Clark Griswold

Yup I hate it but if Uncle Sugar is not feeling spendy then I see this as bill payers: Bone, Hog, oldest Vipers, remaining 15Cs, some spec ops 130s, some -38s Not saying I want all these divestment but with Sentinel, Raider and now the 47 there is a need for a lotta money reprogramming This executive administration is a spender if approached correctly methinks, Congress is TBD with what they did with the CR, held the line with no increase for inflation Pushing for a big swap/new iron in the AD and ARC is something they (executive and some congressional members) might go for though A new Air Force almost thru lots of new aircraft, weapons, systems, personnel reforms and structure. Smaller AD but the best toys, bigger ARC with newer iron/missions/responsibilities Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know but something will likely have to give

Gotcha That’s the rub…Boeing…

NGAS might draw the short straw… https://theaviationist.com/2025/03/08/uncertain-future-usaf-ngas/#

Alright here’s the 69 billion dollar question… do you divest the Raptors to get the money to buy the -47? Handling the interim risk with 15EX and 35

God bless them for trying though. IDK, if you really think your ass is on the line you can get better at something really fast. Now that might cause a guns vs butter debate that I think would be hard to persuade their people that it’s time to really rearm and invest in defense but here’s hoping that they would I guess that could spur a philosophical debate, do they (our allies) need that level of capability as that level is really there to give us the option to prosecute the attack, to take the offensive. Do they need to be able to do that? Maybe they can develop something relevant in the 2030 fight, concept son of Rafael

With 6th gen being the new hotness… GCAP model

Concur I wish this could spread to other requirements/acquisitions Good enough is good enough, good enough plus quickly delivered at a reasonable cost is great.

From the ‘tube so caveat emptor but some initial thoughts that are probably in the ballpark of truth… Very stealthy Focused on itself being air to air / tactical C2 Very long ranged Not built to last for super long time, 20 years then on to next gen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If Boeing get the NGAD then LM gets the NGAS, NG can get the F/A-XX Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What is the problem with LM’s proposal? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

5 years from now on BO… ”Who had 30 billion over budget and no planes yet built?”

If you keep touching the stove when it’s on you’ll keep getting burned Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Winning https://www.theblaze.com/news/trump-water-mexico-treaty-cruz

Preach on Mini https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2025/03/theres-tanker-sized-gap-vision-air-forces-future/403589/ We need this team with a catchy acronym, Future Air Refueling Team or FART if you will… 46s as the foundation and -330 MRTT+ for distance with -390s for ACE.

After St Paddy’s… Related to Irish fighters, worth the read on Ireland and expandable to other declared neutral countries https://warontherocks.com/2025/03/no-time-to-spare-irish-defense-and-security-in-2025/ FA-50 in Irish Air Corps colors

True but in defense of the MRTT it carries more passengers, 290+ vs 50+ for the 46, 110+ in a contingency configuration. Just my two cents, the correct answer is both of them for the USAF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfamiliar with the KE-3… About the same fuel as a -135? Modern cockpit and avionics at delivery? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, switched to the Bus from the 73, the MAX is good the Bus is great I’m not usually for corporate welfare but I’ll just advocate here for some corporate welfare… buy 75 more or so -46s, come up with a new configuration to unfornicate the design to the maximum possible and help Boeing get its legs underneath itself again We’re committed to it, replace the 135 with the 46, don’t call it a replacement for the -10 but buy the -330 NEO for the Y and get cranking on NGAS… for that I’d quietly ask NG if the B-21 could also have KC-21 variant Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No extra gas but 8% fuel savings, will have an automated boom system too https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2024-07-24/airbus-a330-multi-role-tanker-transport-goes-neo More gas, more range, less bullshit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A bit old but if KC-Y is still being considered this is the way https://breakingdefense.com/2023/11/airbus-exploring-development-of-future-tanker-based-on-a330neo/

Brochure on the 777 tanker https://bemil.chosun.com/brd/files/BEMIL085/upload/2007/05/KC-777.pdf Not gonna happen but grist for the mill. Since we’re discussing big tankers and potential missions for them, this is a video showing all the choreography that the RAF had to do to get a Vulcan down range in the Falklands War. I think you can make an argument that more, smaller tankers give more redundancy than one or two big tankers but I think also you can say in the fog of war you might have more success with fewer variables to control. If/When a contingency arises in the Far East, we might be doing our own version of this. 25 to 45 big tankers would really be helpful then…

On site. I’m not one for excessive oversight but keeping them on a shortish leash might be helpful. Go pros, FDRs, quality/standardization checks with mil instructors, etc… solid pay for CFIIs for IPT, 75k to start, pass probation period, say 6 months, pay bumps up, second year guaranteed 100k+ for x number of student training hours flown, etc… This would be to off load some of a hypothetical phase 2 of my COA, intro mil flight training in a PC-21. Phase 3 then T-7s or T-54. If the AF won’t buy the -54, then a ME course in a light twin, type training course with some extra sims, a LOFT phase, call it good. Plane porn just because

If IPT were done at a military base with direct oversight do you think the quality control could be maintained?

Related item: Navy having T-45 problems https://www.twz.com/air/t-45-goshawk-navy-jet-trainer-fleet-grounded