Clark Griswold

Interesting article on AF culture and resistance to changing it, focusing on the rated force. SYNCHRONIZING CHANGE AND AIR FORCE CULTURE: MODERNIZATION AND THE DIRTY SECRET OF AIRCREW SHORTAGE Worth the 10 mins to read IMO.

That may or may not be a good thing for that Wing (if RUMINT turns into reality) I remember the debacle of the C-27, seemed like the AF supported the program after resisting it only to pull the rug out after acquiring when it could. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He gets partial credit but only that. From the article: "The competitor should be a drone fighter plane that's remote-controlled by a human, but with its maneuvers augmented by autonomy. The F-35 would have no chance against it," He’s envisioning (I think) something like the drone in Deal of the Century doing 69 g turns/rolls out muscling a manned fighter in a WVR dog fight, not exactly where air combat is in reality now or likely to be in the future. Not saying BFM in WVR is not important but the totality of delivering air dominance now is a lot of other stuff (LO, links, weps, sensors, cueing, sens fusion) on top of tactically relevant speed/maneuverability. He’s partially right that it (warfare and air warfare in particular here) will be conducted by drone (a significant part but likely not all) but to truly take advantage of the tactical benefits, a UCAS will need to be untethered and autonomous most of the time during its actual combat ops for signature reduction, operational liability with reliance on a vulnerable link and to shorten the find-fix-finish loop. Also as previously mentioned the bandwidth issue will likely become a limfac as more platforms/weps get on the net/links That’s a tall order for the risk averse CYA modern US military but one that IMO will have to be accepted if you actually want the full capability of a UCAS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not an A-37 but thought it relevant: https://www.barnstormers.com/listing.php?catid=17479 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This may just be a way to less expensively field a UCAV with the additional benefit of being optionally manned. Our friends are pushing ahead in development of UCAVs (Hunter in Russia, Sharp Sword in China), this should be one of several COAs pursued IMHO. Many big bombers methinks would be a bridge too far but an arsenal / C2 platform to accompany at standoff distances the LO package and control / update the UCAVs might be affordable, if you forgo LO and keep the platform focused on supporting the LO fighters/bombers/attack platforms rather than trying to make it one of them. Missile/Sensor/Comm platform for on and off-board cueing, high endurance to provide gap coverage during yo-yo ops, secure node in the network for additional coverage and enough capability/performance to self-defend / egress if a leaker gets thru. Not perfect, but using the F6D Missilier as an example: Not a fighter but an archer and a lookout with endurance to support as the package moves forward / threats detected and suppressed.

Saab Viggen STOL capabilities

I hear ya but I think SOCOM is looking for a platform with a lighter footprint logistically and financially. Light Attack vs Heavy Attack. More RPAs could be a solution but honestly it sounds like overkill when you consider the full footprint to bring that capability to bear. Physical and telecommunications infrastructure, PED, contingency planning, integration/deconfliction with manned aircraft (civ & mil), etc... Not hating on RPAs but sometimes it's just easier to send a manned platform for a specific mission to support a specific team/unit for a specific time vs everything needed to have a platform to deliver persistent ISR/Strike. Just my two cents, RPAs bring a capability more suited for a campaign or long-term operation, then the costs justify the capes brought to that long(er) term fight. Likely, this could be solved with a split buy of manned and more unmanned but then economics of a small specialized fleet(s) rears it's ugly head. Then if you want a tailored solution for specific requirements or additional capability, you have to develop or modify an existing design and you bump into more money, time and risk to develop. Again, what are they looking for? How much capability and up to what cost?

Good question @tac airlifter and anyone else who can speak to this (OPSEC and NDAs considered), are the SOCOM requirements the same as the LAAR program's from 2009? From wiki (reference link bent): Rough field operations. The RFI requires that the aircraft be capable of operating from semi-prepared runways such as grass or dirt surfaces. Defensive package. The aircraft will have to include several defensive measures, including a Missile Approach Warning System (MAWS), a Radar warning receiver (RWR), and chaff and flare dispensers. Armored cockpit and engine. Long loiter time. The aircraft must be able to fly 5 hour sorties (with 30 minute fuel reserves). Range. The aircraft must have a 900 nautical mile (1600 km) ferry range. Data link capability. The aircraft is required to have a line-of-sight data link (with beyond line-of-sight desired) capability of transmitting and receiving still and video images. Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities. The aircraft will have to laser track and designate targets, as well as track targets using electro-optical and infrared video/still images. Weaponry. The LAAR aircraft will need at least 4 weapons stores capable of carrying a variety of weapons, including 500 lb bombs, 2.75-inch rockets, rail-launched missiles, and illumination flares. The aircraft will also be capable of aerial gunnery, either with an integrated or pylon mounted gun. Desired traits (but not requirements) included: Infrared signature suppression for the engine(s). 30,000 ft (9000 m) operational ceiling. 6,000 ft (1800 m) takeoff and landing distance. Aerobatic capabilities capable of maneuvers such as the Immelmann turn, Cuban eight, and Split S. I agree with @Danger41 that the fight has moved on (Grey Zone, Hybrid op environments) and a platform for purely permissive at relatively short ranges is not viable for the on-going and likely future COIN / LIC theaters.

