Clark Griswold

Would that lead to or how would you prevent hoarding?

True We’re in a business / operations model likely to not work in the cyber environment we’re seeing develop now with also the threat of long range non nuclear (fingers crossed) ballistic and cruise missile capes Also to your point of the leadership being selected for process efficiency optimization skills vs strategic & operational military judgement I concur 25+ years of steady state operations in CENTCOM have put us into a cultural rut that is not easy to escape Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with that but so do our enemies so they will and are planning for ways to deny us them in the way we plan to use them now so we probably need to plan to do them differently to make it harder for them to destroy that critical support and primary mission capability. Looking at us now (the AF specifically), we are primarily OT&E'd to deliver the range of Air Mobility missions thru large and manned platforms, making the targeting problem relatively simple for the enemy to plan to eliminate it, maybe not execute it but plan to and threaten that force thereby affecting our planning and training to use that force. Changing what we have and how we intend to bring those missions to the fight(s) will make the adversary's targeting and denial strategies / tactics more difficult and or more costly, ideally bolstering our deterrence against aggression or if a fight starts a more survivable force for him to contend with. If we are serious about delivering Air Mobility into contested environments with growth in capes our two likely and capable opponents have now and likely in the future we need to increase the number of mobility platforms to complicate the targeting problem, introduce and field unmanned mobility platforms for some of the high risk and conversely for some of the low risk routine/repetitive missions, develop multi-mission capable manned Air Mobility platforms similar in some ways to tactical platforms now if we want the capability to deliver Air Mobility into some contested environments and for the mass movements of people and cargo into relatively safe MOBs as a contingency happens we probably should rely on CRAF, contractors and military versions of civilian air freighters for maximum efficiency & reliability. That's a big change from how we do things now but if we don't realize that our enemies pay attention too, they have watched how we do business for the last 25+ years and will never allow us the advantages our last few enemies we actually fought could not threaten, we will regret it.

Concur Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about. MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max. Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression. It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process. From the interwebs so caveat emptor: Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess. Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it.

Single engine F-23 concept https://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/tenji/tenjif25.html

Gripen with F-107 influence

60s covered in the 80s...

True as to complexity, cost, risk, etc... but just my opinion the juice is worth the squeeze. The water based ops capability is more of a have to rather than a default mode of ops. R3Y Tradewind was seaplane only and needed the docking skirt for amphibious operations, just seems like an Achilles' heel and LIMFAC, prepositioning these could solve that but seems to be counter to the intention of independent maritime / amphibious distributed ops (if required) due to land base attack / disruptions. R3Y historical video for background and info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHo5R4DJTGU US-2, AG-600, CL-415, etc... all are amphibious seaplanes with to my knowledge no known extended gear water accidents and in all likelihood this platform would spend most of its operational life operating from land with water ops as required. That begs the question if this capability is really worth it but my two cents is yes but be thoughtful in how much you need as it ain't cheap to buy and maintain. Buy enough to deliver direct in a contingency a force about the size of a MEF if ISO a conventional / grey zone fight, that's a fleet size to more than support SOF. 60 tails at 25 PAX plus gear and cargo (assuming 90% availability rate) gets you some localized combat power into theater quickly. Make it happen Congress. Float plane stuff: https://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/was-this-huge-wwii-floatplane-going-to-deploy-mini-subs-1715138166

No worries as to shit giving, it’s the fertilizer to make threads grow That is amazing that this is seriously being considered by the powers that be but when you consider the ballistic missile capes now and in the future, traditionally land, fixed base forces are gonna have to seriously consider concepts and systems that can mitigate / avoid that threat at least at the onset of hostilities Curbing my enthusiasm a bit and really thinking about what is feasible from a resource perspective the Japanese US-2 or an improved version of it (AR, more cargo, defensive & offensive capes, comms & links, etc) seems the best / shortest route with likely the lowest development risk A flying boat or float Herc would be awesome but the chance of it going development FUBAR methinks is high, maybe not but as there is already a modern seaplane available now capable of military missions, why reinvent the wheel and waste years in development? Rhetorical question as I saw “The Pentagon Wars” aa a lad but occasionally we do the right thing. Looking at this as an outsider: - Strategic or Tactical asset? This to me is about range primarily and would drive the discussion to a large, medium or small platform. I’d define strategic as the ability to launch from US territory / waters and deploy nonstop to the Indo-Pacific, with or without AR. My vote, this is a Strategic platform, size matters and distance is tyrannical. Get at least a 3000 NM range without AR. - Multi-role or Focused role? If you want it all in one plane be prepared to put all your money in one plane. My vote, figure out what’s really important and the next thing and if those two things are similar enough call it good and KISS it. - Loaded with options at delivery or base model with the capacity to accept options as they become available or affordable/needed? My vote, base model with the space and power to get the new toys. Tech moves fast and acquisitions doesn’t, having the space but not committed to one architecture/system keeps you from being locked into the best tech of 5 years ago Just thinking Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Article on seaplanes being discussed and potentially considered, not sure if this is the new light attack platform being "considered" but enjoy: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40694/amphibious-mc-130j-transport-is-on-special-operations-commands-wishlist Ok, would this really be useful or just damn cool or both? Expeditionary logistics to remote islands or ships at sea, long range maritime CSAR, ISR, Patrol & Attack, probe and drogue AR (helos), etc...

https://avherald.com/h?article=4e74b6e5 That’ll buff out Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the subject of dollar devaluation.... thinking some on this and I don't think we (the USA) can devalue our currency as we are currently doing via money printing and I've come to the conclusion it erodes moral credit, moral standing, our own morality. I thought about it this way, if a friend borrows your car and returns it in the same condition it left, with a full tank of gas and basically clean, you have a good friend who is trust / credit worthy. If you loan your car to that friend and he returns it dirty, low on gas and with a few new scratches and dings, you don't have a trust worthy / credit worthy friend, you are associated with a user who took advantage of you. I realize that international flows of trillions of dollars, yen, pounds, etc... are complex but fundamentally when we borrow money from others and we pay them back in less worthy dollars via consciously devaluing it, it is an immoral act. Morality at its most basic level being the control of one's personal appetites and extendable to countries / nations. Other countries devalue their currencies and stave off the wolf until the next crisis but we are supposed to be different, why we are the leaders (for now of the some what free world). Just my thoughts, worth what you paid for them but to stir the pot. This position would involve some discipline / sacrifice but worth it in my estimation.

Then.... As @texancrier said 2.5 still has plenty of flying in it so that's good. Real flight time is invaluable, you just have to have a certain amount to be trusted at the controls or have authority in certain fields. As you said, sim time can be as expensive as flight time and then you're still in the same boat. For me it, if the AF wasn't so reactionary and was more strategic at an enterprise level it would pose to the mid and senior level members of the heavy rated community an opportunity for feedback and shaping of the process if there was/is to be a major revision to Heavy / Crew Track Phase 3. What is it you (AMC, AFSOC, ACC, etc...) want in your Aircrew (not just but mainly pilots) graduating from the last, advanced phase of their training before earning their Aeronautical Rating? If I were asked that and naively believed my feedback had a prayer of making past the spam filter on the email address I sent it to, I would answer thusly: 1. Initial ME experience. 2. A moderate amount of cross-country, strange field experience in multi-day trips managing and planning missions, logistics, details, etc... initial training and experience to lay the foundation to build a competent and trainable co-pilot in their initial assignment developing soon into a competent, experienced, common sense driven aircraft commander 3. Initial experience and training in the mission sets of Air Mobility and ISR/C2 platforms. The latter would require new resources and training events in SUPT but just my suggestion.. 4. Experience in a training system(s) that has multiple levels of automation; adequate communications, navigation and mission management systems to train a student in prioritization of tasks, general and procedural knowledge and use of systems with other crew members in coordinated and regular ways to safely and effectively accomplish the mission. 4a. Experience in challenging maneuvers, approaches and landings in ME aircraft to both train and evaluate aviation skill and aptitude. 5. A syllabus that is challenging and robust, requiring an individual with above average intelligence, skill and character to successfully complete. No swipe at those who did not or will not graduate but there must be a high enough bar to clear that this portion of the LAF is composed of strong swimmers only. I think we have that now and that is what I think I went thru back in the 00's but I fear the AF is looking at the civilian world and rationalizing itself into a training idea that will likely not save that much money and deliver a product it may not be happy with, requiring an even more expensive after the fact fix. I know but it won't even pay for the next set of software patches and spare parts required for an FY for either of those...

Yeah, I should have suggested those two smaller models Those would be fine and better sized Shooting the moon I would want a PC-24 The main thing is to not phone it in with Phase 3 no matter the track Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But why do the heavy / crew tracked studs have to get a cheap (in airplane terms) if the Tone is getting near the end of its service life (via divestment or need for an unacceptable refurbishment)? Kinda of a rhetorical question as I know what the Bobs are thinking but to hell with that, heavy GOs just rolling over and letting this part of the rated community get screwed over (assuming an eventual T-1 divestment with no replacement or with one that is less than the T-1) is infuriating bullshit If you want quality then you have to select for it and train for it. Anyway. Contact out initial ME training to get the bounces in someone else’s iron, next train in a STOL fixed gear ME platform for short and unprepared fields then move to a jet for the meat & potatoes. Refurbished and modernized T-1 or a new jet, if a new jet then I would suggest a Cessna CJ4. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Road Warrior Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup An equities market with fake / free / devaluated money = a ponzi scheme.

Block 70 F-106 concept and fan fiction backstory https://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal16/15101-16200/gal15112-F-106-S/01.jpg https://www.aircraftresourcecenter.com/Gal16/15101-16200/gal15112-F-106-S/00.shtm Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will do, good point (taxes on interest) As to RE and equities, you may be right but as I just sold my investment property (probably moving so I wanted to start to roll up my footprint) and now have the equity in cash to think about protecting/growing Equities, nervous about a correction, everything seems overvalued I’m not pessimistic, but it seems like the late 70s again with potentially stagflation Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Inflation fighting.... I’m considering shifting some cash to TIPS to hedge my bets and preserve cash principal Any other recommendations? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's why it won't work it. But seriously to your point if they are smart / use the money strategically then it might be beneficial but I would argue only in the short term. Essentially we are nationalizing the personal debt and obligations of those who use the money to meet their immediate needs. It would be better to tax the upper echelons of our society versus indebting all to fund increased welfare state benefits. I make no argument for that just that if we have decided thru the election of politicians who support that and will enact those policies, we pay for it rather than borrow for it. The 6.4 trillion dollar question then who is the upper echelons? No perfect answer but if you make north of 7 figures and particularly if you make it via passive income (capital growth, interests, dividends, etc...) you are the right person to tax. We have it backwards in this country, we should tax passive income at a higher but not oppressively high rate versus active income. You're right, we may be at that tipping point: Schultz was concerned and commented on this just before his death https://www.marketwatch.com/story/americas-excessive-government-spending-must-stop-11614099270 And an excellent conversation between VDH and Jon Anderson (former Aussie Dep PM) that touches on this subject, national financial irresponsibility https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-Fvbgm5KVA Around the 8:30 mark they discuss this and specifically how this has been a telltale sign throughout history that a society or civilization was in peril thru money printing / currency devaluation. Desperately trying to maintain an inherited lifestyle but unwilling to work, fight, sacrifice, prioritize, share, etc... to actually afford it.