Clark Griswold

True - just my musings on if they really want to do this, what they should do and how to get it funded. On requirement creep, no doubt it (a Raptor 2.0) would invite some over the top ideas and a new Raptor buy is not financially possible with the procurement bow wave developing (35, 46, LSR-B, etc...) but if we make strategic decisions now to re-plan and re-program it could be. That's just a nice way of saying CNX some other program to pay for this one but it's possible, not likely but possible. If you didn't want to add new capabilities baked into a new Raptor you could build a new Raptor with the ability to easily accept new systems, equipment, etc... without screwing up the LO profile. That would still be pricey but probably less than the Christmas list of new capes I listed above. Raptor 2.0 has more room for growth and updated mission software specifically designed to accept / integrate updates or additions for new systems, just another idea... Addition: More on the Congressional effort to study a Raptor restart: https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/21/facing-election-fight-forbes-pushes-f-22-revival/83352746/

RAND estimated it would be 17 billion for 75 more Raptors in 2010 dollars, the article said Congress was interested in studying the cost of 194 new Raptors, just doing simple math and applying inflation I come up with about 48 billion, could be less with the larger purchase driving down the per tail cost but if we were serious about this these new Raptors would / should be "Super Raptors", something to make it worth the inevitably large design-development-testing-production problems. New features, capabilities, etc.. that address issues with the F-22A. Just some suggestions from what has been released in open sources would be: Conformal fuel tanks for range and additional thermal signature suppression. Improved weapons bays for more load out and compatibility with new / more weapons (Meteor, stand off glide weapons, etc...) External station on fuselage for conformal LO mission pods (targeting, jamming, recce, etc..) LO IRST sensor In addition to this, if the AF or interested parties in Congress are really going to push for this, it needs to be pitched as part of family of systems to address specific requirements, threats, scenarios and then put forward as part of a future force. The new Raptor is for Assured Air Superiority in A2AD environments coupled with a new arsenal plane (like the B-1R concept) for mass delivery of PGMs to overwhelm the enemy IADS initially, etc...

Copy that.

True but some X amount is hidden behind the paywall, just a guess but the wingman could have been a US advisor crew. Concur Too bad the window has probably closed on the USAF getting a LAAR system. Always thought the IA-58, modernized with PT-6's, glass, etc... built in the US under license would have been a good plane

Afghan Super-T's perform first confirmed strikes. https://www.janes.com/article/59586/afghan-a-29s-conduct-strikes-in-northeastern-province-of-badakhshan

I think their HUD can count as a PFD This is a RAF crew but I am pretty sure the same goes for USAF.

More buzz around Hyten... https://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/04/air-force-general-space-war-chief/127437/

And there you go..................... You guys willing to work for kibble? BS on the video.......nice editing.........cute for dog lovers. Guilty as charged - dogs rule Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I slipped the surly bonds of Earth... https://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/dogs-taught-how-to-fly-a-plane--seriously/news-story/138bfa946b053554a0b7fd5395a79fc6

Second article in the series. https://warontherocks.com/2016/04/rediscovering-low-altitude-getting-past-the-air-forces-overcommitment-to-stealth/

Too bad - looks like they proposed keeping the same wing and I always wondered what they thought the STOL performance of it would have been.

If they got more training that sounds like an ideal environment to learn the ropes, if it was Gen Clark Griswold calling the shots, they would get at least 100 hours in light GA planes with an emphasis in cross country for airmanship and a solid 6+ months of FTU-MQT. My RPA is experience is from the Global Chicken so different animal and type of ISR mission but I went there with about 5 years flying experience, the training program was good, could have been better but was adequate to make this driver of the family truckster safe to operate the GH and eventually something slightly better than mediocre, slightly... If the AF really takes this seriously and it obviously is a significant part of the future AF, give the 18Xer's more time in the air before planting their a$$ in the shelter. Use the 11's that go to RPA as IPs, 18Xs gets more airtime 11Xs gets to fly, win win. Thinking something like an SR20 for economy and a bit of range.

Hopefully not and very interesting concept Jet Herc. Not too much seems to be out there about the Fat Herc XL proposal from a few years ago: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-martin-unveils-wider-larger-c-130xl-to-fight-a400m-316314/ Did ever go beyond a few scant details or was a formal pitch made to the AF or a foreign customer?

Little too fast on the send for my own good. Didn't realize Cannon was the FTU for the 1/9, that was where I was thinking of.

Gotcha - that sucks they (18Xs) aren't getting more training, I was wondering if the AF was phoning it in with that new AFSC and it looks like my hunch was true, no great sage here but I doubted they would take it seriously. Not sure how much ass pain it would be but establishing a permanent, semi-permanent or recurring TFR for an out of the way base to have a practical phase for URT but it would be worthwhile. From my days in the GH, local training out of Beale was short & relatively simple, but the actual act of doing all the things you need to be able to do as a mission commander, plan-brief-ground ops-flight to an area-rtb-debrief crew-instructor led debrief, was invaluable. Actually controlling the aircraft, dealing with dynamic conditions, herding the cats to get the flight done, handling problems and the experience of actually doing what you will be doing when others will depend on you to do it right is worthwhile, giving the RPA community a base, ideally with some manned traffic in the vicinity to work with or around, terrain to account for, local procedures to comply, multiple ATC agencies and all the x factors of real training would be worth it.

Copy - Is there a significant (5% or more) attrition rate from URT and/or the FTU? I heard there were some problems with dudes straight from UPT to the Reaper but is the same problem occurring with URT? My question is based on informal discussions with other IPs and this was about 7 years ago so a helluva lot has changed but just wondering.

Ditto, on it not really helping the RPA manning situation and I just don't see it working very well, just my opinion but for these missions a multi-crew aircraft works best. Can't speak to the talent level as I have never been in a MQ-9 squadron but that is UFB on the level of training 18X'ers, you said dudes were getting 10 hours in MQT then on their own, has that improved? Yikes, 70 CAPs coinciding with the first group's ADSC expiring? Fire meet gasoline...

Probably so. Continuing the discussion of Herc variants or derivatives, found the L400 on Codeone's website. https://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=4686 About 20% bigger than the C-27J so it may have been a smidge too big for the JCA requirements or at that size with two engines not able to meet the short field requirements but would have been interesting to see LM enter a J model version of this for the JCA program.

Might be a case for reducing the PED tail, we provide the RPA and the data, the customer does his own PED work to save manpower there to pay for more manpower in ops. Not familiar with Space so I can't speak to whether or not they have too many O's but if every Wing had to loose 1 or 2 O billets to pay for growth in the RPA enterprise that's probably feasible, assuming conversion to GS or E for said billet, or just eliminating the function altogether. Shifting an equal number of E billets elsewhere in the AF to grow the SO cadre along with this hypothetical 240 RPA Pilots (120 Wings having to give up 2 O and 2 E billet to pay the RPA manning monster) Break Break: Question for RPA guys, if 240 crews (Pilot/SO) were added to the mix with the 60 supported CAPs, would 4 extra crews per CAP significantly improve QOL? Or is that a drop in the ocean? You could also start to cut long term orders for Guard / Reserve RPA wings, right at 1095 for end strength reporting considerations if the Total Force would be looking at statutory limits on numbers and composition. 3 years would get takers, that's 15% to the goal of 7305 and a lot of dudes would interrupt other gigs to get that. On the subject of reducing RPA manning, proposal to make an RPA cockpit single-seat: https://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/how-to-cut-predator-reaper-uav-crew-in-half-lt-gen-otto/ Word. Few years old but relevant as ever: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/24/the-pentagon-has-too-many-troops

Nice. Found this from LM on the winglets and other structural projects, 1-3% for J models in fuel savings, older Hercs would probably benefit more. https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2012HOC-Presentations/Wednesday/Wed%201600%20Fuel%20Efficiency%20Initiatives-Kyle%20Smith.pdf Another article on 130 winglets and ones for the 5. https://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-developing-winglets-c-130-c-5 C-27J got them also last year. https://www.janes.com/article/53325/alenia-completes-trials-of-winglet-fitted-c-27j

Yep - I found this source one time and referenced it before. https://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/ Just keeping my numbers very conservative for a quick comparison, in the AOR who the hell knows how expensive it is.

Not arguing with you that in these AORs / long term operations that we don't need some major capabilities (heavy CAS in A-10s for example) on tap for certain missions or when the threat level increases (F-15s for DCA if Su-35s begin to encroach for example) but for the day to day and typical mission we need something WAY cheaper to operate. I'm arguing for a Scorpion Jet (or the equivalent) as some of the capabilities that a 4th/5th Gen fighter brings are not necessary: supersonic, air to air capable, low observable, etc... and come at such a cost with no operational benefit vice a much less expensive to operate asset. Keeping OPSEC in mind, delivering a PGM(s) prior to the door being kicked, wall breeched or other support to the type of guys you referenced happens at 1G and quite a distance for a variety of reasons from the target as the self-guided weapon is doing all the hard work now not the fixed-wing platform for the most part. Now there are times when Hogs, Vipers, Hornets, etc... are called to strafe but overall in a limited kinetic, CAS with high CDE and precise targeting criteria environment, fixed-wing support in these cases is mostly of a stable PGM delivery / ISR platform. This can be done way cheaper allowing for the high end force of the future to be built by not having the money it needs to be used in the ops of today, making that argument to Congress is another fight... Seriously, I am not arguing doing things on the cheap that leaves the warfighter without what he needs to win the fight, I am arguing for doing things smarter, tailored and efficiently.

Yup - the main thing I can't understand is why the fact that it will not need AR support to do an operationally relevant sortie (ISR, CAS, Surgical Strike, or all of them on one mission) is not breaking thru and getting more traction towards acquisition and this coming from a former tanker bubba. Even way back when I was a tanker co I knew that having a two ship of 16's on station with the huge tanker commitment to pass gas to them (and all the other two ships) did not make sense when you had cheaper options given the threats you actually faced, the amount of times we were going kinetic after major combat ops ended and the cost of keeping x number of tankers on station 24-7-365. This is a perfect plane / mission for Guard / Reserve, but like the C-27J and two brothers, if I can't have one he can't have one.

Yup - our insane arrangement of short terms, campaign finance and the need for patronage to secure the first two lead to this: Average Congressman has to raise about $2300 per day for an average campaign cost of $1.6 million; make that an average of about $14,000 per day for a Senator for an average campaign cost of $14.6 million. Now when are you supposed to think about not only what is good for your district but good for the country when you are panhandling for dollars? https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/how-much-does-it-cost-win-seat-congre It sucks that we can see the problem (or one of many) with our fiscal policies that encourage waste effectively by the expiration of authority per account in a FY but there has got to be a fix that even the Hill would support, it still brings home the bacon to Congressional Districts but encourages the DoD to not waste money just to fully execute.

Another article on the subject of NATO and our membership: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/it-time-america-quit-nato-15615?page=2 The author leaves it at re-examination of whether or not the US should be in the alliance, also found this one on Foxtrot Alpha: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-allies-borrowing-munitions-to-drop-on-isis-as-u-s-1767362416 It may be a helluva change from the way things have been for the past 60+ years but putting our foot down maybe the only way to get some traction on change we say we want, the President was deriding this in an interview ("free riders"): https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ Consensus seems to be building for some change.