Agree, both turbos (AT-6 and A-29) have guns / gun pod capability but methinks this platform (if acquired for reals) will primarily employ APKWS, Hellfire, JAGM, SDB or like PGMs when called to go kinetic

Yeah, if they’re not going to buy new iron Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which platforms recap’d or modified? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is SOCOM only considering the turbos evaluated under LAE or are they considering Scorpion also?

Roger that... reminds me of an Antonov AWACS design for their -72: Keeping on a Douglas theme, Douglas model 265 concept fighter, vectored thrust with a frontal rudder: https://www.simpleplanes.com/a/Qf6Zz2/McDonnell-Douglas-Model-265

Like it, optionally manned. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How’s SOCOM going to man this? Split among the force providers or a joint unit? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They may want it but like the AF they want it only if getting it was in addition to having what they already have, same as the AF. If Congress authorized X billions in addition to the total obligation for light attack planes, people and stuff this would have happened already, it’s just that’s not the case. They want the services to trade inside of their program to fund this. I can only armchair General this from an AF perspective but divesting 5-10% of the oldest/brokest 4th gen fleet seems the only viable COA if the AF ever gets serious about acquisition. Not sure what the Army would be willing to trade in capability to get this new capability. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup, MALD is very capable but brining a converted 4th gen with new capes to block or tackle is another animal entirelyNow since we have our next AR platform completely fixed /s - how do we AR this theoretical UCAV? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Nice From the article: Some defence researchers have proposed turning the USAF’s fleet of retired F-16s into a group of limited-use combat UAVs. Plenty of 16s at DM to be converted. For the USAF, has there been any talk of using a Strike Eagle, modified bomber or AWACS as a C2 platform for this? LOS at 30,000 is about 180 NM, combined with BLOS you have a first wave of strikers to trip & hit the IADS or distract them as the LO package ingresses, all while under control for dynamic tasking. Just a few billion or more for this cape but whatever...

Light / Medium Attack Concepts:

As @nsplayr advised, keep flying civilian, take pride in RPAs, apply to SUPT and strive to be better. I'm cool with talking to a chaplain or mental health professional but I am also ok with being angry at others who should know better at their age that mocking someone about their profession is not ok, especially when you did not choose it but the AF decided to assign you to it. I utterly despise adult bullies, especially when they mock someone about something that is important and personal namely your career and what you are doing in at this time. If your dad / bro drop more comments like that, I would tell them this is bullshit and just not see them, return phone calls/texts for some period of time that you deem appropriate. Not to trash them as they are your kin and I don't know anymore about them than what you posted they sound like they need to get the message that even their family doesn't have to put up with their shit. As to not getting a pilot slot when you wanted one I will say I have no doubt you worked hard in college/ROTC and timing has a lot to do with selection processes for competitive / desired career opportunities, you were likely at a point where the selection pool was competitive and it was just hard to get picked up for pilot. I hit it at just the right time (late 90's) and got picked up and I was a middle of the pack guy, next years at my ROTC det only a few dude at the top went to SUPT. Chin up, anger is ok with me and keep busy on next goals. Just my advice and hang in there.

Consider the source but it might be worse (seriously worse) than being reported: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/world-news/wuhan-coronavirus-crematoriums-working-247-21434630 Now reading it and taking a look, if this is true is it more wide spread than reported or more dangerous than reported or unfortunately both?

Yes but LO is mostly a matter of shape so form follows function.

SOCOM wants 75: https://www.airforcemag.com/socom-announces-plans-to-buy-75-armed-overwatch-planes/

2 - I didn’t see anything hair raising in that maneuver Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk