Clark Griswold

Legit critique but as an institution we have used said AAD and PME indicators as discriminators for military rank promotion, just my opinion and experience they were given more weight (incorrectly) than K, Q codes or SEI. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another interesting read from WOR on OSA / Light Airlift: Airpower Orphans, Part I: Putting the “Operational Support” Back in Operational Support Airlift History and purpose/rationale of the cargo centered OSA better explained IMO than in the first article at beginning of thread. Authors again don't mention the C-145 or 146 but do the Twin Otter and SkyCourier curious but whatevs.

Same as it was at Beale... easy setup that was a decent selling point to attract volunteers, no accidents, incidents or violations to my knowledge for the Global Hawk Companion Training Aircraft Program to my knowledge during its run. From my perspective, about 5 minutes after I graduated SUPT. Second order effect of the on again off again credentials arms race that has only gotten worse with the advent of online master's degrees and the growth of the Professional Military Educational Complex. Data block on your surf showing likely worthless Advanced Academic Degree? Yup Data block on your surf (if aircrew) showing Advanced Primary Operational Skills (Instructor/Evaluator/FCF cert/etc.)? Nope Think about that, Academic credentials (masters and/or pme) matter more in the great scheme of things than actual Operational credentials and hence experience/ability. What's wrong with the Air Force? Many things but trying to reduce it further down to root problems... model career progression/paths envisioned decades ago and the credentials/education considered necessary for said old models and not really updated for today's reality, would be my choice for today.

The yearly flying hour budget for G-Hawk guys to fly the Aero Club Cessnas for the 12th RS was about $90k for the entire squadron for the entire FY. It was so little money ACC didn’t even know about it until they began the process of creating the 18XX AFSC and started to audit the existing RPA squadrons. We argued like hell for it but no soup for us or anyone else flying a robot. ACC said it would be too much trouble at OCONUS locations because GA type aircraft are almost exclusive to CONUS US airspace... #totalbullshit Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As to a T-6, no doubt there would be cost savings in commonality but the DART would be cheaper to buy and fly, maintain as a fleet of ACE aircraft, not sure about that... Agreed, this has negative 6.9% chance of happening but it never hurts to argue for it over BO No argument also as to how screwed up things have gotten thanks to the Higher, Farther, Faster crowd that Boyd fought at the Puzzle Palace. Also, I see no end to it with current crop of leaders at the controls now or in the future, no one is going out on a limb to say not every plane has to be the absolute best in category or it's shit, the party line is continuing. In other threads I've argued for less costly, less sophisticated platforms to be an appropriate part of the overall AF fleet and will continue to do so along with others, only a total idiot or a corrupt narcissist would continue this delusion that we need overkill for 80% of the time we deliver airpower. Don't mind getting teased/chided for my incessant, cultish advocacy for platforms like the Scorpion or YA-7F, these are platforms we need, can afford and quite frankly, would be the easy A the AF needs to get it's mojo back with Congress and Media. Every time we dream up some science project that blows up in our faces and we have to go back to Dad for more money is that much more political and real capital we don't have in the future for the other things we will need to just keep the lights on, but hey that's the next guy's problem... Rant complete.

Concur A light jet (or t-prop) that's inexpensive, light footprint and can fulfill the range of flight training (acro, spin, close formation, instruments) and keep the CT beans manageable is feasible. DART 450 would likely fit the bill.

Would a "Golden Apples & Known Follow On" program / assignment encourage retention? Thinking mostly of pilots (aircrew generally) but could be applied to other career fields (not sure exactly what but this is not necessarily exclusively for the rated community). Reading this thread and seeing that there has been some elimination of queep, shoe clerkism, bullshit, etc... not much but some and that is apparently all the Bobs are going to get rid of, could they win over the masses (or at least enough of them to mitigate the talent arterial bleeding) with assignments/programs to stay for a bite of a Golden Apple and the inevitable payback? Ex: 3 year flying assignment of choice (jet, location, both, something cool, etc..) followed by a known follow on assignment of equal length that meets the needs of the AF first but also is acceptable to the member (ex: UPT, RPA, Staff, etc...). All of this covered with a decent retention bonus also. If the follow on assignment can not be honored, the member would have the option to reject the re-assignment and either 7 day opt, Palace Chase/Front or accept the new follow-on, potentially with a new, larger bonus if the AF really needs this assignment filled, sts. This would pressure the AF to keep its word to and give the member certainty. Likely the initial bonus would be smaller but what the military can not match in the civilian world in monetary terms (by policy choice) it could offer in unique and personally rewarding work. Revival of the ACE program, Aggressors, more Special Flying Assignments, Light Attack, etc... Say there would 200 aircraft in these programs, coming in at about 500 hours each FY, averaging out at $5k per hour that's $500 million. Not chump change but if you retain about 145 pilots per FY you offered it as people came in and went out of the program, you break even. That's figuring an average pilot at the end of his/her ADSC cost $3.5 million to train (conservative estimate as some cost $8+ mil). Even when you figure in the support cost per tail, WAG that at $1 mil per FY, you only need about another 60 pilots to sign up per FY. Secondary benefits include reduced pressure on SUPT to graduate substandard students, reduced pressure on training fleet, reestablishing esprit de corps, not screwing over your guys, etc... Light a candle and crack a beer, if leadership really wants to fix retention, they have to do something different.

Publicly propose sweeping changes to the AF and DoD, engage Congress and the media, if there is no traction on reform, resign en masse. If you truly want to change the system you must be willing to sacrifice, rationalizing that you will fix it from the inside is bullshit. If GOs, started punching out and saying that which is known but not acknowledged at the highest echelons, you could potentially build the consensus in Congress for necessary change. That's an if and it is a risk/sacrifice but that is the only way to get the pols and relevant media's attention to make a persuasive argument. Easy for me to say as an internet nobody but that's all I got.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Viper today. Is this the first Viper to hit the private market?

Might but contractors don't do certain things so maybe not.

Really? