Clark Griswold

On the Information Front: China falsely telling Arab world U.S. behind coronavirus They're still pushing the bullshit that the International Military Games and the visitors to China were the source of it, no. If the US, doesn't push back as hard as hell this crap will take root in the developing world and they get off scot free for royally screwing over the world

Meanwhile south of the border, this is pandemic is having another effect I fear, weakening the government of Mexico by giving the cartels more opportunities to build more tolerance/support for them via their distribution of aid/gifts to the local populace: https://news.trust.org/item/20200416225321-17fmm and in Syria: https://news.trust.org/item/20200416092024-5lsgm So it looks like the developed world is starting to get its feet underneath it again, likely in two weeks we will generally be reopening and if all goes well, probably in two more months we are still doing mitigation procedures but probably back to "normal" now what do we do to help the developing world? Not being a bleeding heart by any stretch but a grim realist, the next mission is to get ready for responding to refugees, outbreaks in slum/shanty towns, weak states failing, etc... I don't want us to get overextended but we will likely be needed if the excrement hits the fan to prevent a bad situation from getting worse and spilling its banks. So... preemptively meet with allies and develop plans for likely AORs, negotiate with govs for intervention if conditions arise necessitating it, etc..?

A-29 news: https://www.moody.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2152452/moody-set-to-host-nigerian-af-training/

You're probably right about not combining light attack and light / liaison airlift but both based from a common platform is a COA (which will never happen) IMHO which could could give enough business for a vendor(s) to make it worth their while to produce a new platform... From the depths of Google: CV-10T Bronco vaporware. Based off a concept Bronco that never made it off the drawing board but if a CV-10T and an OV-10X could be had, goal of 65% parts commonality (WAG): Love the Air America logo on this one. Windows and a ramp for @Lawman Figure 75-100 Light Attack versions, 75-100 Utility versions with architecture for pods/sensors for ISR/ELINT/COMM/Weps and cargo being the main configuration. 300 tails is the number I have heard is when it makes sense (economically) to build a new type, could probably get more with FMS and sales to Public Safety orgs with aviation fleets.

Yeah I should’ve put a trigger warning on that but on that subject of light attack and light cargo delivery if the AF wanted this and wanted light strike, a new OV-10X would / could do this. FAS article on it: https://fas.org/irp/program/collect/ov-10.htm BL - about 3k stuff or 5 pax/2 med litters Cargo bay would limit what could go but no different than adapting a GA turboprop that doesn’t have a ramp/cargo door option. Liaison, Light Strike, RPA hunter, ISR, Sentry platform for sensor/comm, etc... this is a good jack of all trades platform and mission set for the ARC Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Only one truck with escort vehicle could compete with a plane for this kind of quick direct delivery... But seriously I hear your point, when I started this thread I would not say I was skeptical but I didn't see a clear requirement justified with historical data and reasonable projections of future ops, still it is/was intriguing to me. I don't think it is a matter of it being done on the cheap but timeliness is the desired main delivery characteristic. We've gotten used to long sustained operations and we naturally look for efficiencies versus conveniences, there's a place I suspect for quick, peer to peer delivery of small pax/cargo but likely regionally focused and paid for by the using GCC / UCC. We have/had C-12s that basically fill this role in specific theaters, just a variation on that idea. Copy your point on assets that don't support the big fight but this one (if acquired) would support just not directly in the fight like most Air Mob / Utility platforms, some portion of forces will always be based out of the WEZ of long range fires or at the edges of it, this guy would be there to shuttling stuff to/fro behind. Valid reason Since you brought up Light Attack and this is a Liaison Aircraft thread, combine both. Cargo pod for a Light Attack platform, boom done.

Good stuff, I was googling to see if a single engine ramp equipped turbo STOL capable aircraft existed, didn't think one did but ask google see what happens, it brought back the PAC 750 in the search query Read the brochure and I was impressed, some good videos of the airplane getting into some challenging dirt strips in BFE. It was the first low wing STOL back country aircraft I've ever seen. That aircraft (along with others like the Otter, Caravan, Kodiak, EA500, etc..) is probably what a good modern Liaison Aircraft could/should be, just my two cents. Skycourier is a good light airlifter, might be more than a Liaison Aircraft but could probably be the light airlifter @Lawman said would be worth the effort to acquire in capability. If it had a ramp capable of airdrop like the C-145, combined with its fatter fuselage for containers, winner winner chicken dinner. Only thing, the bigger more capable the aircraft the more it undermines the case for a Liaison Aircraft being an inexpensive, simple asset to be used by a Wing to move odds/ends. An aircraft simple enough that Dual Qual is feasible, to me an aircraft in civil use that doesn't require a type rating is probably what should be for a mil Liaison Aircraft. Some of the types we have been discussing are probably outside that scope but to be worth the trouble/cost, would a modern Liaison Aircraft need to be just that much more in capability? More plane porn: Extra EA-500 would give some speedier options... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extra_EA-500#Specifications_(Extra_EA-500)

More grist for the mill: Pacific Aviation P750... https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/p-750-xstol/description Light, simple, capable and cheap for the want / requirement (light cargo, small pax parties over relatively short distances in permissive/low threat environments). Circling back to the above ref article shitting all over the idea of a manned fixed wing liaison aircraft, I was surprised that the authors didn't suggest a rotatory wing liaison platform then. Granted cheap and helicopters seldom go together but something like the LH-72, R66 or MD600 for the liaison / very light airlift could be affordable, still not as cheap as fixed wing but way less than sending an Osprey to deliver a few Pelican cases and couple of dudes from MOB X to FOB Y.

Concur - I am somewhat skeptical of the performance cited as every number depends... high/hot/shitty conditions likely making rosy numbers provided by vendors somewhat off the mark. I also found this somewhat over-promsing: But, in a word, their value is utility. They can perform all of the historical roles of light airlifters, light-attack aircraft, and liaison aircraft, and do it from either a hover or without a runway. Again, what loads, configurations, conditions, ranges, etc... but where they have the most valid point, secondary costs for standing up a new squadrons/training/mx/etc... is where they miss the point, the liaison aircraft will be to the max extent possible organic, sharing the resources of already existing flying units. Yes, some cost will be associated with it but the point is to not waste the time and opportunity by tasking a valuable asset with a mundane mission that obligates an asset that could be used much more meaningfully elsewhere, it will pay for itself then. As to the theoretical requirement you set out to make a dent in the log chain, that might be beyond this proposed platform, would just depend how much the AF would be willing to invest, likely nothing unfortunately. Another platform to add to the list that would fill this role well methinks: Twin Otter Guardian 400 https://www.vikingair.com/twin-otter-versatility/special-missions Light Airlift, ISR, Sensor platform, etc...

You've got to give the Devil his due... Intelligent article undermining the position for a renewed light fixed wing tactical airlift capability: https://warontherocks.com/2020/04/the-future-of-tactical-airlift-is-here-and-it-is-vertical/ Sidebar: After reading it and finding some of it's points valid, still believe in a manned light utility fixed wing requirement exists, I did start to wonder if the AF is not considering the changing operational environment and is missing a capability that will be required in the 2030 fight and beyond, namely a medium/heavy rotor/tilt wing vertical flight capable Air Mobility platform capable of operating in low/med threat environments... Thoughts? Is this a replacement for the C-130 (no hate at all on the Herc) or a compliment to it? Or vice versa? If the future is fighting without a large close ground footprint, platforms that can operate at distance from MOB/FOBs very far to avoid long range fires will be necessary (Pacific theater with tyrannical distance for instance) this seems like where the AF should take the lead role in a heavy direct vertical Air Mob capability

First option if I were the decision maker. They are a quasi national institution / symbol of American pride, culture, business, capability, etc... letting them go under would not be acceptable, now taking the entire corporate board out to the woodshed at the same time the US Gov saves them and sending them to the house with as little or ideally no bonus or exit compensation is what I'm thinking. Fix the 46, don't buy anymore than you've ordered, change & rebuild Boeing leadership. Partially agree. You can't ignore your own industrial base no matter how stupid, greedy, short sighted and corrupt. Use the legal / buying power of the Fed Gov to enact changes to fix these critical industries. Buying some 45s would be fine but the mainstay of our tanker fleet, negative.

One more thing for the Israelis to fix without the blob of DoD and Boeing to get in the way: The Air Force's Troubled Boeing KC-46 Tankers Leak Fuel Excessively

I hope you're right and I agree on the importance of teaching a man to fish / firing a hellfire into the right truck is one of the missions we (the USAF) need to perform with a light attack aircraft, I'm just a hopeless believer that we need our own advanced light attack aircraft to prosecute missions ourselves when we need to do the job ourselves. Our requirements are likely to be higher than our partners and hence our platform would likely be more expensive than a single engine turbo we would train them on and perhaps use in some other missions (training, some ops, testing, etc...). Being the broken record I am, the Scorpion is the best example I've seen for this requirement I believe exists but no COCOM is stating exists, damn it... Now really venturing into shit that will never happen, a modified Gripen would also be a candidate to fulfill this hypothetical requirement but yours truly would change it ala how the the A-7 was derived from the F-8... redesigned wing, different engine, avionics changes, etc... a new aircraft but closely related to the fighter it was modified from. It has some unique attributes that would enable it I think to be feasibly modified for this hypothetical role, particularly the mission architecture, flight and mission functions are separated (like the Scorpion) so you can modify your war-fighting systems without monkeying around with your basic flight systems, genius. I'd change the engine for a non-afterburning higher bypass motor, CFTs for more range/endurance, wing mods if possible for improved endurance / low loiter speeds, avionics/sensors focused on the ground attack / ISR mission but still capable of A2A, principally self-defense, etc... more more capes than a light turbo, way less expensive than a fighter and still has a light foot print for expeditionary / dispersed ops. This requirement has never happened as ACC has never liked the idea for some legitimate concerns and some bullshit ones IMHO. AFSOC has supported the program but doesn't have the horsepower of ACC. So meet in the middle-ish and buy a platform that is more expensive at acquisition but still inexpensive to operate over its service life and is a compromise both can learn to love. AFSOC (by extension SOCOM) gets a platform to deliver ISR, Fires and is light and flexible for their mission and expeditionary needs. ACC gets an affordable, relevant, modern attack platform that can fight in contested environments and is affordable enough to purchase in quantity.

Cool, likely something in the low range of 0.69% for what General Clark Griswold would want (Scorp with some upgrades like rough field mods, capability to hold a mil radar for the nose/ install a fixed AR probe / RWR & ECM if threat requires it, BLOS, Link 16, etc..) but make your case where you can. I'm thinking that Grey Zones are going to be where COIN / LIC conflicts will be in 20's and beyond. Russia, maybe China throwing their weight around in proxy fights to stymie Western powers when they intervene. Venezuela, further Libya adventures, Eastern Ukraine, Africa, etc... as examples where state collapse, semi-governance with VEOs, Proxy Militias rising and requiring suppression before the fire gets out of hand Platforms (manned/unmanned) will need to be able to initially defend / scram if the MiGs, Flankers, SAMs, etc... nearby decide to take it next level.

So for that US Mil asset, would it / could it have a different set of requirements that would necessitate a different / better platform than the Advisor Mission?

Here's some kids I would feed to It https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/trending-out-of-control-teens-coughing-on-grocery-store-produce

I hear your point but after nukes were used people asked why we needed a Navy anymore too, those people were wrong and assumed what had happened before would never come again so let's dump all that stuff, we saw actually it was likely to happen again so we better keep what worked, improve it and realize we don't get time off from defending our interests and fighting our enemies. Some GO will have to break the facts of life to Puzzle Palace and the Hill that a lot of the world is completely messed up, teetering on disaster and that intervening is sometimes the least bad option. With the recognition of those three facts, you will need an appropriate portion of your military suitably organized, trained and equipped to fight in such interventions in effective, efficient and sustainable ways. A manned aerial platform capable of ISR and Strike with other attributes such as endurance, flexibility and reliability will be required as part of the military component of a Whole of Government approach. Obviously I have to push for the Scorpion with a propaganda photo because that's my job on BO.net but it's what we really need for this:

The MAF leaders and managers obsess over it because the queep grows usually with rare periods where it is cut. Just by the sheer size, visibility of the reports generated by the execution of queep and use of the measure of execution of queep, that is where or where a lot of the non-mission, myopic focus comes from. Much easier to put on a PPT slide 98% compliance with X beans vs. the X number of vingettes of the MAF crews doing a good job on the mission but missing X not worth a damn beans. One is an easily transmitted slogan, the other a nuanced story requiring time to ingest. Other things at play also, the execution of primarily support mission to combat forces necessitates a certain level of rigidity in execution to be predictable and reliable to our customers of said support missions. That rigidity can sometimes be chaffing as at the tactile level, the crew might see a better way to do something but at the macro level that efficiency could be disruptive to the macro goal of stable, reliable, predictable service... that could just be the nature of the beast in the MAF but it can also imbue in managers/leaders a lot of shut up and color answers to legitimate questions/critiques from the line, this again could feed into the mindset. I also think that this is a product of 20+ years of continuous operations serving the same or similar missions in the same or similar locations/theaters. AMC got into a rut, where the DOs and ADOs were just constantly and are still trying to fill the rotations leading to a widget production mentality at their level and a time to make the donuts mentality at the line level. This monotony or cadence wore down a lot of the positive aspects I think over time of AMC. I offer no solution but only that lament as it may have been/probably is just necessary as that is where the mission just is/was.

Good stuff and agree on the idea of a constant cross flow program, variable to the needs of the AF. As to the synch idea, airframe only. Said airframe would need to be fairly adaptable to be able to cover all those missions to a minimally satisfactorily level, particularly ADAIR and Chase Ship as I imagine the customers for those services want something more than a fat kid to fight against or keep up with them. I like Scorpion but it probably would need a hot rod version of the baseline jet to meet those missions in a useful way. L-159/39NG would likely be the next best choice for an already existing platform considering total cost and capabilities required. Shared fleet idea is not bad if the investment is/was there. Copy on ADAIR not being able to be stopping point, I think borrowing for ADAIR might be more palatable to Big Blue but they have already written a check for contract ADAIR, but one can advocate on BO... The tyranny of aircraft fleet economics makes this a difficult idea to sell to the Bobs, I'm guessing if you could torture the numbers and get the costs down per tail/hour, you could argue for a 150-175 tail fleet for CTP, ADAIR, Light Attack, Chase Ship, Flight Based Training Platform, Test Platform, etc... figure you buy 160 L-159/39NGs at average $20 mil with all the goodies (radars, pods, sensors, etc) , program 500 hours per at $3,000 comes to some reasonable numbers for a multi-use, multi-mission platform. I would say two problems, short term needs to the 11F/11A communities and long term needs to change the culture of the AF. If we want leaders and managers to not myopically focus on queep and realize the point of all of this is to generate airpower to perform X mission then we need more dudes to a experience a culture/execute a mission that probably focuses less on bullshit and more on delivering the mission / winning the fight. I say probably as I have never been in a fighter/attack unit but having interacted with different fighter dudes at different times in different places, they did as a group display a less queepy mindset and I think that experience of single seat flying or at least often single seat flying in a dynamic mission or training environment causes some mindset shift. Particularly when you execute a mission where significant threat from the enemy exists and the pressure/expectation to perform is high as you are employing weapons against enemies often close or inter-twinned with friendlies, don't screw it up. Not infatuated or a fighter groupie, I'm happily married to my heavy aircraft in a monogamous hetero-crew relationship but I think if there were a mechanism to let some reasonable number of dudes who tracked Heavy, FAIP, RPA, Bomber but wanted a fighter/attack jet to work hard, prove their mettle, meet a legit requirement and then serve in a tactically minded flying community (training or operational), I believe it would pay dividends in morale, retention and cultural renewal in some parts of the Air Force. Don't doubt your point about retention of dudes who tracked fighters right out of the gate from SUPT but I see this idea as the one of many simultaneous efforts to return the AF to course. Airplane porn just because...

Not operational enough? What the hell do they want? A mash up of Iwo Jima, Gettysburg and the Tet Offensive to make it tough enough? Copy that. Thinking about a better cross-flow program (x to fighters), I'd probably have the program mainly look at applicants that came from other specialized communities that could give some transferable skills and experience to make the accepted applicants more likely to succeed. B-2, U-2, Light Attack, etc... and alluding to the mil adversary program @HuggyU2 mentioned earlier, that might be a first stop for an accepted applicant, ADAIR first then based on that performance as an wingman, moving on to a B course in a pointy nose. If possible, I'd try to synch the CTP programs, Light Attack, Chase Plane and mil ADAIR. Might end up with a jack of all trades, master of none but that might be ok in the big picture. Scorpion would be my choice as I think it could probably fulfill the majority of requirements for all and more than all for some (particularly light attack). This could avoid the original sin of specialized programs, small fleet size and expensive/risky logistics with support over the life of the airplane.

I remember that. Everything that doesn't fit some mold I have yet to perfectly visualize that the Bobs in charge think is right is always under the gun regardless if it is chump change in terms of money, personnel and trouble while adding value that is either not readily quantifiable like induced crew retention for military only opportunities, morale or military flight, tactics and leadership development. Bean counting a-holes with low experience in operations, intensive military training (participation in mil exercises, mission qual tng, etc..) or formal qual training don't realize that quantity of experience has a quality all its own. Just the shear number of sorties a mil pilot flies is going to put him/her/it (for the wokesters) into unforseen circumstances, hopefully rise to the occassion, learn something and debrief it to their peers so they all get stronger. Repetitions build experience, proficiency and confidence. That confidence is the basis of a good pilot so they can use more their nugget when things are not as planned, excrement hits the fan or they need to help a member of the team who is trouble/not as strong. Rant complete. Buy cool iron AF and get your mojo back.

Damn it that would have been fun... Well kept T-33 in aggressor colors for a what could be if the AF still gave a shit about flying... #bitterandcrusty Add pods, radars, sensors, etc... with a new build airframe, engines, avionics, links, etc... you have a platform to segue to different missions: aggressor, light attack, support and utility platform, flight based training, etc... Amen. They took the CTP from the Global Hawk right as I got there. The CTP budget to rent Aero Club aircraft and fly all the GH pilots at the time (early 2000s) cost less than the copier toner budget for the FY at the 12th RS about 90k at the time, it was cheap and effective therefore it had to be killed.

Copy that, it is probably the only data set to study if the AF were inclined to take up Maj Byrnes ideas, or this particular one. Agree on that base of experience, acquired at an early stage in one's military flying career is crucial and likely what led to a higher rate of difficulty, sub-par performance you observed in cross-flows. I would still support a Heavy/RPA/Recce/FAIP cross flow program but with lead in experience building to promote a better cross flow fighter pilot / wingman. What that lead in experience would be for these already rated dudes coming from a non-fighter assignment would be is the $64,000 question, unfortunately we don't have a platform like the A-37 in the inventory that took pilots from all platforms that met a requirement and built tactical experience in aircrew from other backgrounds. Cross Flow (X to fighters) is not / would not solve all the AF's cultural problems but I think it would be beneficial. Costs to be sure but in the rated community I think it would have a sizable positive impact, particularly with aviators in the beginning of the career looking for that second shot and likely to stay for a career with a background that could make a well rounded leader. Benefits to the AF and the fighter community I believe also if executed properly. Good article on the A-37: https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/legends-of-vietnam-super-tweet-8974282/

Agree that the referenced GO is looking for the silver bullet when it is one of several cultural problems but if it is describable and can be reduced to one word or phrase, I would say it is the loss of prestige. That sounds bad as prestige I think has an undeserved negative connotation but the loss of prestige of the rated community in the AF is fundamentally “it” as to What Is Wrong With The AF. That idea has other stuff in orbit around it (loss of trust as adults and officers, emasculating treatment by shoe clerks for meaningless reasons, etc...) but I think that is what mainly ails the rated community Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I remember a little about those programs but they were just before my time (99 yr group dude) so I'm low SA on that topic. Nothing readily popped up from a Google search, what was the result of that initiative? Copy, I agree with his overall sentiments but see that it is not a perfect fix for immediate problems, it (his proposals/observations) are really critiques of the legacy culture in the rated communities of the AF and they're impact in a changing operational environment.