Clark Griswold

I agree and would prefer a new AF owned multi eng tng aircraft would be preferable but the Bobs are penny pinching and apparently the GOs at the MAF, etc.. DGAF about their new pilots getting real flight hours after T-6s before showing up at an FTU so finding ways to save money but still getting hours is paramount My druthers for a mil multi eng tng aircraft in these times would be fixed gear, unpressurized and rugged for high utilization and training, Twin Otter mil variant with mil radios, NVG cockpit and a mil tng software system seems right. I wanna contract out the initial basics and the very expensive platform (multi eng with complex flight and automation systems) to try to get all this to fit together in a budget the AF would support Another idea since the AF is not interested in spending a lot of multi eng students why not shrink the number of fully commissioned AF multi eng pilot trainees and start a WO pilot program recruiting from regionals for designated copilots on 3 year contracts? Applicants get a warrant commission, indoc and training program then FTU, complete that and either get the post 911 GI Bill or completion payment (probably 100k+). No upgrade no additional duties, just fly to fill the schedule as required and when done, go on your merry way. This would be a crew force dynamically sized to meet the needs of the AF. They could focus the mil training on regular commissioned students who will have longer ADSCs and would be expected to become the leadership of the MAF, the new WOs would be valued AF members but unless they wished to regular commission would not be expected to serve a career. If they wanted to after serving, a process would be made.

Divest the T-1 sim, save money and just go get them a multi eng civ course plus training The Navy and by extension the USMC & USCG are still giving their guys real flight time, the Army ditto, we should be able to do the same with our 215 billion appropriation. Civ multi engine course, military multi engine course air mobility training & planning then a type course in a transport category aircraft contracted out. Put the multi engine mil course at a base / state where the CODEL will be highly motivated to preserve this mission while affording a training opportunities for what the future likely entails for Air Mobility in the future (austere unprepared locations; threat assessment, mitigation and resilience; working with unmanned assets, EMCON conscious ops and planning, adhoc and dynamic planning, etc…) That’s a lotta shit to get done but as the pointy nose community is kinda merging or wants to sorta merge phase 3 with IFF training the multi crew community needs to do the same. Not merely to produce a better graduate but to change the culture of the MAF and multi crew communities (maybe not AFSOC)

No Equality aside, women occupy a different place in our society and in this knuckle dragger’s value & beliefs system They may be called on to fight but only if it is to stop the hordes as they are over running the last defenses, anything that is not survival requires this they are exempt from unless they choose to go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really? The latest version of the Gripen, the E model, brings a lot to the fight. Caveat emptor but in the BVR fight with their full capabilities utilized they do good https://bulgarianmilitary.com/2024/01/12/over-40-su-27s-killed-by-12-gripens-in-beyond-visual-range-fight/#:~:text=The Su-27 aircraft of,enhance its missile evasion strategies. I’m not a Saab troll nor arguing specifically for this or that platform, truth be told the Gripen E would likely be outside of the target price range for one of the light fighter types I could see being one of the core platforms of this lower cost ARC to bring mass to the fight(s) light fighters, light to medium weight tanker/transport, light attack/arsenal platforms (manned/unmanned/optionally manned), light UCAVs/CCAs, etc… 4 capabilities to build around small mini AFs from individual ARC Wings, figure 8 wings to each of these mini AFs with 2 Wings with the same platforms Because daydreaming is free I’d propose these platforms be selected on these criteria: modern-relevant-reliable-supportable-available-affordable. new or current in production platforms produced by allies that use our subsystems/technology that will easily integrate into their systems and ours while also integrating our mil to mil and industry relationships.

That’s a better way of saying it, high low mix or maybe high capability modest quantity & modest capability high quantity mix is what I’m saying we need / can actually afford The strategy might have to be going forward is 1 major war (China) plus multiple operations (kinetic and deterrence) in other theaters simultaneously (deterrence against further Russian aggression, regional deterrence against Venezuela, NK, pop up NEOs, etc…) Our allies who can afford capable militaries need to understand that you’ll be supported but probably not with the AD high end stuff but the medium forces to augment you when/if necessary, you provide the 85% solution if the Bear comes over the mountain we augment you with the other 15% because we’re deterring or fighting a dragon 7000 nm away from home and it’s taking the lion’s share of our high end forces These smaller platforms could be that 15% if needed if things go hot and the affordable systems for day to day operations Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No not platform specific, not this thing or that but a paradigm shift Yeah I can say this light fighter or that one but really it’s mission bounded by financial reality Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So I read this article after seeing it discussed on CW Lemoine's channel: National Guard Boss Warns of Potential ‘Critical’ Fighter Shortage (airandspaceforces.com) Air National Guard Critical Fighter Shortage (youtube.com) and got to discussing it with some buds, retired now Guard and only one still active as an O-6, just to set up context. Not sure why but it got me thinking that maybe the issue is that the world has changed (not just operationally but in terms of what is possible financially) and that we are stuck trying to keep up a model that worked 30 years ago but not really now. That is the ARC as part of the Total Force flying the same (expensive) iron as the Active Duty when we are not willing to spend that much to do that. Maybe it is that the ARC is a twofold, a strategic mass to be fully generated when the big red ballon goes up and an operational reserve to be used when a certain amount of augmentation, capability, deterrence, etc... is needed in theaters / operations not requiring the exquisite and expensive capabilities to be brandished to maintain the peace. We're running 1.7 trillion deficits and as the DoD is discretionary, if you want more bang you gotta come up with more bucks, I don't see a huge increase in DoD appropriation so why not look for less expensive ways to have the right amount of airpower but not so much you can't afford it? Light fighters, light tankers, light airlift, attritable CCAs / UCAVs, organic base defending GBAD, a huge arsenal of less expensive but effective weapons for these platforms, etc... I'm not arguing for a return to the old old days when the ARC flew iron that was 2 generations behind the AD but modern, new iron different from what AD flies but cheaper to own, probably flown / made by allies to further integrate capabilities and security relationships with them (SK, India, Sweeden, etc...) not all of it but some of this new fleet(s) Does it make sense to try to have an all gold plated force?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Be careful out there https://redstate.com/jenvanlaar/2024/05/27/new-info-related-to-shooting-death-of-chechen-national-who-was-on-army-special-forces-soldiers-property-n2174705

Good discussion but depressing news. Thinking about it a bit maybe the future of the ARC fighter and potentially other communities is to be not exactly the same capabilities as the AD but relevant capabilities kept at a simmer economically to retain the surge / reserve capacity needed if the ballon goes up. That is we need x capability but are willing / have to accept risk by equipping ARC units with light multi role fighters / platforms that we can afford in the total cost of ownership and train / operate with. This capability would be a force (25 ARC fighter Wings) that fly a multi role platform(s) but specialize in mission sets (8 Wings A2A, 8 Wings Attack, etc…) Less capability but relevant with the benefit of accessible, scalable mass Kinda the ARC returning to a semi-strategic capability but not when they were flying aircraft 2 generations behind AD A mix of FA-50s, Gripens, maybe a modernized A-4, etc…

I’m sure that it’s a minority of private jet users / owners but I despise hypocrites and preening, ungrateful, decadent ones in particular. A hypocrite is only a few feet away from a traitor in my warped opinion but ymmv… Anything that they get that they can use to hide what they do that they tell others not to do I’m against Rant - Complete (P, CP) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rich climate hypocrites got a way to hide their jet travel https://www.twz.com/news-features/congress-has-made-fully-obscuring-aircraft-ownership-information-a-reality

Commute worthy listening Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not enough Monopoly money for the most critical acquisition needed for the USAF… https://www.twz.com/air/c-130-float-plane-program-put-on-pause-by-special-operations-command Sarcasm aside I still think the juice is worth the squeeze in the case of a seaplane A US produced BE200 like jet would probably fit into op plans for INDOPACOM for transport, tanker, ISR, stand off strike, SOF support, etc… US-2 could also work, pricey but available right now

Meat loaf tonight

The max age for ATC is 56 for a reason

Cosplay revolutionaries Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lighten up Francis, you provided no link to a source showing this new pilot training program was in planning or execution right now so it was just u posting on BO that this was happening so that’s gospel and now everyone can settle down. Not really enough to justify an ad hominem IMHO. Done.

Yes but … I’ll still make my argument on BO in the hope that it reaches someone with authority, gives a damn and decides to act based on my eloquent rambling in the manner I advocate for Honestly, after T-6s for the heavy tracked studs, just send them to an civ school if the AF is too cheap / myopic / cliquish to properly address this… Riddle, All ATPs, UND, etc… somewhere with a large aviation program can give multi eng training and experience The USAF wastes money in any number of frivolous ways, even at say $100k a student in total costs for a 4 month multi program (civ plus a type program) and with a 1500 per year going thru, that’s only 150 million a year, the AF could afford that, own no new iron, divest infrastructure, not have to man any AF billets to fly this training iron and get a better product

Concur unfortunately At this point (phase 3) you’re starting to refine and shape the product, allow for greater responsibility and lay the foundation for a future aircraft commander who can lead a crew, handle change, manage priorities and execute the mission. You only get that in the training environment of actually flying an aircraft in the real world with all its variables. Comment not directed at you but the GOs, SESs, CODELs and policy makers lurking here for ideas on what the AF should be doing.

Cost and risk, Navy already has gotten the aircraft delivered to meet mil training requirements and has costs for support already worked out so the AF could piggyback off that. Any new acquisition program would take years before anything would get decided let alone delivered, methinks this would be the VFR direct solution Copy, cheat off the Navy’s homework AF and just get this plane now. Basing suggestions: Dobbins for ATL, JRB Ft Worth for DFW and a tenant unit on a AZ ANG facility in PHX.

At this point anything that is flight time for guys going multi eng heavy would be fine but if the Navy can find the resources (granted fewer pilots to train for their heavy community) the USAF can too https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/first-t-54a-trainer-jet-arrives-at-naval-air-station-corpus-christi/ar-AA1nHW9c?cvid=9bde1b3471da4db689e9e85ad188cb6c&ei=4 USAF buys 120, send studs to a civ multi course after T-6s, then to Flight Safety for a type course or AF written syllabus, then a flight syllabus in the T-54 to teach Air Mobility basics (air mob mission planning, transport aircraft form, simulated air refueling & delivery, NVGs, etc… Syllabus NOT focused primarily on repetitive basic sorties but heavy military airmanship, reasonable length, shooting for stud grad / winging 3+ months from start. 3 bases, east-central-west, near major airports / airline domiciles to develop operational experience and entice Reservist support

background