Clark Griswold

Somewhat counter intuitive I admit but if this platform takes on a quarterback role, not necessarily but just envisioning it to, I think flying & fighting the platform itself, directing the wingmen, keeping the full tactical picture and defending the HVAAs, again assuming it would be DCA tasked as LOs went forward, would be a lot for anyone not to mention the comm piece.

Yeah but... the second seat is someone to share the load and manage the fatigue of long missions strapped into the seat. Considering the distances of the Pacific and potentially long range missions to the Arctic, the additional cognitive load of unmanned loyal wingmen management, etc... another cranium would be useful IMO.

But we didn’t buy it, now 20 years on we have a need IMO for this but starting / buying another 5th gen is a bridge too far, a capable 4+ gen is possible Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Navy is looking at longer range fighters, take a cue AF and build a modern escort fighter Navy Quietly Starts Development of Next-Generation Carrier Fighter; Plans Call for Manned, Long-Range Aircraft From the article: Compared to the F-35’s 700 nautical miles of combat radius, Clark said his “impression” is that the Navy hopes to build a new fighter with a radius of more than 1,000 nautical miles. Build a modified hybrid of the Silent / EX Eagle with an additional section in the fuselage to hold 3 AIM-260s and an additional 750 gallons Too expensive to start another 5th gen program, forgo the LO and give it every other advantage you can.

That's a legit point but the greater threat could be creating a cohort of weak pilots / officers who in other times of less desperation would have been more thoroughly tested and filtered, likely eliminating some. Not having enough pilots is a problem, having a potentially weak cohort of pilots / officers is likely a worse problem. If the GOs believe this is just about having meat in the seats then they just need to implement a Warrant Officer program for some X percentage of the rated force in the AF and get it over with.

Thanks - how is there not a shit storm brewing in the communities where most of these studs will wind up if this fully implemented? Contract it out if you have to but airtime is invaluable Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Could not tell from the article when Vance goes to the T-1 flying lite syllabus, if you’ve got buds there or PA at Vance would know Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur - the spiral tightens just a bit more Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don’t like https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/08/18/air-force-cut-use-of-jayhawk-trainer-rely-more-simulators.html?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=EBB%2008.19.20&utm_term=Editorial%20-%20Military%20-%20Early%20Bird%20Brief Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy - just my thoughts to the naysayers As to the EX itself, my only critique is IMO its role is the long range fighter in our portfolio of platforms and we should accentuate that further By pushing it to be a bit bigger with more fuel we get a 4+ gen that taxes less on AR resources and provides the best platform for roles like DCA, Sensor/Arsenal and Escort. Right now open source says it’s Combat Radius is 1100 NM, push that to 1500 NM If we are truly shifting to deter or fight in areas ruled by the tyranny of distance, we will require some of if not most air assets to have significantly increased operating ranges even considering AR as our enemies know that is critical spot for us Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Possibly - I think it (the EX) depends on whether or not you believe the AF / LM's numbers on the decreasing cost of the F-35 in acquisition, sustainment and operation. I am skeptical but from the cheap seats with only what I have available on the interwebs, I'll have to take Big Blue at its word. To me, the Defense One seemed to have a blindspot in its critique of a new build 4+ gen fighter in that seemed to consider / critique it as a stand alone MWS and not see it as part of a team of platforms with specific roles and some overlapping duties on Night 1 and beyond in a peer on peer conflict. Same for other operations, like deterrence, patrol & prescence missions, etc... Yeah, an S-400 or other site is going to see it from a distance and until the IADS / A2AD system is destroyed or degraded, that's an issue but during that Phase of the campaign it would likely be doing DCA for the HVAAs which enabled us to use more LO platforms for what they were intended for. That's just an example of the concept, compliment the LO platforms where even they could use assistance or relief from taskings where their unique characteristics are overkill or not necessary.

Defense One is not too keen on the new model Eagle https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/nine-reasons-congress-should-nix-air-forces-f-15ex-purchase/167603/

Yup but one company with their money has already done most of the homework

Referencing Alman's WOR article linked above and his recommendations in it: Moving forward, I recommend that the Department of Defense consider three specific actions. First, establish a joint-service exchange program with Japan’s US-2 seaplane squadron to build a small cadre of personnel who understand seaplane operations, their benefits, and their limitations (the author would be happy to volunteer for such a program). Second, include seaplanes in applicable wargames, analyses, and experimentation to study their use cases and efficacy. Third, provide limited funding to relevant individuals and organizations to examine the seaplane design space, determine capabilities given current technology, and develop realistic concepts for ongoing wargames and analyses. Has anyone planned or participated in any exercises or demos with the Japanese US-2?

Gen Turgidson was right, we can’t let a missile, mineshaft or seaplane gap to exist Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Iran boards a tanker in the straits: https://www.usnews.com/news/world-report/articles/2020-08-13/iranian-forces-board-tanker-in-the-strait-of-hormuz

Chinese seaplane is moving along and testing and we don't have one, I call bullshit. https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/a33434618/ag-600-seaplane-first-water-flight/

She blew him away with her performance Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That could be a COA but I’m not allergic to a US presence (permanent or routine rotations on the ground in some numbers) but only for those in real danger of what Ivan is likely to try - Intimidation / Coercion Ops, small land grabs, Hybrid Warfare, etc... Germany, Italy, Spain, etc... are not in danger of those and even if they were being targeted with those types of Russian ops we should not be leading the pushback but only be the backstop if it really starts to wrap up into tightening spiral The idea of NATO may not be outdated but the current NATO and it’s baggage are either in need of rebuild or leaving Case in point Turkey, quickly becoming more troublesome https://rusi.org/commentary/worm-fruit-rising-strategic-foe-inside-nato NATO 2.0 would be best a collection of regional alliances with a linking structure to get the regions to ideally communicate, and collaborate, coordinate ops occasionally but keep the decision making alliances to reasonable sizes and keeping all members of said smaller alliances in the same security concerns sphere. Mediterranean alliance members for example could and would best understand / empathize with a member under aggression, likely quickly coming to a consensus and pushing back against aggression (external or internal). Expecting defense members now not in the same regions, with different national and economic interests to develop consensus when a problem / crisis arises that doesn’t directly affect them is crazy. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would it or does it matter if we are still a member of NATO but not forward deployed to Europe? Is this a foundational requirement? If they are sovereign, capable and responsible countries do we have to be there? If we do then they are not. They’re then client states of ours. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Holy shit Batman Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, that’s one less Hezbollah ammo dump to worry about Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m skeptical of it actually happening or other redeployment / draw downs but I hope that it does, not out of animus to Western Europe but because I do not believe it is in our best interest. I’ve mentioned this idea before in other threads but why do we deter aggression or coercion from one state (Russia) when Germany and others do business with them and other threats (Iran notably), it just does not work. It’s embarrassing, emasculating, infuriating and stupid. This is a cuckhold relationship, no thanks. NATO is part of a world order that doesn’t really exist any longer, where American largesse was great enough to overlook problems and unfair / untenable arrangements out of magnanimity and some ego, it’s time to admit that and act accordingly. Besides, the locus of threat is no longer the Fulda Gap but at the contentious new eastern flank of NATO, the Allies could take the wind out of the sails of NATO skeptics like me by offering modest forward deployments of their own forces with ROE that bypasses the blob of NATO bureaucracy, puts those forces while deployed under the OPCON of NATO members under threat of direct or coercive Russian aggression. Skin in the game and guarantee to fight if Ivan tries something? That’s a different NATO than what we have now This does not mean chaos following redeployment or there being no military relationship post NATO but something has to change, the old order is gone. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur End it gracefully but retain what could be useful in a new future (interoperability, routine joint training, logistical support) Long term relationships need more than just momentum to justify their continuance Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur on the age for elective federal office or any position requiring confirmation restriction, my limit would be 75 or less when you take an oath of office or are confirmed. Never been a fan of term limits but they may be required to fight stagnation by tenure, that policy change could mitigate the problem (I think it is a problem) of our government often but not always led by people in the sunset of life, setting policies they themselves will not live with or see carried to fulfillment and having a mindset likely set by the world as it was 30-40 years ago. Concur on underestimation of Biden or more specifically the elements of the Left supporting him, not a pejorative statement against them but they are nimble and cunning, plan accordingly. Musing on the election of President and the shit show that it is now, methinks we had it right prior to the 17th Amendment without the direct election of senators, applying that idea to the Presidency in an updated way (all state elective office holders being the voting population for POTUS, the people deciding the candidates to be considered as an example new process) would give the people a say but have a secondary process with less emotion and pandering to select a President that will serve the people and country best. Not a perfect process but likely better than what we have now. Our current system of Popular Vote then the Electoral College is kinda like what I would want but this would be explicit, the people choose the canidates, the state government officials decide which one of the several (not just two) wins the Presidency, President elect then selects VP.