Clark Griswold

Agreed but likely someone would have to get voted off the island for this to happen to keep inside of existing budgets. I've advocated for about a 5% reduction in the size of teen fighter fleets retiring the oldest/brokest jets to pay for acquisition, training and logistics to acquire a light attack capability, if the Army got serious about acquiring LAAR, probably the easiest way to sell it to Congress would be a similar devil's bargain. Not advocating for that just my cynical opinion. As to capes being complimentary to existing platforms maybe but going forward I think we're at a different place now geo-politically / operational environment wise. A need is there for a Light Attack aircraft but really we need an Attack Aircraft that is more than the single engine turbos offered now and less than the multi-role 4th gens now. A platform to provide less expensive observation & light kinetics in a completely uncontested air environment from relatively short ranges as part of a long term stabilization / COIN mission is not where the fight is likely to be for a modern/relevant light to welterweight manned attack platform. Just pontifications on BO but building a manned attack platform with enough kinematics and defensive systems to allow unescorted missions in potentially moderate threat environments (Syria with active but not openly hostile as of yet SAMs and Russian fighters active being a good example) and enough range/endurance that AR is not required for a typical mission along with unique capabilities (BLOS, DE weapon, etc...) is where the enduring fight in the Arc of Instability is going. Modest combat load, good speed/survivability, excellent range/endurance. Open Mission Architecture. Bring jet capes at turbo prices.

Roger that, I agree philosophically requirements identification/definition should be independent of resource consideration but practically you have to consider them simultaneously or you wind up with white elephants. I phrased that question wrong I think and refining the idea behind it I think it more accurate to ask "If we buy/develop this/that system because we believe it serves the missions we believe we should be focused on, does it displace, replace any existing systems or is it complimentary? If complimentary, how do we resource it?" Just buy it AF This thread needs some airplane porn

Sold Just buy it AF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy all - classic penny packets debate Small Wars has a good article on this: https://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/559-zweibelson.pdf Question for advocates of Army owned fixed wing attack, would you be willing to give up something to get it if budgets are flat going forward? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was hoping you would add your opinion on it and from my AF point of view No also - Key West aside this is a mission for the AF as Light Attack should be a capability for the Joint Team and the AF mainly does this (brings air/space/cyber capes in support of another branch/ally) Like Cato, I’ll end this with my constant refrain on this subject: Just buy it AF Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Related to Air to Air Combat trends: https://alert5.com/2019/12/10/plaaf-j-11-beat-rtaf-gripen-16-0-on-first-day-of-falcon-strike-2015/ Gripens had a really bad first day then J-11s got the favor returned to them. Taken with 2 milligrams of salt but interesting.

I hear what you're saying and there is a point to doing things in sims vs. the proverbial 10k an hour KC-135R pattern ride to win the battle on training beans Just my two old fart cents, we had it right in the 80's for heavies. Flew as required the big MDS for ops, tng and such. Flew the ACE jets for training and proficiency (Tweet, 38s). For budgetary sanity, for the heavies, give them an economical trainer and replace just 10-20% of their training hours and get some Vitamin G once in a while. I can only speak for myself but I would have traded 50 training hours for 100 hours in a modern aero aircraft when at homeplate and not burining dinos over the desert. I like the GameBird https://talkbusiness.net/2017/09/faa-certifies-gamebird-aerobatic-airplane-to-be-built-in-bentonville/ Close visual formation, aerobatics, VFR by clock map ground, etc... not that those specific skills are applicable to their MWS but the fundamentals to them build strong pilots (multi-tasking, quick cross check, thinking ahead, etc...) After 20 years of flying heavies and sometimes flying GA, I can tell I'm in better pilot after a period of keeping those basic pilot muscles strong in a plane without George, autothrottles, TCAS, etc...

Yup but I would recommend a Block III F model with CFTs, signature reduction plus more

I don't think your naïve but I would argue that what you saw was professional Aircrew after and the result of them having received a proper base of advanced multi-engine training and if you had observed aircrew that had a much smaller base of advanced multi-engine training, it would likely have been a different data sample from which you would have drawn a different conclusion. Likely said AC or Co would have required more supervision and training them on operational mission(s) would have entailed more risk and/or supervision to possibly make it inappropriate to do so. As to the airlines, they care about efficiency but take advantage of the base, fundamental training and experience already provided to their employees by other institutions, usually the military or other companies who earlier in the careers trained them. They get already experienced pilots, if the airlines had to start at the very beginning and provide for their pilot's training, they would not just take them at low hours and get the rest of their training done on the job. Not sure exactly what the low end of total hours for an FO in a 121 company (regionals) is but likely at least 500 hours, competitive candidates probably have around 750 hours. This is just not a good idea, case in point (tragically) - The Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX accident 'You basically put a student pilot in there': The copilot of crashed Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 had just 200 hours of flight experience They had someone not at the proper point in their career to be in that seat, he was with an 8,000 hour Captain, and while I am sure his low experience was not the main causal factor, but it likely contributed to that tragedy. Not speaking ill of the dead, I am sure that young man did his best but IMHO, he should not have been in that seat and I think that is a salient example of why you need properly trained and experienced aircrew in heavies. Full stop. Not throwing any spears and not sure what was going on when you observed crew operations but it can get demanding quickly. Planes are expensive, people are irreplaceable and proper training is required to protect both.

Experience building in the real world - you need all those moments to build experience, wisdom, judgement and a non-spasmodic demeanor in the jet when the Master Warning/Caution goes off. No matter how good the sim, I believe the psychological effect of know your only flying in the Matrix makes it not less valuable than actual flight time but at least different. Not to start Round 69 of Heavy vs. Fighters on BO but you have mentioned that you feel that a sizeable portion of your T-38 training (vis tac turns, form landings specifically) were of little to no value for today's fighter pilot but would you be willing to shorten the T-38 syllabus and expect those 38 grads to acquire the requisite skills for today's 5th gen fighter pilots in their F-35/22 ?

Concur, set it in motion so it is a done deal.

Give it to the Army? https://warontherocks.com/2019/12/slaying-the-unicorn-the-army-and-fixed-wing-attack/

If Trump wins a second term this should be his mission, who give a sh*t what permanent Washington, the swamp, think tanks, Puzzle Palace and the like want: Just order a phased withdrawal, declare our mission complete (no win or loss mention just done) and publicly order the US military to begin withdrawal one month from announcement and complete in one year. No one wants to be the President when Kabul falls like Saigon, but our role there is done. It's just done. No politician who come up thru the established paths and gets all the associated baggage can do this, it will take an outsider who DGAF what the American Aristocracy thinks and will rip the band aid off.

Pig was perfect for the 111. Surprisingly, Aussie Air Power has profiled the Strike Eagle but I didn't find them making an argument but another website I found did: https://australianaviation.com.au/2018/03/the-options-that-werent-for-the-raaf-fighter-fleet/ Cost to acquire, operate and support along with new industrial relationships to be developed precluded that according to the article, seems reasonable.

Copy that (spits in disgust) The GOs who went thru the T-1 should revolt, should but not expecting anything. So do they want to send everyone thru T-7s but at some mid-point have a track select where Fighter/Attack qual'd studs go to further T-7 training but others are winged and sent to the MAF with fewer hours and a stigma of inferiority? If heavy pilots and the AF in general wants to promote better culture in arguably the most prominent part of its officer cadre then it has to stop the bifurcation that happens when we track select in SUPT. Heavy pilots trained in a rigorous, respected syllabus with challenging tasks incorporated into multi-engine training could do this IMO.

Copy on discussion of 38 training relevance Considering that idea that the baseline training is dated is their a corollary argument to be made for heavies? Not saying it is or isn’t but... I could see value in challenging the studs in SUPT Phase 3 T-1 training in the Nav / Mission Fam phase with dynamic mission changes via INMARSAT/CPLDC, simulated threats, dry real contact AR, etc... looking back now almost 20 years in the rear view mirror I could see that value of it. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not AMC staff but perhaps they mean the filtering effect of old SUPT as opposed to Common Core SUPT Curious, - what legacy thinking in regards to training fighter pilots do you mean?

Can't tell you everything as fine but as long as the dollar is the reserve currency of the world the party goes on, right now as China is stumbling (Uighurs, Hong Kong, slowing growth) they can't take the title, if they fix those and other problems then we've got problems

Yeah, some of his articles are out there but most of his points on the idea of an Aussie B-21 were reasonable IMHO. He's published some legit articles on current issues/ideas on modern mil aviation but I get your point.

Understood but after decommissioning most airframes meet an ignominious end Wise choice. Not an insult to the Bone but unless you got a very rich uncle, it's gonna dent the hell out of your budget. Another article on Aussie B-21s, author is positive to the idea but realistic that it is likely out of the cards for budgetary reasons: https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-the-b-21-bomber-a-viable-option-for-australia/

Rogoway doesn't think so and I find his arguments not unreasonable as to why this ain't happening: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31211/australia-buying-b-21-raider-stealth-bombers-is-a-fantasy-but-other-options-exist Not familiar with Aussie doctrine but considering their defense situation with potential opponents (Indonesia, Chinese Navy) - I can see a need for a medium bomber / heavy strike platform that could operate independently of mission support (jammers, fighter escort) and air refueling resources (conserving those for fighters) if a regional conflict broke out requiring the RAAF to strike. Rogoway suggested (along with other potential COAs) acquiring surplus B-1s if they could be given without cost to the RAAF as platform for stand-off strikes if the Aussies chose to get a new manned air platform to fill this role. Cool but expensive as hell for them to stand up and maintain that capability unless included everything necessary to operate the B-1 in the RAAF.

Would have been cool Medium range, LO or Reduced Signature bomber/arsenal platform. Could have also served as the basis for an LO tanker capability. On the idea of a medium weight bomber/strike capability (LO or not) - for the forum, is it an overall more effective way of servicing an X number of required DMPIs on Night 1 till Air Superiority/Permissive Air Environment achievement than with a larger tactical attack/fighter fleet? Larger platforms likely would not require the AR resources that smaller platforms probably would require but fewer platforms could reduce the numbers of targets that could be struck simultaneously/in quick succession if a large AOR was being contested... IDK, I see advantages but tradeoffs also. Thoughs?

Hodgepodge of clips, POV of a GA landing on a highway, gator induced go-around, etc... enjoy.

Negative Ghostrider Had one dude from my ANG wing try to work this, was shut down by AETC and no ANG wing near him was interested in an attached flyer not even in the Guard anymore

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31168/the-first-boom-equipped-tanker-for-a-private-aerial-refueling-company-has-arrived