Clark Griswold

If I were a European politician I’d be in the SCIF right now figuring out how to deal with this likely problem early Europe Migrant Crisis 2.0 Warnings Grow Following the Fall of Assad Regime in Syria https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2024/12/09/europe-migrant-crisis-2-0-warnings-grow-following-the-fall-of-assad-in-syria/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nah it’s 3 years ago so a Fair, getting old … I liked it then still like it now and think it (Bronco X or TAV) has more uses: SAR for CG, Fire Fighting, UAV control and defense, LE support, etc… and the optionally manned feature solves a few other requirements methinks No matter and 99.69% a moot point now Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The venerable OV-10 was brought up in the OA-1K thread and I’m not sure if this intriguing vaporware has been posted on BO yet https://www.icarus-aerospace.com/tactical-air-vehicle-tav/ A bit of Stavatti vibes but I think Icarus Aerospace is real

Yup - Navy’s Combat Dragon test Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Roger that I remember seeing the renders Boeing (OV-10X) floated when the LAAR idea was in the zeitgeist but IIRC the requirement was for 100 tails, I’ve heard that for just about any aircraft type to be economically viable about 300 tails need to be built to give the necessary economics of scale to buy, operate, sustain. Mil aircraft don’t have an exemption to this rule of thumb just access to an almost bottomless pit of money to keep the small high tech fleets possible/flying so we can “afford” 21 B-2s vs the real 100 or so we were really supposed to buy, good thinking Congress… Cal-Fire is a great example of how if we could have thought outside the container and found other gov/maybe commercial partners we could have gotten a capable, modern LAAR done back in the GWOT days but that’s all OBE… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Make South Korea Great Again Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a guess but as it has not been produced since ‘86, with a limited used fleet available for purchase and modification it was probably deemed economically infeasible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rhetorical question then: How do you express that to a GO, SES and CODEL in a way that doesn’t piss them off; gives them a white paper that explains you’ll save money and retain pilots by transitioning to a different basing arrangement, one that is long term sustainable by having a much higher retention rate and high appeal to members transferring to the ARC? My elevator pitch would be to transfer military flying UPT to be colocated with my most willing and interested crew force that would have the lowest turnover and longest continuity. You’d have to add more to the pitch than that namely what are you going to add to the existing base to keep employment at the same level but fundamentally that’s what I’d argue, students train where their mil instructors want to live. Low to no chance of success but you gotta try if that’s what you think. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unfortunately I find that argument fairly ironclad I’ll argue pointlessly for the AF to be bold and push for major changes if the long term payoff is there and the operating environment calls for it. I think you could make that argument now and move UPT basing to strategic locations for manning but the juice must be worth the squeeze and an even swap to the CODELs in terms of economic footprint. Money saved by retaining IP cadre being the main argument I see in this case. If you save say 2 mil (WAG) in training costs per qualified IP, how long till that makes it worth it? Long term retention effect in the AD by not having to non-vol X number of pilots to UPT? How do you WAG this? Question- has the pot been sweetened to entice ARC long tour volunteers? 3 year tours with bonus? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough and understood all too well about the Borg Cube that is any part of the federal government pre DOGE, post DOGE might be different… Imagining it and trying to be semi realistic, I see this as a Reserve idea and probably not involving the Guard. Not that the Guard could not do it but if the AF wanted to really push this, it would be simpler legally and maybe a bit politically

I get it (DFW based) but reasonable driving distance is probably outside the Bravo or under it’s outer and tallest shelf. Most in base dudes I fly with seem to live around 30+ miles from the AA mothership, I’m guessing the other airline crew dawgs are similarly around their airline base. Besides you’ve got a lot of other choices besides the big bases I rattled off there, major cities that are smaller domiciles for some carriers (BNA, BAL, MSP, MCO, etc…) or cities which used to be domiciles (STL, MCI for instance) that are easy commutes and would likely support a viable training location

Damn genius Gump If you could move or remission the existing Wings to easy driving distance to major domiciles, CLT-ATL-MIA-DFW-DEN-PHX, boom manning problems solved Like Bluto’s grade point average, about the same chance as happening Split the work, basic skills in one or two bases, studs get PPL INSTM and ME done there, move on two two or more bases to do the MIL flying (one training aircraft my suggestion is to move to a PC-21) and get winged. IFF for some, pre AMC, AFSOC, AFGSC, Heavy ACC for everyone else, Rotary to Mother Rucker Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur but she’s gotta write a check for that education Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mega Mirage Mirage MD 750 / 6000 Late 50’s design, Mach 3.5+ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_MD.750

Yup, like the Philippines Yeah, she’s an AMLO protege so I give that 6.9% chance of happening. I suspect the cartels are still smart enough not to overtly challenge the Mexican government for control of enough territory and keep their internal violence to a level just below that which spells failed state which would not trigger a change to the status quo but then again you get the Jalisco New Generation cartel and they might cross that bridge. What worries me is that as our state actor enemies survey their options, those cartels look like better and better proxies to cause further problems for us. Just as we use movements, groups and other non-state actors to cause our enemies problems.

Let her go but give her a student loan for the education at the zoo, no veterans benefits. If you don’t want to serve because of your conscience fine but you can’t expect mercy on one hand and then no consequences on the other. Everything has a price.

Not getting better in Mexico Drones Used by Cartel Gunmen to Attack Mexican Police Amid Expanding Turf War https://www.breitbart.com/border/2024/11/26/cartel-gunmen-use-drones-to-attack-mexican-police-amid-expanding-turf-war/ I’m not saying let’s occupy Mexico but start thinking about stabilization operations in our hemisphere Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Saw these on China, seems like a fissure to exploit and return the favor to the CCP… And https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/violent-attacks-in-china-fuel-concerns-some-are-taking-revenge-on-society/ar-AA1uM4bG They send us fentanyl precursors, spies as students and sleeper agents… let’s make this worse for them.

You may need to run down some punks in your unmarked ‘76 Nova after listening to this

Yup, good article reference this idea: https://www.twz.com/air/conflicts-eating-into-critical-munitions-stockpiles-needed-for-china-fight-top-u-s-officer-in-pacific-warns Ukraine, Houthis and other kinetic engagements are / have drawn on our supply of high end goodies. The lead time for replenishment is significant, the costs are real, for the bigger picture to secure the new de facto Free World it’s time to bring this to a frosty, tenuous peace like Korea. Which is somewhat analogous to this situation, we the US, weren’t going to fully re-mobilize after we pushed north of the 38th and the NK, PRC and USSR pushed us back so settling at the 38th was the long term strategic answer. Not perfect but acceptable. Same for Ukraine, settle it for now. Re-arm, train and re-build.

Sounds far fetched but some serious questioning in public, under oath would do some good of retired GOs and SES types https://redstate.com/bonchie/2024/11/19/trump-reportedly-has-a-radical-plan-for-accountability-on-afghanistan-and-the-press-are-furious-n2182215

Saw these from a FB page: Vought MiG. I think this was a real proposal but went nowhere back in the 80s. From what I found, it was to update and outfit as aggressors for the Navy 21’s and maybe 23’s One more: Czech A-159B Sokol attack design from the late 60s Google translation but the backstory: At the end of the 1960s, the Aero Vodochody company started a team around the designer Ing. Jan Vlček to work on two projects of light fighters. One of them was the L-159 (also A-159B) Sokol project. He set himself the goal of producing a supersonic fighter plane that could represent a replacement for the Su-7b fighter jet. Work on it apparently began in 1967. The machine was to be powered by two engines with a thrust of 19.6 kN, located in nacelles on the sides of the rear fuselage. The arrow wing was supposed to have teardrop-shaped additional tanks at the ends. High-wing, mid-wing and low-wing layouts were considered. Priority was given to the last option. An interesting feature was the design of the main landing gear, which was supposed to have two wheels arranged in tandem on each leg, which was supposed to facilitate the required operations from unpaved surfaces. The armament was to be carried on one under-fuselage and six under-wing racks. The machine was supposed to reach a maximum speed of approx. 1500 km/h (Mach 1.4) and its reach was to be around 15,000 m. A model L-159 (A-159B) was built for tests in the VZLÚ wind tunnel, but the project was stopped in early 1970. Only the presented model, which has a length of 605 mm, a width of 335 mm and a height of 175 mm, has been preserved to this day. The model was acquired for the collection of VHÚ Prague by purchase from a private person in 2022.

Inefficient is not not necessarily ineffective though Referring to last and biggest joint venture ever, the F-35, there are problems however one can argue it’s effective Could it be better or also have been executed better of course Not to derail on a chat about the F-35 Why did countries (Russia and at one time the USA) develop interceptors? They had a vast operational area to cover, Russia their northern approaches from our bombers over the pole and vice versa, sounds a lot like the Indo-Pacific region. The speed and range either destroyed the launching platform or gave them a shot at the stand off weapons they launched. The same is true today with the benefit of longer operational ranges giving the bases used by them a little more stand back range also. Wiki says Typhoon has a 750 NM range with 10 min on station in an air defense mission, a clean sheet design would be nice but I see no reason why the Typhoon could not be adapted for this. No weapons bays but you can’t get everything you want. Still in production, stretch add conformal tanks, focus on range, CCA control and add conformal capability to hold 3 AIM-174s. 0.01 % chance. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Guilty as charged I’ll agree I’m a fan / zealot for new or retro mod iron but in this case of Indo-Pacific contingencies what we have now just has an Achilles heel that could best be addressed IMHO with a new platform(s) That could be the fighting platform(s), support platform(s) or both Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I post in good faith no troll or shit posting Is it the joint or the interceptor part or both of this tangent you find a problem with? Interceptors of late have found some success and one of our competitors (China) clearly thinks they’ll be of value with their J-20. That’s an interceptor all but in name. The Russians have scored a few kills (unfortunately) with the MiG 31 and the R-37 with BVR shots. I’m not saying build a large platform with no EM Theory influence or to make this a substitute for a Raptor 2.0 / NGAD but look into it at least. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk