Clark Griswold

Your skepticism is not unwarranted but light a candle. We could learn from the past debacles and keep it fairly straight forward for the joint basic part of the aircraft with X percent up to each nation to customize as they want. Airframe, engines and flight systems all standard. Sensors, weapons and mission gear build what you want. Open architecture with capacity to accommodate different requirements. Delta wing for fuel, speed and high altitude performance. Twin engine for payload. Twin weapons bays for range and endurance. Interceptor and stand-off strike / patrol platform.

Let them know that if you run to Massachusetts that’s where we look last, I bet it’ll take two months for that policy to change Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That was good Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From a friend at Spirit 7 bullets in all penetrated that they have found. Two made it into the flight deck; one behind the captain and one that almost breached near the FO's ankle. One hit an engine. One went into the computer that regulates fuel. The FA B got hit with fiberglass from the door and slide panel. Holy shit Batman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.foxnews.com/us/spirit-airlines-flight-from-florida-hit-gunfire-while-trying-land-haiti Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. If a Viper can have one a tanker could probably have at least 2 Link together and bring back combat box formations to jam and laze together for threats that get thru the HVAA drone defenders New interceptors with adaptive cycle engines would do nicely, IMHO this new hypothetical interceptor would not need to get to Mach 3.69 but would be built to supercruise better than anything else and dash as required (accelerate and hold Mach 2.0 for 5 minutes say to cover 100 NM, shoot or evade) Still, a new type is likely financially prohibitive right now with the programs already in motion but if you could get partners and share equally the design and manufacturing with the other likely interested nations (Japan, Aussies, maybe Canada and other Arctic allies for anticipated problems with Russia/China there) for a very long range fighter interceptor you might get a program that could be shoehorned in

Concur with this too It’s been a while since I passed gas to another jet but doing it in an LO platform and doing it EMCON smart seems challenging, not impossible but it sounds like trying to extend a concept beyond it’s logical conclusion A small LO platform (unmanned) that comes with the right amount of fuel to the right receiver at the right time dynamically sounds better vs a manned large LO platform refueling in the WEZ A 46 or other manned platform in AR is still relevant and necessary but as we are resource constrained, a manned LO tanker is likely a bridge too far Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As to a stealth tanker, concur. If money grew on trees then maybe… You may be right but I would argue that whatever level of survivability or capability is offered by 6 gen, even if it’s unmanned it’s probably unaffordable unless you let that crowd out other missions We will just accept risk and some attrition as will the opposing side(s). To be effective as a family of systems (NGAD) it’ll have to be the right mix of manned / unmanned / autonomous, low observable / reduced signature / dgaf about signature

Probably but IDK either As crazy as it sounds not restarting but developing a Raptor 2.0 is probably better / feasible vs developing a new type gen 6.9 while simultaneously acquiring other new platforms, my historical reference would be the Hornet to Super Hornet. Not a perfect evolution of a platform but pretty good and it got done… a Raptor 2 with mo’ gas, range, bigger weapons bays, etc… would be expensive, likely $200 mil a tail, but possible methinks. Gen 6 fighter with our acquisition process seems like a pathway to hell while shoving money into a nuclear furnace https://www.twz.com/11728/study-on-restarting-f-22-production-has-finally-arrived-heres-the-verdict $44 billion quoted in the article but that’s just for 194, go all out get above the original min 380 something, around 600+ but with a plan to use this as a replacement for F-15Cs, Strike Eagles, some percentage of the oldest F-16s, the A-10 (would replace at some ratio not 1:1 with 35s focused on attack mission set, do not try to do A-X) and maybe keep the F-15EX buy modest The strategy of this COA is to get to fewer high end types but ultimately more of them by trying to get economy of scale in a Gen 5 and Gen 5+ An AD CAF composed of F-22As and F-22Cs, F-35s, F-15EXs and CCAs. Other platforms in the AD CAF but that’s the offensive line… The ARC would get hand me downs from this process (Strike Eagles) and would take over the majority of the Viper enterprise, maybe getting into light fighters but with as many Vipers that might come available they might not need too And others… RIP T-1, E-8, E-3, KC-10, RQ-4… soon to be following the B-1 and A-10s

So the AF has gotta make some choices probably… https://www.twz.com/air/crisis-brewing-over-air-forces-future-air-dominance-plans-which-it-cannot-afford Retire the Raptor to try to get NGAD? Not mentioned in the article but as Willie Sutton said “that’s where the money is” Or pick another system that has several billion dollars of money to reprogram but it’s gonna have to have some juice to be worth the squeeze We’re now seeing what has been warned of for years, a wave of new iron requirements coming due all at once and the door that is the budget not being wide enough to let them all thru at once, so something has to give What do we give up / redirect funds assuming no budgetary grow above the inflation rate?

Yup Who’d a thunk a design to incorporate into one of its variants a giant lifting fan dead center of a medium weight fighter would be a problem? Obviously the Chinese did All that said I’d still rather be in our 35 vs theirs when the ballon goes up, not that it won’t be a threat but with all the party tricks ours has it will fare better methinks What will make their 35 particularly concerning I think will be its price, their propensity to sell it aggressively to their clients and allies and therefore how ubiquitous it might be. Probably more of a threat to our allies than us (thinking Iran vs KSA, Pakistan vs India, NK vs SK)

China’s J-35 is ready for it’s closeup https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-j-35a-stealth-fighter-officially-breaks-cover

Yup… https://redstate.com/brandon_morse/2024/11/05/hilarious-video-uses-ai-to-expose-what-democrats-are-really-saying-when-they-talk-about-democracy-n2181596

If they won’t keep a military multi engine trainer that sounds about right then Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This https://amgreatness.com/2024/11/03/restoring-the-warrior-ethos-to-the-trump-military/

Yup, that looks like one helluva post AF gig They tried to sell an F-104 upgrade but the F-5 beat it in the race https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-1200_Lancer Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We need a high fast flyer, let's resurrect with the Brits... the Super Lighting https://hushkit.net/2013/02/01/the-ultimate-what-if-bae-super-lightning/ Adaptive cycle engines and lots of gas, mated with conformal recessed AIM-260s, our HVAA killer or long range sniper.

Concur Just for the factor of expense the traditional sized fighter will continue I wonder what the right mix will be throughout the next generation strike package Large to medium and Manned, loyal wingmen and autonomous vehicles all linked to enablers and supporting assets. My guess is 50/50 to 60/40 sounds right manned to unmanned. Large to medium probably 1 to 4. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No inside knowledge but seems likely it with tech and operational trends known in the open world I think there’s still a place for a traditionally sized fighter with pilot/crew but to be relevant it probably would need to be built specifically to always or almost always operate with CCAs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Relight thread Reading this https://www.twz.com/air/b-21-taking-on-some-of-ngad-fighters-missions-on-the-table-air-force-says Reminded me of Stillion’s article https://csbaonline.org/uploads/documents/Air-to-Air-Report-.pdf Now it’s not an official announcement but it sounds like alluding to adding / developing a CCA controlling capability / mission for the Raider, I’d like to see that same concept applied to a light fighter but that’s another thread…

Worth a listen Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2024/10/16/watch-low-iq-hamas-supporter-gets-lesson-in-geopolitics-after-piously-tearing-down-israeli-flags-n2180639 Before you destroy property in the service of the revolution at least google it to make sure you’re striking a blow against the oppressors du jour

Valid point I sent this pod to an O6 bud who had essentially the same reservations you and the commentator make but I would argue this is an acceptable risk as part of the preparations for a whole of society response to peer level conflict or sustained contingency. As you mentioned industrial policy, this would be a manpower policy in addition to several I could see: industrial, manpower, financial, internal security, etc… to be brought to a boil, kept simmering or break glass if needed for use. Looking at you Russia, China, Iran… A revived and new draft program (and new type of reserve system) would be not only to generate manpower, but to shape the population (no sinister intentions in that) to be able to come together in time of national need. We need a kernel of connection between fighting age males (primarily) & enough buy in from that and adjacent communities so that we can respond with a large force of infantry or various skill sets (cyber, intel, logistics, etc…) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No idea but would not be surprised A fighter without the right weapons is pointless Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur Not enough of them (discussions) on this and other policies we probably need to bring back or implement, we talk as a society a lot about lost, purposeless young people particularly young men and the gathering storms facing the LIO / American led world order we face from the eastern powers and our own inability to control ourselves so let’s do something to move that needle The draft, mandatory service, etc… is part of that quiver of arrows needing to be shot IMO It could be implemented any number of ways: straight up 18-24 months of service, training then X number of musters/exercises, etc… Vary the training focuses of the exercises, urban, mountain, desert, amphibious, humanitarian relief, etc… and give the conscripts some choice in which they attend It’s partly to meet a military need for trained mass if required and partly a social program to address cultural issues and build more national cohesion so giving it some sugar to attract more flies / reduce pushback to mandatory service methinks would be necessary, choice in required training events could be this Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk