Clark Griswold

No Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

True POTUS could choose more conventional means of major policy announcements but so be it No matter which way it goes Nov 3 just end it POTUS Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No I think they know it is wishful thinking at best but no one wants to be there and then get the blame and scorn of history put on them, unfairly I might add but those are the breaks. I also think there is a reluctance on the CJCS as he is an Army GO and the withdrawal from the Stan will lead to a loss of funding for the Army and to some degree operational prestige as the large scale ground operations in the ME are wrapped up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/world/asia/trump-milley-afghanistan.html I get that no one wants to be in the seat when the fall of Kabul happens and seeing the last helicopter get the hell out with the last group as the inevitable happens but the CJCS has got to realize this is going to happen, America is no longer interested in continuing this operation and that we are leaving come hell or high water. He doesn't have to like it but don't drag your feet.

Yeah but the time is now to take "them" on, the MIC-Swamp-Deep State-Globalists-Illuminati-yada yada yada who want the US everywhere and never pulling out sts while telling us its our solemn duty to fight everywhere for nebulous reasons of late. I think we are underestimating the damage to the Republic by endless, pointless wars. Preaching to the choir likely but if we don't stop "them" we are nothing more than slaves of a sort. What the hell can our working and middle classes think when the leadership and chattering classes of this country think nothing of keeping a 50-70 billion dollar gravy train going to fight half-way around the world for people who hate us, their neighbors, have no intention of changing their ways and their is no definable end state or one that is realistically feasible when those said working and middle classes are losing ground. You'll spend money into oblivion in Afghanistan but f you little people if you want to secure the borders, remove violent illegal aliens and fix infrastructure. Rant finished. Concur on reducing the European footprint, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are the only ones who truly need a deployed US force to deter Russia. Keeping some air/naval basing in the Med for access is fine but only sparingly IMHO.

Hell yes https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/defund-centcom/

Yeah, ultimately this is a class war being disguised as a reaction to racism. The use of race as a canard to to distract these useful idiots as the corporates/globalists/etc... obliterate the working and middle classes with open borders and abusive work visa schemes while simultaneously allowing unlimited amounts of cheap goods into our country made by slave labor in China is one of our main ailments. If we had throughout our government people who realized internet monopolies, bad trade deals and massive conglomerates using media arms, lobbying firms and disinformation factories were actually the ones killing our country and crafted economic policies to combat those negative trends, those disaffected idiots would have two nickels to rub together, a decent job and a material reason to keep their shit straight, but they don't and we don't have many leaders who actually like the country they purport to represent and here we are.

Because these people living their lives quietly really are the problem... /s https://www.theblaze.com/news/blm-riots-wauwatosa-wisconsin-alvin-cole

Noted comrade 😉 Just a modern concept of what I think could be if the mind of the DoD switched to having some portion of the manned air platform force being good enough rather than gold plated. Good enough to buy in numbers with confidence you will be able to afford the entire projected buy to avoid the only 195 Raptors built/bought problem. Not to derail the thread (too much) but a resurrection of the delta winged interceptor inspired by the 102/106 could fit the bill, if it is to be paid at all. Delta wing for fuel capacity, high speed high altitude performance - this platform would spend (IMO) most of its vul time in the mid 40s looking from the high ground to shoot from a favorable position when cued by an LO asset or finding its own target. Signature management vs LO for cost and developmental risk mitigation, range and speed valued over maneuverability, reliability valued over exquisite technical capabilities. All of those trades are to a point, it would need to be relevant, useful and not a liability to the team in combat. Interceptor, arsenal, sensor, jammer, etc... at an affordable cost and with a unique difference from the other team members, exceptional range, to minimally tap AR resources those platforms will require more of. Conceptually, this platform is behind the LO on ingress, can provide info via link, fire the first volleys or decoy launches then retrograde to DCA for the HVAAs. Less costly to develop than the unmanned loyal wingman and to compliment that platform.

An American MiG? Thought some more about this (mass) returning to the AF and the same idea is being discussed for the Russian AF to get cheaper fighters by going back to single engine light(er) fighters so continuing that idea, even with our higher design/production costs, propose building: Low Cost, Modest Capability and Coverage should be what this platform would be designed for. Cost to buy in numbers, capability to assist the 5th gens and defend themselves in the high end fight and coverage to bring weapons/sensors to meet long distances/large areas and large enemy numbers. - Single engine jet, cheaper to buy and maintain. - Fuel fraction of at least 45%, range is paramount for this platform. - Preferred internally carried weapons (min of six AIM-260s) but semi-recessed conformally carried could work, range again. Simplify and lighten when possible with no growth in weight / cost in initial design allowed like the A-4 was when being built. Modest radar/avionics but capable. An approximation of what I think could be designed, built and operated in high numbers (500+) relatively inexpensively:

Because we need an updated F-106...

Capisce? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alrighty then.... ****** MSG ENDS ****** Not to drop into the weeds on this idea but I'll just drop into the weeds... could the US / DoD build a family of systems (just thinking Air but applicable to Naval assets as well) to provide mass at a large discount compared to the frontline systems now and coming online? A US built long range fighter / interceptor for $30-40 million per tail and FH cost under 7k? An arsenal platform under $75 mil per tail and not overly complicated and years behind schedule, etc... as examples. Mass to engage the enemy mass, mass to complicate the enemy's targeting problem and mass to stretch thin the defense of the enemy. That is just my off the cuff concept of why we would look to this, which leads in my mind to an inexpensive (relatively) long range manned and unmanned platform team primarily for the China / Taiwan type fight but applicable elsewhere.

Disagree. Threatening to use special weapons in defense of the territorial sovereignty of allies or other non-existential interest is not a realistic threat / deterrent. Our foes who also possess special weapons with the capability to strike with them intercontinentally know this, that we will not use them against them unless they already have or we truly believe they will use them on us our own homeland. We will have to use conventional means to deter or defeat them in potential conflicts against allies, control of global commons or other vital national interests, hence the percolating idea that we need a force that can take hits and come back on Night 2, 3, etc... I've heard smart folks say resources don't drive requirements, ok maybe but they do shape the answers to those requirements or even if that requirement can be met. So in answer to the requirement (assuming it's valid for this discussion) we might need to first start with a dollar amount or X percentage of the AF appropriation and work backwards from there on what it is we want and for what purpose.

Possibly. Mass could be more of X-tens bigger platforms or capabilities with range versus X-hundreds of smaller platforms without long range capability. I think we conceptualize mass as being always the small, cheap and limited capability when it could be a bit more than that. Seems contradictory I know but it's a trade-off with a sweet spot somewhere. Could even be different for different threats (Russia, China, Iran, NK, etc...) - China is deterred with a big wing arsenal platforms for stand off weapons barrage with range for the Pacific theatre, Russia by an expanded Cyber capability ref @nunya and Iran / NK kept in check with a drone / manned platform capability. That is all in addition to what we have or already planning on acquiring. I asked at the beginning if we had XX billions extra, with future budgets likely being flat or slightly higher what would we be willing to trade to bulk up?

From WOR: BENDING THE PRINCIPLE OF MASS: WHY THAT APPROACH NO LONGER WORKS FOR AIRPOWER Worth a read IMO; if you accept the article's premise that facing potential foes, China namely, that will soon likely combine mass with peer / near peer capabilities that will inevitably attrite and confound asymmetric capabilities used in lieu of actual mass, we will have to add mass to offset this. We have the quality per platform / person covered now we have to have more. Groking a bit on this, does this mean mass in platforms, weapons, weapons/sensors delivered/carried per platform, etc...? Probably some combination not in equal proportions and likely a platform/system(s) different than we have been gearing towards. The exquisite and the few to the adequate and many. That can give some cushion but then what mission(s) do we wish to add mass for? Air Superiority or Attack? ISR or Mobility? Everything costs money to design, build, operate, maintain and train with but could we or should we look for a new family of systems and the people to operate, fix and protect them that are: Inexpensive enough in total ownership cost to buy in mass, Tasked with missions/roles that keep training costs reasonable, Distributed across multiple mission sets to augment with mass the entire AF effort in Joint Operations and Relevant to peer / near peer contingencies. If we were given another XX billions in appropriation to buy more iron, people, improve existing iron or infrastructure, what to choose?

Whoops https://alert5.com/2020/09/23/russian-su-30sm-crashes-said-to-have-been-shot-down-by-su-35-during-dogfight-training/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is going to bite us in the ass sooner rather than later, the loss of the strategic tanker capability. I know limited funds and choices but if we really wanna power project this was one of the systems that enabled that / still does in ways that take a disproportionate amount of other resources to fulfill otherwise. Just two cents from the cheap seats not having to spread the peanut butter and deal with CODELs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Persons under duress are often are forced to give propaganda messages

There go enlisted volunteers Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe if the weight of palletized AR systems can be kept reasonable Not an Osprey guy and the only data I have is Wikipedia and Boeing’s site which says it can lift 20k in short take off, didn’t specify conditions but would just assume ISA WAG but likely the whole kit and caboodle would come in around 5k at best leaving 15k for offload - likely enough for a two ship with bags some time / options but no extra for anybody on the boom Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Unless said stealth tanker has expeditionary capability (short, rough field with minimal support) then it doesn't really fit in the agile concept employment. From the article: Relying on a 70-year-old refueling paradigm with a 40-year-old operating concept is hardly the way to implement the National Defense Strategy. It’s certainly not innovative. The Air Force needs an “insider tanker” for intra-theater tactical refueling that is tailor-made for expeditious operations in austere airfields. That’s usually where requirements-focused solution seeking ends, but it’s actually not the real problem. The real problem is this: The Air Force needs an “insider tanker” that does not even exist on paper and that the service likely could not afford anyway. and from earlier in the article: This employment concept addresses both of these by focusing on combat generation inside contested anti-access areas with two basic principles. First is to turn anti-access “outsiders” into “insiders” by employing dispersed airpower that can be generated from shorter ranges inside highly contested areas because it is less reliant on fixed operating locations. Agile combat employment is lean, agile, and less predictable because it is expeditious and austere. Operational maneuver — not firepower or technology — is the predominant mechanism to negate anti-access. They want a force constantly shifting its logistical footprint to make the enemy targeting problem harder. An LO tanker likely would be like other LO assets that are support intensive, not saying we don't need or could justify an LO tanker just that it is not what they (Joint Leadership) are calling for in systems to execute this concept. IDK, I'm a believer in distributed ops / agile combat employment but I wonder if our current platforms aside from the Mobility assets can really do this as they were not designed for this but really this begs the question if land based fighter aircraft with relatively short ranges (for the Pacific theater) albeit extendable with AR are the right platform to plan to deter/defeat Chinese aggression in the SCS, Taiwan, etc... methinks that LO bombers with longer unrefuelled ranges and greater potential delivery of LO standoff munitions per sortie might be where the AF needs to focus on delivering our piece of the Joint Force if WW3 kicks off with the PRC. Fewer AR events during mission and could refuel further away from A2AD area prior to ingress thus lowering risk to the tanker / mission enabling capability. I'm not a Douhet acolyte but in this case, given our potential foe and his capabilities at least until they are severely degraded, we might best help the team by providing this type of capability and not incurring a liability to the team. That is our fires platforms footprint (the AF's) is primarily based far outside his targeting capability so we launch with impunity at very long range from our fixed bases, use our organic AR resources to get over the tyranny of distance, deliver weapons and RTB but keep the cycle going so the enemy gets no respite and further complicates his defensive choices.

Possibly as to re-framing it as a boom equipped tanker uav but his idea was a gain in capability in existing platform(s) not a new platform as new iron is not possible in the short term. Just a WAG but from proposal to IOC for a tanker uav would be at least 10 years, pathetic but given our acquisition plinko machine even that seems optimistic. But you have start somewhere so... Taking a cue from the article, he proposed breaking the system into two separate RFPs for the palletized tank and bolt on boom kit, put a third RFP for a an optionally manned boom station to develop the hardware / software for use into a successor tanker boom equipped uav.