Clark Griswold

Gotta keep that per unit cost down, strategic concerns be damned... I don't know what the data architecture is but why would the Russians want to let some of their best A2AD stuff talk to ours potentially compromising theirs? This is all in the rearview mirror but a non-ALIS based JSF would have been the ideal export variant.

I’m not for conscription as I said in my first post I just wouldn’t take it off the table. There would be problems definitely in security, quality of effort, morale and discipline no doubt but IF a surge in manpower was required by military necessity and conscription was the only means to meet it so be it. Conscription may be antithetical to Liberty but the Constitution is not a suicide pact and it provides sanctioned prescriptions to preserve it and the nation should the need arise that in other situations would violate the rights of her citizens.

So you’re saying if something is not specifically mentioned / allowed or prohibited by the Constitution that is its basis for policy/law? That’s not a strict constructionist interpretation but an inflexible one Liberty is great but it only exists because of security & vigilance which are fires that must be constantly tended

Duty to your country. It's not demeaning or dehumanizing, it is service your country is calling upon from its citizenry. This is a two way street, nations serve their citizens and citizens serve their nation, voluntarily or when called on. We've lost that in recent decades and have been draining the fuel tank of national cultural virtue without putting anything back in, it's time to top off the tank. I know that it (mandatory service) has never been perfect, the wealthy and connected sometimes got deferments or preferential postings thru unscrupulous actions but that doesn't mean that concept of mandatory service, specifically military service, was not overall beneficial to the country, directly in acquired military manpower required or indirectly in other ways (character development, intermixing of normally disparate groups, a unifying experience shared by generations, etc...). I see your point but mandatory military service is not forcing someone to perform economic activity from which someone else will profit (that's slavery) this is service to the nation. Honestly, I don't think we (the military) really need it and it may not have the effect some of us would hope it would have on the youth impressed into service but I would not dismiss it out of hand.

Turkish F-35 linked to Russian systems? http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17687/turkey-wants-to-link-its-f-35-computer-brains-to-networks-that-will-include-russian-systems

Not surprised just noting it. Will respectfully disagree, I didn't get that idea from his article (MC-12 experience automatically meant you were highly qualified in the attack mission set) but I agree with him that it gives a level of experience and background that could be useful to become a qualified, proficient OA-X pilot. Ditto for a baller from another platform transitioning to a cso seat in an OA-X (if it even happens). Both of those ideas caveated that not everyone from an MC-12 background (or any platform for that mater) is right for a potential OA-X, same for a baller from another platform. All aircrew should be (IMO) eligible to apply, judged on their record of performance and then selected accordingly. Previous experience in air to ground would not be a discriminator, IMO. A potential OA-X training program would have a syllabus that would train dudes new to the attack mission set appropriately, dudes with previous fighter / attack experience would like PA over these rides / sims & academics. Given the affordability of the per flight hour cost of the offerings for OA-X ($1,500 to $3,000 per flight hour), bringing up to speed in the attack mission set would not be cost prohibitive and a worthy strategic investment in the Line of the Air Force. If OA-X is procured, as a policy, open it to your entire rated crew force, 30% CAF 30% MAF 30% UPT (even split T-1/T-38) 10% ARC (3 year MPA tours). Those numbers are not hard and fast quotas but broad guidelines to shape the crew force, standards would have to be met to be selected and to qualify. If the AF bought 100 tails and crewed at 2.5, that's 250 pilots / 250 csos, a serious bill to be sure but one that is not insurmountable, aircrew will volunteer or stay in the force to be part of the mission not TCN monitors or Power Point warriors at the Died. I advocate for inclusion of non-CAF dudes in this potential community as I believe it is in the best interest of the AF and meets an operational need. I've had the opportunity to work with guys from fighter / attack / bomber backgrounds and I have discussed with them their sometimes frustrations with dudes from other backgrounds, that they don't have a "tactical" mindset. Well, if you want them to have a "tactical" mindset, include those that can hack it in the mission. OA-X is a good place to have that cross-flow, seeding a more operational mindset vice shoe clerkism by having a greater percentage of your line officer cadre involved in the mission.

Yup. The MC-12 alumni may not be the deep well on AD the author believes but there are some likely still on AD who would volunteer and do well in an OA-X program, some in the ARC now who would take an MPA tour (3 yrs or so) and other pilots / navs / csos who would volunteer. It's an all of the above COA to man this quickly if the AF procures OA-X. OA-X meets a valid operational need, builds a strategic pool of officers and aircrew with direct experience in tactical / kinetic operations and is but one of several things to do for the AF to re-blue itself to an operationally focused force.

Copy No argument that not every platform should be treated as a persistent FMV stare platform, mostly I was thinking that as they have one station to carry a pod, if the OSO and DSO could each have an FMV sensor it would improve the Bone as an on demand ISR / CAS asset. Ton of money likely required to get to that capability probably so not holding breath.

Alright let's stir the pot once more... So only at the moments of track select and assignment night are we deeming guys qualified to operate aircraft that employ weapons? At no other points in their careers are they to be considered / selected for a new track that could involve that? There are some exceptions to those above rhetorical questions but as a rule the AF does that, I would say that needs to change. I can see some issues with the idea that the author proposed but the overall idea, looking to a community with experience in supporting ground forces to help populate a new weapons system oriented to that is not that far fetched. Not saying there would not be standards to be met as dudes from a non-fighter/attack/bomber background would have to meet but they should not be by policy shut out (effectively) from ever having opportunities for cross-flowing into these missions / systems.

Is the Bone locked into only using the Sniper pod or are they looking at Agile Pod / others?

Russia says it used arty to give some payback to the drone attackers. Russia Says it Blew Up Terrorists Behind Syria Drone Attacks With Laser-Guided Artillery

But where do you draw the line and when does it stop? It is not wrong for us to not want to be strangers in our own nation. America is not a land of immigrants, but of citizens and those we allow to enter, remain and attain citizenship. If choose to allow more or less or none, only those with certain qualities then it is our right, not our obligation. We are NOT beholden to a poem, a naive romantic idea from another time or obligated for past historical mistakes made by other people to accept unending masses of people, no matter how desperate their plight. We are not. I have empathy for those wishing to live here who are in terrible places and if in their place maybe I would try to get here legally or illegally, but I am not in their place and I advocate for policies that are what I believe are best for us not them and those two things are not necessarily aligned. Mass immigration to the US or other Western nations only perpetuates the problems these people flee from and when they move en mass very quickly inundate a nation shifting its cultural trajectory, they are likely destroying inadvertently what they are hopefully running to. The destabilization, the political paralysis, the frustration leading to the election of demagogues is a reaction of a nation to the callous indifferent and stupid policies of elites who will never have to live under the consequences of the reckless decisions the make on a whimsy. Are their nations / regions ever supposed to modernize? Are they ever supposed to produce a QoL that keeps their young people home? Are we supposed to be an always available reservoir to ship surplus population and return remittances to keep dysfunctional nations together? Also, not calling out you but where is the moral indignation for nations that are wealthy but very very restrictive with regards to immigration but not Western? Japan, South Korea, etc... why are there not editorials excoriating them and shaming them but the ire of liberals, elitists, globalists, etc... only directed to the West?

Scorpion testing Agile Pod https://www.dvidshub.net/image/4061719/afrls-agilepod-shows-isr-versatility-during-scorpion-fit-test

Yup these dudes are not retreating to safe spaces after being traumatized by a contrary opinion: Jacked up an IRGC soldier http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2018/01/02/video-iranian-protesters-steal-revolutionary-guardsmans-trousers-violence-escalates/

The weed of the serenity prayer: fix the things I can, accept the things I can't and have the wisdom to know the difference between the two. Aggression would be on a scale, not every incident would mean deal breaking aggression. Like pornography vs art, we would know when we see it... Happy New Year also.

IDK all the effects either but like a lot of things it’s not the idea per se but the execution. Redeployment would be gradual but positive, every year unless a new aggression causes a pause, we gradually pull out (sts) or transition to a new stabilization/deterrence posture (ref a hypothetical Korean unification stabilization mission). It would not be an exactly even process but about 10% per year of capacity in theater would be redeployed from one phase to the next and/or the final withdrawal phase (assuming the conditions for redevelopment or withdrawal are met)

After a successful 10 year stabilization mission? Probably 50k around Pusan for the next 10 years then eventual withdrawal of permanently based forces. 50k is about 35%+ what we have now there now, the additional forces would be a reassurance that significant capability to reverse and secure exists if any shenanigans were attempted. I would imagine for the stabilization force about 100k US forces of the total 300k force (China would have 100k to give them the prestige of a 1 to 1 with US forces and to ensure no loss of face), the other 100k would have to be combination of a new coalition, nations selected to be acceptable to SK, NK, US, China to round out the force and have "neutral" members to dilute any tension building in the stabilization force. ROK and DPRK armies would be training together and forming a new unified Korean Army, ditto for AF & Navy. Valid point on losing influence in the region but I am convinced that our excessive involvement in some areas of the world is detrimental to the Republic; politically, economically and spiritually. It (post Cold War maintenance of Cold War era deterrence missions) now work mainly to the interest of international corporations, the global elite, sullen & complacent host nations and the MIC. The Republic has gone from being prudently cautious and when called for absolutely decisive in war to overextended, tolerant of draining perpetual war/conflict and self-destructively over protecting those who are capable of most of their own defense. We should not accept that we will be in large deployment to SK, Western Europe, etc... for the next 25+ years. It's not good for us.

Valid point but with 30 x GDP and twice the population it would be some version of the current SK by the sheer weight of their influence and fact that they would be bringing the North up to modernity by transfer payments. Also, I doubt China would want the new Korea to be anything close to the DPRK, they may not like a capitalist democracy with good ties to America on the border but that is a helluva lot better than a wildly unpredictable, WMD armed communist dynasty ruling millions of desperate people on your border. Probably 30 years in total to rebuild and fully change the vector of a post communist economy and after effects of 70+ years brutal dictatorship. Trillion+ $ https://www.uskoreainstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/YB07-Chapt6.pdf

Don't discount that China / Russia would accept a unified Korea with ties to the US, if they want an Asia with a reduced US military footprint this is one way to that reality. Status Quo is an option but it will exacerbate other problems (nuclear proliferation, ballistic missile proliferation, NK other illegal activities of synthetic narcotics, counterfeiting, etc...) and keeps us engaged in SK forever + 1 day. I'm not saying to not keep up the non-kinetic efforts we have going right now but it is time to break the ice rather than argue for the same things with the same regime as we have done for 26 years with nothing to show for it.

Yeah, the overall greater good is hard to buy into but methinks that is a result of the sense of entitlement to American security guarantees Start 2018 with a metaphorical bang POTUS - call for reunification and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula: -10 year multinational peace keeping and stabilizing force: USA-China-Australia-Canada-Poland-UK, 300k boots on the ground, cede to China air space control north of 38th (assuring them of security and sovereignty control to the Yalu), US / Allies Air forces operate south -Following successful 10 year transition to reunification, withdrawal of US forces to Pusan with withdrawal entirely in another 10 years if the situation is stable -Amnesty for all former DPRK gov officials with guarantee of employment or pensions -Commit to a Korean Marshal Plan

We're stuck in an amplifying cycle and I'm not sure why the Euros at least are not on board with stopping this right now. At various launches, Iranians are in the viewing stands and it is just a matter of time before the DPRK has a warhead that is compatible with their rudimentary ICBM, the Iranians will pay thru the nose to instantly have nukes and the ICBMs to deliver them putting Europe, Israel, KSA and eventually the USA in range. We all know the final destination for this crazy train (rogue nations becoming nuclear powers) and I would not be surprised if Venezuela (if it doesn't implode first) doesn't come to them wanting that capability to ensure they will never be attacked by the US (at least under current unstated policy). It's time to get serious about getting rid of the regime, that doesn't mean preemptive strike (it would have include tac nuke strikes so it is off the table) but massively to increase the pressure on China / Russia to reign in or collapse the regime, really it is to collapse it as they will never truthfully comply with a denuclearization deal.

New thread for Iranian happenings. Protests into the third day, another chance offered by history to support Iranians who don't want to live in under a brutal theocracy: https://www.redstate.com/slee/2017/12/30/iran-may-experiencing-world-changing-legitimate-resistance-movement-american-media-yawns/ http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/30/middleeast/iran-protests-intl/index.html

Probably so. Following this discussion, someone mentioned the first job postings (pending contract award) were at KSPS, well why not just expand the existing contract at Doss Aviation at Pueblo and do more with what you already have in execution?

Copy that. There may not actually be one as it was in International Waters but as a principle, seizing the ship and impounding it for 6+ months may be enough of a disincentive.

Are they planning on IP Qualing these guys at PIT or at the base they will work at?