Clark Griswold

Get both, the exotic unconventional and the regular unconventional (no paradox intended) That’s the deterrence we want, not only will your military be blunted but your economy and society will be destabilized Don’t even try it But to the seaplane, I’d argue generally it will give more bang over more missions with more flexibility in basing vs a water based ground effect platform Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh yeah, there’s truth in that but if the shift to the Indo-Pacific is real, if we want to be able to sustain forces after destruction of bases, runways and docks, if we want to project power on multiple axis to complicate China’s problems we have to begin to look at unconventional capabilities The problem is money mainly as usual, to do this a bill payer would have to be found, changing out our tactical air mobility systems seems to be where to start.

Yeah but they are moving on something where we seem to be navel gazing a bit when I comes to the new logistics platforms we keep saying are gonna be necessary for runway independent ops Along with 69 other projects, it’s time to get the USA a modern seaplane Military, Coast Guard, Aerial Fire Fighter all from the same platform. That can get a bit of economy of scale and get the price per tail to something reasonable. Money for anything but the shiniest and pointiest planes is not easy to find but a plus sized version of the US-2 is probably feasible if the money could be had.

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-mysterious-sea-skimming-ekranoplan-seen-in-full-view

Yes https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/06/why-the-u-s-needs-200-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-not-100/ So what’s the bill payer if no plus up ?

Why can’t you have both in a platform, BACN and AWACS, links boosted and an additional sensor feed from a radar(s)? This plus the C2 for UCAV & UAS. This might / probably would push the capability to a platform that can comfortably operate in the high 40s but go big or go home Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WTF? Why? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not sure this has been posted in the thread but Victory Aviation in a modified Thrush 510 doing AR https://www.victoryspecialmissions.com/military Is there any proposal or capability to do this with the OA-1K?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nor sure her motives, could be the economic footprint of supporting a smaller platform or could be legit performance concerns Didn’t catch all of her comments but if I were a staffer or mil liaison working for her, I’d make the argument for an E-7 not just for the combat C2 mission but for long range patrol and monitoring, peacetime to contingency planning. Air and surface surveillance. The Arctic, maritime regions and maintaining a watch on long range patrols and joint ops occasionally being conducted by the Russians & Chinese are all examples of how not just in WW Taiwan how a long range multi sensor capable platform fits into the team. Just dreaming and if money grew on trees… Develop a MAX 7 based platform, the MAX is not a NEO but worth it for domestic considerations. Referencing the defunct E-10 project, develop a GMTI capability plus long range EO/IR. Develop this with the Israelis, leveraging their capes into a domestic modern platform (if not using the G550 based platforms) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy and understand, I believe @ClearedHot mentioned in this or another thread the Israeli AWACS based on the G550, same platform for the new Compass Call, I could see that as a selling point for logistical support and their jet has some very high end capes True, I’m just thinking the politics factor can trump the military capabilities factor here if not addressed Just as emotions often over power logic, it has to be considered https://breakingdefense.com/2025/06/air-force-cancels-e-7-wedgetail-citing-survivability-and-cost-concerns/ From the article: During a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing this morning, Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, raised concerns that the E-2D might not be able to match the E-7’s capabilities, and cited prior statements from Vice Chief of Space Operations Gen. Michael Guetlein that a space-based capability wouldn’t be available until the early 2030s. “We just haven’t heard, in my view, sufficient justification for the cancellation of such a critical program,” Murkowski told Air Force leaders. Jobs, money, prestige, etc… politicians want their constituents to have their fair share plus whatever else they can get. I want my Congressman to do the same, I think trying to meet her plus other politicians half way on this while developing the orbital systems is the best way.

Yeah if the Bobs change their minds and continue supporting a manned/unmanned aircraft a smaller plane might be better / more budget friendly Probably could acquire more, plug more gaps as required, support more CAPs, possibly ACE employ, etc… I think the 73 for admin/legal/acquisition/political reasons just might be more likely to happen with less drama If Boeing and the ABM career field really want this aircraft to happen, methinks going forward they need to show how viable/useful the E-7 LOS C2 of unmanned systems could be, that’s a new capability plus the traditional C2 that makes the platform relevant IMO Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid points from the article but wondering if this is a case of thinking only about WW3 when there are other levels of conflict on the spectrum where an ad hoc C2 would be useful, unless the space based option is truly global coverage 24/7, atmospheric and space weather resistant, defensible to ASAT weapons, robust comms. All that could be asked of a manned or unmanned aircraft but before I put all my eggs in one basket I’d keep a back up option. Anyway, I’d keep it real, get the 73, minimum mods, learn from the Aussies.

Not force structure per se but more composition… https://www.defensenews.com/air/2025/06/27/us-air-force-to-retire-all-a-10s-cancel-e-7-under-2026-spending-plan/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=fb_dfn Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

X-32…

Yeah, it was not a shock that he was retired Army, methinks he believes divide and conquer, more smaller branches mean easier pickings for the… Army. We need reform but not disestablishment. I hope there is a retort in the works.

Yeah, good point Just thinking there was a way to throw a flag on the field Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That what I was thinking too Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.airforcetimes.com/opinion/2025/06/26/split-to-win-why-the-air-force-must-become-4-services/

Just curious but in all these machinations on UPT NEXT, FUPT, etc… has the Air Force Safety Center been asked or done an analysis on the effectiveness/impact of curtailing/changing pilot training? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

PC-21 would be great I could post again this plane or that one, this many hours in this one then this one but really it’s all about getting the institution of the AF to admit that the effort to privatize too much of UPT, to cut from UPT and to radically change UPT is the problem. Not the fact and inherent costs of owning training aircraft(s) at dedicated training bases. I don’t know how you get a champion(s) with equivalent authority to those who wish to cut everything but the upcoming T-7 but if ever a training mafia needs to be formed ala the fighter mafia it is now. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Updated, cache thing, refreshed and their site had these links, Day Man 1 Clark 0 https://thedefensepost.com/2025/06/18/us-texan-aircraft-avionics/ https://www.govconwire.com/article/borsight-t6a-avionics-replacement-usaf-military-trainer

Bit more info on it https://defence-blog.com/t-6a-trainer-to-get-new-avionics-in-2-2b-deal/# Nothing on their website curiously https://www.borsight.com/

Damn it that’s diabolically probable So where the hell are the CODELs where these aircraft that the AF wants to and already has divested, the T-6 and T-1 respectively… I get it that the Missouri CODELs are advocating for and getting the T-7 into production (along with others) but if I were a Congressman/staffer from Kansas I’d tell the AF to pump the brakes on this divestment of T-1s and if I got word of T-6 divestment, someone would be going to the woodshed… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha would need to be a new additive program I could see this as part of a new way forward if the AF wasn’t hell bent on divesting everything but the T-7 and outsourcing basic flight instruction Mil IPs, standardized instruction not at existing UPT bases, make it a Total Force program, AD with Guard/Reserves, 3 x bases at desirable locations, Golden Apple tours for retention, good long tour orders to get ARC support, better GA training aircraft, etc… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk