve the AC 11F shortfall but to grow in your RC the 11F IP cadre, as the program ran, specifically in the first year or so, focus on growing you IP cadre by training first new IPs, the AC and RC F-16 pilots ready to IP qual and in year two and beyond then focus on the FNGs to getting them their B qual (terminology check - is the the first qual for an 11F when hey go thru their FTU?) It will likely cost 100+ million to move the 40 jets and 800 folks from Hill to Holloman, that is about 640 man years of MPA depending on the O to E ratio. Spend about that on an activation (partial unit) of two F-16 wings with the units not inside of 3 years for their AEF rotation. 3 years, two sites, surged training and MX. Sugar it with a bonus and the ARC will have multiple units volunteering. Just a thought.

No - I'll throw my ignorance of that fact right up front as I believed (incorrectly) that Luke was the only FTU for the Viper. My comment was on the idea of transferring the Hill 16s and personnel to what was billed as "interim" squadrons - sounds permanent likely and unnecessary as there are many other 16 bases that could stand up for a temporary surge training, with an IP program pulling from the ARC and leveraging the resources there or from there. Hill for instance where the planes and people are already based

2 I had to say that which is painfully obvious to a Demo-drone who could not grasp the fact that money doesn't actually grow on trees. Every health insurance policy that is government supplied or subsidized is a wealth transference device to some degree, I am not even saying that as a pejorative but just as a simple fact that libs can't / won't admit. If that fact could come honestly into the public conversation (or what's left of it in the civic society wasteland) the other fact, that people who make less money will not have the same approximate lifestyle as someone who makes much more money, this even includes healthcare, regardless if it pisses libs off or not. If you make 30k per year you won't have the same healthcare as someone who makes 300k per year, if we try to totally even out society in this area (and others) because we are uncomfortable with disparities in lifestyle, we'll wreck the place. Ref: USSR, Venezuela, NK, Cuba, etc...

What's really driving this? There's a lot of room at Hill and the airspace/ranges are a plenty (UTTR) and are they moving all the other things you need for an FTU (sims, academics, etc.) or is it a split plan with studs going to Luke first then to Holloman for flight training? Why not just stand up a training program at a Guard / Reserve base(s) for 3 years, surge production as required and not do something that will likely make the 11F problem even worse by probably encouraging the 7-day opt? A spasmodic flinch when a strategic punch was needed...

Not me, I know that flying a 4 engine swing wing 475k+ GW bomber with an adhoc targeting pod added to it that will need to be air refueled at least once during a mission and probably costing around 60k+ per flight hour is the real way to deliver air power in a permissive environment where air to mud effects are sometimes called for but ISR is in really in demand. It's nuts to use an inexpensive turboprop that can do both of those missions at probably less than 3% of the cost per mission.

Logic and reason supported by data to argue for a LAAR therefore this will be ignored... https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logistical-fratricide-the-cost-of-fast-jet-tacair-measured-in-purple-hearts/