Clark Griswold

IDK, maybe this guy has a point… https://www.amazon.com/Grounded-Abolishing-Studies-Conflict-Diplomacy/dp/0813165571 But seriously WTF?

That was a good video I like that, the Magician’s Choice, the illusion of a real choice Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only… the nuclear option would be to offer early release if said students aren’t in a training program by 6.9 months… IRR, Palace Chaise, IST, whatever… but I digress… While at the beginning, flying the mail by the AAC, went bad, Air Mail Scandal, having a small utility fleet owned by the AF and chartered specifically to support the Joint Force, Federal and State agencies in contingency and routinely… fly pax, cargo, mail, etc… regularly and on demand for that which doesn’t require a t-tail or Herc, pick an existing regional jet (175, 220, 72) and fly from strategic areas with concentrated gov customers who would use the service, send pilots there if an FTU isn’t available at a reasonable time from graduation, get about 600 hours time and rotate them out to their FTU… the money would come from divesting old iron that in reality is no more survivable than adapting a civilian aircraft to this role, an adapted aircraft still in production would be a helluva lot cheaper to operate and sustain

Our strategy is organic synergistic transformative multi lateral culturally aware inclusive innovation that will allow holistic and sustainable development thus deterring nihilistic sociopaths with WMD and massive advanced military capabilities. But on a lighter note, I’m not sure our current form of government populated by ever less impressive elected officials and aloof permanent bureaucrats can form a consistent strategy to meet the challenge of the rising authoritarian civilizational states of the East. We change the crew every few years and we wonder how we can’t get on course let alone stay there and that course is not one that the majority seem to want. Another lament on the state of the democratic republic in the West with no obvious answer but I fear as inept and inefficient as our adversaries sometimes are, their relentlessness may prove decisive versus our system. But… we have to get busy building an arsenal to win in several places at once, seriously develop homeland defenses and prepare and convince our people why we should. Not holding my breath but posting on BO

Yup Commute worthy conversation on the subject There’s a lotta good nuggets in this conversation, a good bit is well worn ground but what I found particularly interesting is the discussion he has on the spiritual preparation for sacrifice Xi has started, don’t see an American leader anytime soon giving a guns vs butter speech, or why Americans should defend the Spratly Islands, if intend to resist aggression by the PRC in the SCS, whoever becomes POTUS needs to make that speech now methinks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If only king for a day or if we had a congressman who would drop a turd into that shoe clerk punch bowl… introduce legislation giving the AF 6 months to get studs into FTU or other flight training after graduation or make it a 2 for 1 reduction in their commitment for every day past six months till they get to flight training If there’s no cost to the Bobs there’s no incentive to fix the glitch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They think she’s gonna win Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another straw https://apple.news/Ah1TbsO1BSFqfvImaU72qjQ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough, I think you argue in good faith. No doubt about the problem with accountability. I think it you could keep it under control and actually measurably accountable but I’m an optimist. I’ve made my point as have you so good enough for BO.

No doubt this would require more than one GO who had strong buy in and believed there was a deficit in aviator and officer development willing to either make the case for supplemental funds or slay someone's sacred cows to get what would be needed, I don't know of any who has made any statements to that effect, but I post what I think so maybe it will change a mind(s). As to execution and it getting FUBAR, quite possibly as it probably would not be in the ideal career development plan for a lot people on the path to power but the ARC could possibly be a good manpower source for cadre, if the program could be located near or at airline domiciles or other strategic / desirable locations. The admin and cadre are ARC, the customers are the AD. Owners are the GOs and investors are the CODELs who want the program in their districts. Keeps the streams from crossing and roles clear. I'll agree it has risk but we have to get out of the mindset of well it's out of the norm so screw it, the USAF is getting sclerotic and needs a good ol' splash of cold water in the face, instead of the change being less real flying, less challenging and varied opportunities, try to offer more. Pilot, 20+ years, AD and ANG, flying for a major right now. Heavy guy, lucky and blessed bastard who got to fly several types/missions.

Yeah but light a candle vs curse the f’ing darkness. It’s a long shot but maybe a staffer, CODEL, SES, O6, GO, etc… lurks on these forums and maybe you’ll cause one shoeclerk to pause and think, you gotta try… Yeah I see your point, non problem in the short term sense to shoe clerks but leaders have to be strategic thinkers, 3 moves ahead and multiple permutations, if they allow this BIT issue to go unaddressed vs using it as a chance to build a cohort of inspired and trained Os for the AF then we will have missed yet another chance to better and break the trend of an inevitably less and less varied flying training. If we are serious about getting out the stagnate paradigm that 20+ of GWOT has left in the mindset of the AF then this program could be one part of it. They have to see it’s not about bodies but the quality of the bodies, in mind, body and martial spirit. These people want to be military pilots and leaders, keep them going in that direction not sitting on their hands starting in their careers building up resentment.

We need this and we need retirees trained in it in case we need to fly a mission to the USVI… Seastar for training and little missions

If this training backlog from UPT to FTU is forecast to last for years (3 or more) then why not use their time wisely, develop the skills of your pilots and seed a large pool of your rated officers with exposure and training in missions they may not get a chance to later when they eventually go to their MWS FTU? There is money, it can be reprogrammed and we have resources for a Graduate Pilot Training program to absorb UPT graduates to develop the Line of the Air Force. Just as LFEs are not to train any one person, they’re there to train the overall force, this program would be basically the same thing. Build it to handle 300 to 350 students a year, list it as an assignment for the students to rank with their choices and let this program be the accumulator to help the training pipeline. Course length about 1 year. 4 different aircraft in the program based at 2 different bases, geographically separated, east coast and west cost. Train, support ops and participate in exercises to support the Joint Force. Some of this would take the place of what contractors do now, not much but some. West Coast Base X gets AT-6Bs and Cessna SkyCouriers. Light Attack, ISR, Light Air Mobility with ACE training and experience. East Coast Base Y gets Scorpions and T-1s. Aggressor, target simulation and light fighter training, Light Air Mobility support for passenger, cargo and courier services. This would not be cheap but not unaffordable

Yeah I could see that particularly with our rated officers, I hate to say it but there is a competing tension between developing a high skill and knowledgeable aviator in whatever MDS/Mission and developing an (eventually) strategic leader I’m not sure the AF culturally would accept open acknowledgment of this and allow during the foundation period of an officer’s career them to achieve a reasonable level of demonstrated competence (aircraft commander, 2 ship lead, etc…) and then focus on demonstrating their competence at leadership at the higher than tactical level (operational, theater then leading to strategic) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That checks with what I’ve thought, it’s a GO officers arms race

Get a lawyer

Concur, most GOs I met/worked for were ok it seemed and didn’t exhibit glaring intellectual flaws but I suspect the warping effect of CODELs and HHQ staff give us what we see now Yeah, I’m not sure our current “system” of leadership observation then selection/grooming is working. It starts winnowing way too soon and limits the pool before you really know what you have.

Gotcha but I thought the OP was saying 38 grads are getting delayed B course dates after SUPT graduation so my comment was advocating letting these newly minted graduates continue flying on their own dime if they want while waiting Banking could happen also, banking was over when I was commissioned then winged but if it came back then being the broken record I am, the AF should pay for at least 30 hours a year in GA aircraft while slaving away in a cube farm at some base It’s been a minute but didn’t our SUPT ADSC start the day we were winged?

Let them take PTDY, use GI Bill, go fly and get CFII, seaplane, tail dragger, etc… at school of their choice unless the AF has a cockpit to put them in after graduation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True but he was saying it was cheaper and still working at the time the Bobs fixed the glitch. I would add that the 38 fleet is old and not getting any younger, the T-1 came about to give breathing room to the the 38 program. Killing it was not going to make anything better. Divesting the T-1 before the 38 was replaced or in the process of being replaced was utterly penny and pound foolish. It amazes me how incompetent the AF has become of late, while it was not an insignificant cost but not an onerous one for sure, divesting the only multi-engine training aircraft you have was not going to make anywhere near enough money to fix other problems. Divesting it also was not going to radically increase production of students who met the time tested minimum requirements to then wing and send to FTUs. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Repost of the original article from WOR arguing for a light fighter / unmanned aircraft team https://warontherocks.com/2022/02/the-light-fighter-is-the-air-forces-manned-unmanned-team-solution/ From the article: What Is a Light-Fighter Aircraft? It’s easy to confuse this term with others, such as light attack and light combat aircraft. Indeed, all refer to aircraft that benefit from being smaller, more cost-efficient, and easier to produce than current fourth- and fifth-generation fighter fleets. For our purposes, the main distinction is that a light fighter is turbine powered, whereas light attack is propeller driven. The intent has to be affordable capable mass, we can’t afford the legions of new 4 & 4.5 gen fighters but 4.something light fighters / CCAs we probably can. It’s not a panacea for all that vexes us right now (cost, availability, sustainment, etc…) but it could solve a lot of it. Built with the capes to carry all the latest weapons to make them legit threats to Su-30/35s, J-10/15s and GBADs and in the network with the other players, you have what the AF and I would argue what the Navy needs to be able to cover the range of commitments. The Tejas having a CTOL and CATOBAR flying right now from not yet but close to being an ally is worth the effort IMO.

Yeah, I think for the AF the last system(s) you could say were homeland first away game second in design priorities were the F-89/101/102/106 integrated with SAGE & BOMARC That’s a few but back when the homeland bomber threat was real and we OT&E’d to meet it, the long range cruise missile/drone attack I would say is real and a light fighter capability could be one of the systems used to meet it here and OCONUS, to my knowledge though no one in the staff or at MAJCOMs has suggested it for NORTHCOM Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Had a thought, is there a bias against a USAF light fighter because it’s seen (institutionally) as a defensive oriented fighter mainly and we as an institution think air power should really be mainly offensively focused? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You might be right, looks like the Navy got rhinos at just under 65 million a piece (bar napkin math 1.1 billion / 17 jets) but still under my 65 million threshold https://news.usni.org/2024/03/22/navy-makes-last-planned-super-hornet-buy-secures-technical-data-packages Still a bit much IMO but there you go. Mixed buy would be fine too with the right mix of 4.5 gen, light fighters, CCAs, UCAVs and 5th+ (6th gen might be a bridge too far). I would argue still for a light fighter and specifically as both an independent platform and one strategically designed for as part of net centric family of info sharing fires supporting platforms, bought in numbers. Really the manned light fighter (if acquired) would / should be the centerpiece of a scalable integrated family of systems to meet and complement ongoing, emergent and major contingency requirements. Manned light fighter, light C2, light tanker/air lifter, UCAV, SHORAD and localized small UAS defensive systems. Basically a mini Air Force with an organic GBAD system. This would be the reinforcement or augment to the AD big hammer.

My only two not requested cents would be that light fighter also means light on the pocket book, the 5th gen light fighter concept looks cool but if it gets pricey (say above 65 million a tail) then it’s too expensive to buy, maintain and fly in quantity but too pricey for the amount of capes it brings per million versus an F-35. It needs to be cheap enough (but still relevant) to buy, fly and man at a significant multiplier to the heavy fighter (3 x sounds right) to bring a massed and concentrated capability to meet heavier and more capable platforms when need to fight in WW3 but as it was procured in quantity it can be dispersed to meet our diverse and world wide requirements (Europe, Asia, CENTCOM, etc…) Tejas Mk 1 comes in at around 37.5 and 4k an hour to fly, not sure about Mk 2 but just say 20% more to buy and 10% more to fly so that’s 45 mil a tail and 4.4 to fly, that’s affordable in the ARC to buy in quantity (500+) and fly and crew sustainably. Couple that with reciprocal buys of US equipment and further develop ties with India.