Clark Griswold

No but, everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt but the electronically documented exchanges are not good. Things can be faked but there comes a preponderance of shit when the voters just move on, too much bullshit. He's not a bad guy and I really hope this is not something that taints an otherwise good tenure where he represented a part of the Republican party I don't ascribe too but respect his honest defense of his wing's beliefs and policy positions.

Not good https://nationalfile.com/opponent-demands-answers-from-kinzinger-for-russian-internship-racy-photo-intimidation-scandal/

2034 - Next WW Just finished the audiobook Do not recommend- 2/5 and that’s generous. Predictable story, weak technical details and essentially a modestly woke wanna be Clancy novel. Scenarios are implausible even for a mil techno thriller and shoddy / jump around, there’s hardly a single time in this book where America doesn’t step on its dick while everyone else for the most part is uncharacteristically awesome at everything. Summary - Americans are complacent and proud to a fault, Chinese are cunning and almost invulnerable, Indians are wiser than everyone and the Iranians not that bad. Russians have a small part in book and are essentially just modestly dangerous rogues. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agree as to not making an anti-China platform do too much and to riff off your point as to it getting harder to win as we currently and historically envision it then we might want to shift a not losing / them not winning strategy as a good enough / affordable / realistic COA to keep them from thinking that aggression will get them what they want at an acceptable cost & risk Less expensive, fast, long ranged, defensible platforms to launch XX standoff LO weapons that can strike alternatively the aggressing force or his homeland will likely cause authoritarian regimes pause before attempting short range land grabs or quick hit missions to intimidate regional neighbors Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That perhaps plus a serious look in the mirror moment. I think the CSAF knows this has to happen now before they (China / Russia) try something serious but Congress / large parts of the MIC have developed an unreal case of cognitive dissonance / willful blindness. To get their attention it will have to be dramatic, propose a comprehensive plan for reform, modernization and force structure changes, open to critique and discussion. Give a general concept, then a more tangible outline of what you think the AF should become and then the practical plan to get there, who gets cut and why, who grows and why, what new stuff and why we need it. If after some period of time of working with the SECDEF, SECAF, Congress, etc... you can't get them to move at all, resign in disgust and make it known far and wide why you are resigning. Don't rationalize to yourself you'll be the good guy in secret working from the inside using Jedi mind tricks or some other bullshit to fix the system. Tell them their baby is ugly and that's it. Powerful, public leaders have the ability to do big things when they try and if they don't succeed they usually cause enough damage so that if their successor is also willing to try it, they might succeed. In more practical terms, they are going to have to use Sutton's Law and go where they can get the money and lose capabilities no longer needed. BRAC, divestment of legacy MDSs built to support an Air-Land strategy of warfare, massive personnel and enterprise policy changes, etc.. all have to be proposed if we want the kind of money to build out a new AF.

Super Straight, finally I have an official category LGBT Activists Get Beaten at Their Own Identity Game as the "Super Straight" Movement Gains Momentum – RedState

Good article and although I am not a squid, the Proceedings Podcast is worth a peruse, just listened to this episode and it's relevant to the article and the greater subject of preparation / deterrence of conflict with China: Proceedings Podcast Episode 212: China's Desert Storm Education (usni.org) From the article: On a sober note, Hinote pointed out that the Blue Team force posture tested in the recent war game is still not the one reflected in current Defense Department spending plans. “We’re beginning to understand what kind of U.S. military force it’s going to take to achieve the National Defense Strategy’s goals,” he said. “But that’s not the force we’re planning and building today.” That's true (as to no significant change in AF force structure) and over-arching paradigm for air, space and cyber power into a joint/coalition fight. As there is likely no enormous increase in appropriation likely now or in the near future and it seems we are not well configured for a fight in a theater with the tyranny of distance and the long range/cyber/space capabilities of our foes increasing, what are we willing to give up to become that force that can deter/win this fight? Or more broadly beyond more of this iron and less of this type, as an institution are we willing to become that force? - How many of us (manned vehicle aviators) would be willing to re-train to Cyber, Space or RPA if the AF determined that growing that enterprise / capability was what the Joint Team required? - As of now, the AF is fighter-centric in terms of force structure, cultural hierarchy and operational planning . A fighter is a medium ranged at best platform (without AR but that carries risk & cost) and probably not the best platform for deterring a massive Naval and Amphibious assault with our current basing/dispersal operations capability. Are we willing to become an AF that changes from that? To an X-centric force, probably quite different in terms of force structure than now. Just rhetorical questions to spark discussion but I have seen this idea that we as an AF and the US military are generally ill prepared to fight China / Russia, so what are we as military professionals saying to policy makers, politicians and the general public that will change that? Are we willing to say, cut my MDS because it's no longer relevant for the Big Fight(s)? Change the AF radically even though it will kill X jobs in Congressman X's district? I feel like this guy is staring at us from history looking for a leader in the AF to break from the herd and say that which may be personally and professionally damaging but must be said.

Same

Potentially as my WAG being on the low / bottom end of the spectrum but methinks still affordable if done with a focus on what it is you want out of the program: flight training to develop general aviation knowledge, situational awareness, flight experience and esprit de corps. @bfargin said what I should have said in my post on COAs for this, that it is focused on the spry and young not the old and crusty (like me). I think most single seat communities differentiate experienced and inexperienced at 500 hours in type and heavy communities vary but I think you could apply a generic 750 hours total time if looking for a way to focus limited resources on those most likely to need the training this program(s) could offer. Personally, I think sortie count is a better indicator of experience level but 6 of one half dozen of another. I would leave room for pilots returning from non-flying duty, if they haven't flown in two years or so, no mater if they have already gotten their allotted PETs or are by hours excluded from the Companion Trainer, they would get some extra air time. $500 seems low for the Texan, my reference is a bit old (2013) but when you roll everything into a per flight hour cost, $2200 seems more likely. Costly Flight Hours | TIME.com While the AF could afford that (a T-6II based CT program) but with likely significant disruption to other programs, I would want a CT to be relatively simple, safe, capable and cheap. No autopilot, no ejection seat, probably not turbine powered and likely fixed gear. Basically an aerobatic aircraft with modern civilian glass. Nothing MILSPEC as it would cost three times as much, deliver less, always have problems with funky work-arounds and be 10 years behind what every other aircraft not owned by the DoD has. Not because pilots in the AF are idiots but because the gov acquisition process is idiotic. The CFIs and MX personnel could be IMAs / Reservists / Guard, likely pricier than Civilians but just an idea or possibly a Golden Apple tour to seal the deal and get a good one to commit to a career. Overall, I think the PET COA is more feasible, it's just money and paperwork, not executed under the stern gaze of the Bobs vs the queep monster a CT program would likely mutate into, shoe clerks gonna shoe clerk, they would make it yet another PITA. Still, I love planes and this would make an excellent CT platform: Super Decathlon | American Champion Aircraft

Valid critiques on a new / resurrected ACE program, my suggestion would be contracted service like the Aggressor Contract(s). Contract instructors for init qual/cert and the mx/logistics then off to the races... COGO versus GOGO asset. Way easier to roll out or roll up. Gov would just provide facilities on base(s). In justification for the program, a syllabus would likely have to be developed to satisfy the Bobs but flexibility with student directed missions / squadron directed DLOs could be had methinks. Other COA could be Pilot Enrichment TDYs or PETs... Upset Attitude Training, Tailwheel, Backcountry / STOL, Sea plane, Aerobatic refresher, etc... If your MDS/assignment does not offer an ACE program, you get 1 PET per year and 8 in your career, not required to take one but encouraged. Pilot finds a program, proposes to the commander if it meets some basic criteria and boom go get some learnin' The money is probably not insurmountable, there's the low hanging fruit of cutting in-residence PME for Company Grade O's but there's other monies to be had... just a WAG but figure $135 mil for both programs (COGO Companion Aircraft and PETs). The problem is the culture of the Air Force, I think the GOs and Cols think of ideas like this as admitting failure and won't entertain anything of the sort.

Yeah, this Super / Silent Typhoon would have to be basically a new aircraft. Outline and possibly engines the same but all the mission systems (radar, links, sensor fusion, etc...) would have to be new along with other capes to make it worth the while. IDK, going back to the new, clean sheet design idea, what's driving it is the long term unaffordability of the F-35, not the capes that it has now or with updates, it just likely costs too much and no amount of gov accounting kung fu is going to change that so the trial balloon of a new clean sheet 4.5 / 5.0- design is discussed by the boss as possibly part of introducing the idea of not buying all the 35s we said we wanted but a lot of them and this new platform(s)... But instead of trying to invent another one-plane for a boat load of missions we go back to the idea and referencing your B30 Viper comment of single-role or I would say focused role tactical aircraft again. Maybe two new airframes or more but with focus on a mission set with some X level of minimal readiness in another and that manages costs/risks, contains requirements creep, etc... Attack, Conventional Air Superiority and LO support asset. Three different missions perhaps three different platforms replacing the venerable currently in inventory 4th gens.

Icarus news and info, more ambitious than I thought at first: Flight of Icarus: Canadian company proposes multi-role tactical aircraft - Skies Mag TACTICAL AIR VEHICLE - TAV - Icarus Aerospace (icarus-aerospace.com) From the first linked article: AMERICAN MARKET Though still several years away from its first flight, the TAV variants have already attracted attention. The aircraft was recently assessed as an option for the U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command (SOCOM) Armed Overwatch program, which is seeking a dedicated multi-role platform able to deliver precision munitions to replace the U-28A Draco — a militarized version of the PC-12 turboprop that provides ISR capability. ... image was here ... The TAV concept impressed SOCOM with scores that exceeded the objectives of the major technical requirements, Ivankovic claimed, but the aircraft was dropped because the program office required an aircraft to test-fly by November 2020. SOCOM has since pushed flying demonstrations to 2021 and Icarus Aerospace is hoping to reengage as the program further defines requirements. U.S. Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR) has invited the company to submit whitepapers for Navy and Marine Corps programs, and the U.S. Air Force will be receiving a whitepaper for its MQ-X program, a replacement of the MQ-9 Reaper. The Branta would be an “ideal successor,” said Ivankovic, because of its cruise speed, range, power generation and payload options. Is this real or another Stavatti?

Copy that. Just vaporware but a Silent Typhoon concept for what could be a relevant 4.5 version. Silent Typhoon: Advanced Typhoon concept | Hush-Kit I like it and groking some on the idea of 4.5 fighters, what could make them relevant? Capes that 5th gen don't / can't have to augment them on Night 1, 2, etc... Large missile loadouts, 10 or more. Link node between LO and Legacy. Active radar on initial ingress to target(s). If 2 seater, UCAV director. DCA for HVAAs. Long range patrol fighter/interceptor. Etc... If we could coordinate the team, spread the financial load, etc... getting them (Euros) to develop a "Super Typhoon" with the promise of sales to the US could work. They develop to agreed upon new capes, paying for all of it. We buy X number with the agreement they buy X number of LO assets (35 or an LO UCAV). Keeps most offensive capabilities with the US so if NATO or other coalition has to go kick in the door somewhere, we will be in the coalition, giving them the assurance we are in it if they are in it. Gives us a 4.5 gen asset with the risk (financial and technical) balanced out.

Concur As to the EF, it’s had a decent production run - why is it that pricey to own / operate? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry, they'll keep shifting the goal posts to keep the game going.

That's a good question and one not answered in the article. I get the sense of what the CSAF wants, higher end / new capes than our current 4th Gens but not at Low Obs operational costs and with lower than legacy platform logistical & maintenance costs/issues. It might be (what mission(s) is he thinking of for the x plane) what missions can I not do with a 22/35? I think the math is becoming harder concerning the F-35 and the other 69 other problems on his plate and he is looking at alternatives to afford what we need now and 20 years into the future, particularly as these legacy 4th gens start to time out or become more expensive to maintain. Not being cheeky but define completely unsuitable. If by that you mean it can't go deep into the WEZ of high end threats to deliver weapons therefore no good at all for the high end fight I would respectfully disagree as there are defensive roles and offense supporting roles that a 4+ gen could fulfill to deliver the total airpower effects we want. As to low end as in a permissive air environment ala Afghanistan, no argument, light attack/overwatch/RPA is needed there. 4+ gen likely now is valuable to the team if it can self-escort / defend all while accomplishing some of the attack mission set. Not a first string player but a good second string member that rounds out the bench.

If you have free articles left or a subscription to NR: Syrian Civil War & American Troops: Arab Tribes Are the Key to Understanding Conflict | National Review From the article: The challenge for the United States, as it navigates the social and political environment of the region, trying to determine how best to work with the tribes of Syria and Iraq to bring about ISIS’s full defeat and prevent its return, is that there may be no solution at all.

Yeah but I think they are looking for capes that you likely need new iron to deliver. The article referenced the desire for an OMS and specifically that the venerable Viper unfortunately doesn't have that, I suspect there are other desired capes it or other current 4th gens don't have or would be prohibitively expensive to upgrade to in a 25+ year old jet. New iron can make the dollars and cents work considering the steeper & steeper climb in total ownership cost of old iron as corrosion/fatigue set in, parts become scarce, vendors stop supporting/go out of business, etc...

Yup But methinks he / they wants more than the Light Attack / Overwatch. Likely a wingman / missile platform / gap filler fighter to accompany the 5th Gens and fight where not needed. I suspect we can't afford all the F-35s we have planned on and the B-21s we have said we need plus the likely more that we actually need, plus unfornicating the -46, etc... to deter and / or defeat China/Russia/Iran/NK aggressions, perhaps simultaneously for some scenarios. We will have to change course and address financial, operational and technical realities. There was a NR article on a hypothetical aircraft proposal, an F-45 Mustang II here. It is a lot of wishing and probably not possible for the cost and size the author envisions but I think his sentiment of light, reliable and focused mission capabilities is not without merit. If I were CSAF and musing on this (God help the AF and America if that were the case) but I would want a jet that is: - under 40 million a tail - less an 5k an hour to fly - good overall kinematic performance but it is not required to have 9G, Mach 2 or 60k service ceiling performance. Better numbers are better but not at the expense of other factors. - low radar cross section but not economically unfeasibly low - open mission architecture - exceptional range / endurance for a multi-role striker, I would not want another mouth to feed scarce / expensive AR resources with. - good weapons capability but it doesn't have to be Herculean, at least 4 AAMs / SDBs / etc... again keep it real and keep price in mind. I've ranted on other threads about a hypothetical platform like this and will likely continue to do so as I am a crank but we only have so much appropriation to spend and time before China tries to test us for reals, we need a lot of platforms that we can rely on, unfortunately afford to lose some and hopefully deter other enemies with. This is one of them I think. Just vaporware but this Gripen E with CFTs is a good start:

On the subject of 4+ or 5- fighters https://www.airforcemag.com/brown-launching-major-tacair-study-with-cape-considering-5th-gen-minus/ Sounds like a Gripen E Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another great lament by VDH: America Descending into Collective Madness | National Review From the article: The common denominator with all these absurdities? An ungracious and neurotic elite whose judgment is bankrupt and whose privilege is paid for by those who don’t have it.

But what is the real requirement(s)? This platform or that platform is a good discussion but to get the Bobs to cut the check they have to believe in the requirement and then (ideally) that a manned platform owned/operated by the USAF is the right solution. I see it as two requirements - Conventional and SOF LASSO (light attack, surveillance, support and observation). - Conventional is a manned (potentially capable of unmanned operations) attack platform designed to deliver PGM fires and medium persistence ISR into low-med threat environments without an extensive logistical footprint or air refueling on a typical mission; organic self-defense from guided SAFIRES and defensive retrograde/defensive fire from/to A2A threats with supersonic and/or BVR capabilities. Highly connected and capable of connecting ground/air/naval players and inexpensive enough to operate repetitively for months/years on end in COIN, LIC or Hybrid conflicts that will require tailored use of the military IOP to achieve a desired/acceptable/inevitable end state. Alternate role in conventional conflict is as a Fusillade Platform for forward LO assets to provide fires from a stand-off platform and not reveal their presence or expend their ordinance in initial volleys. Shameless plug #69 and great example of this would be a more developed version of the Scorpion Jet with AR capabilities and additional systems (ECM provisions, BLOS, unmanned modes, etc...) tested and validated. - SOF is a manned attack platform designed to deliver unguided, direct and PGM fires along with medium persistence ISR into low threat environments without an extensive logistical footprint. It is designed to operate in support of SOF or Indigenous Forces from semi-prepared forward bases with a light logistical footprint, low total cost of operation and feasible for lesser economically capable Partner Nations to acquire, train and maintain. One of the main roles of this aircraft is to be an American supported platform to encourage PNs to buy and fly their own, to fight their own fights with and enable us to support/mentor their militaries in conflicts we see engagement as in America's interest. The repurposed Ag Applicator aircraft are probably better for that and not to be callous, the e-seat may be too expensive to for some PNs to afford and realistically maintain well. This applies to some PGMs as well, a corollary to the Light Attack saga needs to be less expensive PGMs with at least Hellfire range and low on the shelf maintenance requirements.

Interesting to read about how the other side is doing it (sts): Initial Fighter Pilot Training in the PLA Air Force

I'm glad that iron is finally arriving on the ramp, fingers crossed they actually get the other two. Interesting idea to make them a middleman node in the datalink architecture.