Clark Griswold

Point conceded but I thought his skewering of the minerals deal with the allusion to the Versailles Treaty was prescient and rightly kinda called us out a bit, I’m for helping them and ourselves to an extent but we really can’t be just another evil great power Doesn’t mean at all we continue on as Uncle Sucker selling out our own country but we have enough margin to better Still Europe has got to belly up and stand on their own, this is 80-90% their deal long term Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vapor F-55 Orca https://foxxy2.artstation.com/projects/X1zrn3

Good discussion from Bronk on Carroll’s channel Not in full agreement with Bronk but he makes good points, mineral deal sounds like a shit burger we probably should reconsider.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let’s say it’s 70k instant off load at 500 NM, without going into too much detail that’s a relevant amount from say the Northern PI to a nearish Taiwan CP, just my opinion. But to step back how do you wanna pass gas or will need to in a future fight against an opponent that can actually fight back? My suggestion is a three part strategy: Strategic tankers with 1500+ NM offload capability, at least 50k at range. Operational tankers with 500 NM offload capability, at least 50k with an hour loiter, ACE capability. Tactical tankers, manned and unmanned, reduced signatures or built to operate with supporting EW to maintain stations or additionally provide those capabilities within 200 NM of a GBAD. Offload at least 20k. Strategic gets you or supports assets across the tyranny of distance, operational can fight from allied countries near the fight, tactical is part of the strike package launching with. To return to the KC-390, it may not be yet flying but it is close, the 46 will have to fill the strategic and get working on manned / unmanned tactical tanker duo. MQ-25 is probably good enough and if king for a day I’d probably adapt a 5th gen to a manned tanker with an automated boom system.

It was 2011, 157 majors got the ax because they hadn’t hit 15 years of service when their records met the RIF board https://nation.time.com/2012/01/03/air-force-firing-for-effect/ As Gates said wisely the DoD has the fine motor skills of a dinosaur, in the case of AF/A1 it’s a dinosaur that’s drunk Sorry if this happens and good people get RIF’d Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The problem is NATO has morphed into Team America European Edition America backing two different European mutual defense systems I think would work The eastern project would have American forces deployed in each country as they face the greatest and closest threat. The western project would have coordination, exercises and infrastructure to support reinforcing if the security situation warranted it Bisecting our European security strategy would get unnecessary and recalcitrant cooks out of the kitchen, allow us to focus on the defense of those nations facing direct daily territorial aggression without having to convince 20+ other countries not facing that to do something about it. I’m not talking trash about any of them but I find it hard to believe countries with low mil budgets and populations that seem indifferent at best to military service, actions would suddenly go all in for collective action. I think America would be somewhat skeptical too but more likely to go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that but it’s using IAE V2500 motors, just a guess as the drag is different from the Bus but methinks 6-7k per hour but that’s just WAG Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha I’ve only got open source on the web info The amount of fuel even if it’s not much more than 79k is still a relevant amount IMO because of the expeditionary capability of the aircraft and the additional booms in the air They could do cyclic ops between big wing tankers and tracks / anchors closer to the fight in addition to small austere field ops. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think so, I found the info CH relayed, it’s in the Tactical Tanker thread: CH posted: Before modification in the previous baseline configuration with three aux tanks it holds of 77,000lbs of gas. That number has gone up greatly after a big weight reduction mod and increased fuel tanks. I could see this tanker being detailed out as a direct support element attached to det or deployed wing versus centrally planned allocated. My two cents is that smaller, cheaper and agile is worth it. That it’s not Boeing is another plus.

@ClearedHot Has Embraer released any projected specs on the boom equipped KC-390? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha, Cleared Hot mentioned another time in another thread that with the engineering done for a KC-390, that 50k off load was way higher, I haven’t seen anything publicly released but it seems like a number that would be very relevant to a bomber, 4 ship or mobility platform The short, austere field capability alone makes it relevant IMHO with the reactivation of remote small Pacific bases Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What heavy is gonna refuel at that altitude? No specifics here but there’s a sweet spot for most big jets and it ain’t that

Honestly I don’t fret about them going nuclear weapons capable, doubt they would target us and I doubt they would develop their own capability that would not be entirely regionally and tactically focused all on Russia. It would be a strategic capability like Israel’s, relevant but small. Theres just too many Swiss cheese holes to line up and inconsistency in our relationship. They want to do business with Iran but still have us deter Russia and look the other way while we confront them in the ME, they offer vague maybes to supporting us in a Taiwan scenario but again demand not just a back but front stop every day against aggression. Alliances are made for reasons and when those reasons change so should the alliances. Whatever alliance Western Europe would form after a NATO dissolution would not necessarily be a for or frenemy by default.

Damn it that’s perfectly awful and true Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just don’t buy more than the 179 ordered AF get busy figuring out how to acquire this:

"If in 10 years, all American troops stationed in Europe for national defense purposes have not been returned to the United States, then this whole project will have failed.” Eisenhower in 1951 I saw this morning refusal to refuel USN ships from a Norwegian company https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/01/mike-lee-calls-for-exit-from-nato-after-norwegian-fuel-company-stops-refueling-u-s-military-ships/ I’m not sure the US doesn’t have interests in Europe or should not have some military commitments/alliances but perhaps NATO really has out lived its purpose, perhaps a more focused alliance of the US and perhaps the UK to the nations of Eastern Europe (Poland, Baltics, Romania, Hungary, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Greece) is realistic and more in our interests. A smaller very mission focused alliance (territorial sovereignty and nothing more) would be more manageable, sustainable and with this membership be more cohesive as these countries would not be at odds with the US in other areas (economics, political differences, strategic areas in other theaters, etc…)

A good first step, next northern border then enhancement to maritime patrol. https://redstate.com/beccalower/2025/03/01/100-operational-control-hegseth-ordering-3k-troops-stryker-combat-vehicles-to-us-mexico-border-n2186169 Of course the devil is in the details, ROE & legally authorized missions but begin the process, the future is likely to be interesting

Side note - they bought CFM 56s with the aforementioned lower accessories drive unit because the good idea fairy thought they could quick change them on the ramp because airlines that do 20x more flying than the AF does just weren’t that smart and couldn’t see the need for that capability

Holy shit that was wild

Maybe transferring risk was a less than perfect choice of words but I would argue still for a new set of contractual rules that incentivize and require the contractor to identify unintentional errors, missteps, poor choices etc... by the buyer relative to the resources allocated in the deal and inform the big crazy Pentagon bureaucracy & Congress simultaneously that you are introducing costly risk, new requirements, unrealistic expectations of performance, etc… to stop acquisition disasters new language added to an existing authority like Nunn-McCurdy requiring the contractor to tell on the military when it is getting out over it’s skis and setting up said acquisition for a breach, delay, overrun, deficiencies, etc… is probably what I’m imagining Anything that culls the ranks of GOs is a move in the right direction, anything that destroys or culls their staff positions and all the other court jesters, royal viziers and assorted shoe clerk manufacturing positions is a touchdown Retire 50% GOs, 25% O-6s, 50% E-9s, 25% E-8s this FY. Turning the page from the GWOT to GPC can not be done with the same brain trust.

2 That’s the next fight, new contracting rules that essentially prevent the transfer of risk back to the taxpayers and force honest-ish bidding Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fighter / Interceptor plus CCA C2 platform methinks.

Good read https://www.19fortyfive.com/2025/02/the-u-s-militarys-spending-crisis/

yeah I figured that but the axis of the Earth runs through the top of my cranium so I posted…