Clark Griswold

Get funky while getting funky Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha Hmmm I’ll resist my default response(s) and say we need this new plane or that one but do you think it would be worth the money, time, effort and resources to add more flying time in either at UPT or at a post UPT program? Would flight time IYO address some of the deficiencies you mentioned? Truly not a leading questions but asked honestly. If yes, then I think that could be a way for someone / a group of like minded aviators to approach the Bobs or a CODEL with a plan to address it. Not sure which thread but I day dreamed in one about a post UPT program using Scorpion, this ain’t a subtle or overt way to reintroduce that or something else. If the Bobs, Congressman X or whoever with sway bought off on it, they would have a process to figure out what right was: more time in the planes / programs we have in place now or something new, before FTU in whatever MWS newly minted pilots are going to. That process would be fraught with risk as it would make juicy target for shoe clerks who hate flying and pilots to attack and bog down but the machine has to run a certain way. We’re talking about the fighter community but I would guess the mobility community at the FTU IP level would probably be okay with a top off program of sorts too. This would be a hard trick to pull off, convince people we need more money and authorization to fly / train pilots more while ignoring that for years the AF has been saying officially there is no problem requiring more flying / training required. Added thought: I come to ask about more flight time versus elimination or career track diversion as the AF sees it needs more pilots, apparently is willing to accept more risk by opening the aperture to allow more studs to pass versus eliminating so if you have more studs with either fewer natural skills or less training (flight time) than historically was the case then would more flight / training (assuming it is quality time / training) address this? Kinda an elevator speech to convince a decision maker that it’s justified but just wanted add to it to clarify this as not a post just for more / new metal Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Do you think it is lack training or quality in training before they get to the big leagues or is it lack of innate ability?

Wise words and the Ted Lasso side of me wants to say yes all true but here’s how we fix it… and I’m at an impasse for a solution… I could post COA 6.9 or something other but unless there’s a CODEL or GO lurking here with a desire to do the right thing and charge forward with a plan to change there’s no point Still there are members of Congress who are veterans https://veterans.house.gov/resources-for-veterans/veterans-in-congress.htm Unless there’s a GO willing to buck the group think, these would be the people to approach As to the hubris of the institution I would say use an aikido like move and not confronting them but deflect and allow them to just move on from their obvious mistakes. Something like revaluation of the future needs of the USAF in its pilot training program has lead to AETC to require these changes and these resource changes to achieve them. No admittance of previous fault just a moving on from previous policies.

Yeah concur with that. They’re building an air fleet by size that will have range without needing a lot of AR support and deliver enough long range fires in one sweep to disable / destroy maybe not our assets but the real estate to support and sustain us in the fight. Why directly confront us if in the tactical engagement you don’t think you’ll win but destroy our airfields, POL, radar sites, ports, etc… and win when we can’t keep our assets on station. J-20s, Chinese Flankers, etc… they seem to have a different take on the high low mix and it’s more big smaller mix, the big fighter / strike platforms being what is probably what they will use to push us out of the island chains if we go to fisticuffs

@hindsight2020 @Lawman Might need to be it’s own thread but in all the discourse on military pilot training and the changes / thrashing I have to ask watching from the retired bleachers, this has been going on for a while does the leadership of either / both the USAF / USA know what / why they are trying to do anymore with respect to pilot training? Seems like these efforts have spanned different tenures of leadership and each put their own spin on it and it gets more buzzwordy and less common sense with little to nothing getting done except for spending money on short lived programs - Is it to increase production? Permanently or to develop a surge capacity? - Is it to increase quality of graduates or decrease attrition in training? - Is it to teach concepts earlier to save money from training in operational aircraft? - Is it to save money by consolidating more training to one fleet and divest infrastructure? - Is it to reduce the military position requirements to ease the active duty manning bill? Looking at these efforts they seem like a lotta thrust with no vector

Methinks regional bomber / drone launcher-controller more than fighter in a traditional sense The weapons bays look big enough for the PL-15 or 17, could have an arsenal mission too Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I suspect they will climb the learning curve quickly as they are putting their money where their mouth is and designing, cutting metal, flying, experimenting with new ideas in the real world and not getting caught up with the trap of every system has to be perfect and last 40 years Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup We beat up on the USMC for the B model -35 and STOVL but our own record for what should be relatively simple replacement acquisitions is not good This should embarrass us, they flew another design https://www.twz.com/air/yes-china-just-flew-another-tailless-next-generation-stealth-combat-aircraft Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Interesting how it and the vaporware NG released in a commercial look similar Big, sans tail, delta shaped with internal weapons and crewed, like a B-21… Can we leverage the quiet success of the B-21 development into an F-21 quickly? Seems like a direction for NGAD to take to save cost, time, reduce tech risk

Touché but it represents how much faster their blob (acquisition n development structure) works than ours Our tech is great our admin sucks, their tech is stolen and their admin is focused and allowed to move irrespective of parochial jobs interests just something that we should take seriously Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

NGAS concept rendering https://rodrigoavella.com/projects/8BmNym

Flying their new toy Santa brought https://www.twz.com/air/china-stuns-with-heavy-stealth-tactical-jets-sudden-appearance

Videos are circulating of the flight just before crash

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quite possibly I saw this proposal referenced in this dude’s video on the -57 He speculated the Russians were interested in this deal as a way to expand their overall fighter/military business by partnering in this way with India and as a means of bypassing sanctions now and likely in the future I find that plausible I could see Vietnam, maybe the Philippines, Ecuador, Peru, etc… being customers if they can actually keep the cost around 30-45 mil a tail and deliver some amount of low observable 5th gen capes Russia / India, China / Pakistan, Korea, probably Turkey soon all offering light / lower cost fighters… I think it’s time to start thinking about the USA offering a modern, LO-ish, affordable F-5 successor for not just our historical allies of modest means but some of our traditional allies that are not capable economically of acquiring F-35 or like platforms. The CSAF’s comments on a light adaptable manned fighter in London this year I think gives some room for a requirement to be proposed inside the Puzzle Palace and rapidly validated, sourced and built with some DOGE applied to it I think the strategy we’ve applied with our allies of let’s all buy this jet, system or whatever in the idea that they will fight with us inter-operably might be outdated. We may not need them to fight with us (or much) but to just not be liability requiring us to be there in numbers to defend/deter aggression. A less expensive but capable fighter and CCA system they can and will buy might be better than the F-35 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not directly F-35 news but relevant to light/medium weight LO multi role fighters meant for use/production with partners and allies Russia trying to get the Su-75 flying by offering India production rights https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-f-35-russias-su-75-stealth-fighter-could-fly-india-213508 Who would be the customers for an Indian produced Su-75? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There’s not some random O-6s or above they could have voluntold to live there? That looked like a beautiful home just worthy of saving because Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thread bump here vs the NJ Drone / Iran discussions but only if an inexpensive capable platform had been proposed that had a lot of capabilities in unsung but necessary missions, like intercepting and investigating / prosecuting low speed small targets economically

T32 DSCA is not as restrictive as you may think but it would have to be a ANG asset / member then a validated RFS thru NJ JFH T10 DSCA I’m not familiar with but if the OK ANG is still flying MC-12s (I think they are), that’s a possibility if routed thru NJ then RFA to OK Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Doesn’t the AF still have a few A-29s and AT-6s? Slow flyers with FMV and downlink, go see WTH is up there Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I see it as risky (very) too but the problem is Sunni militant groups… we’re really not ok (Shiites too) with them and having a base and locally dependent populations interested in our presence there to keep HTS in check might be worth a stretch, not to fight HTS if we can help it but to keep Turkey, Iran and Russia from coming back and to keep HTS in the traditionally Sunni areas of Syria and not trying to destabilize/threaten Lebanon, Israel or Jordan. Maybe offer both sides a deal and we get the base(s). Maybe. I seriously doubt we will do anything but the game goes on with or without us, we just need to know when and where to play. I wouldn’t say yes now but not a no either

0.1% chance but an interesting idea… https://www.19fortyfive.com/2024/12/how-the-america-could-takeover-russias-tartus-naval-base-in-syria/

I think a lot of people were low SA as Assad looked like he had won didn’t realize how hollow his forces were https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2024/12/09/iran-makes-excuses-for-failing-to-protect-syrias-bashar-assad/ Russia is out of Schlitz, Iran got its nose broken by Israel while getting kicked in the balls and Hezbollah / Hamas are in self preservation mode, maybe the IC knew it and just kept their cards close to the vest but from the above posted article and the fact that Assad made it out, methinks the Russians cut a deal and had resources in place to get him out. What happens to their naval base is the $69,000 question…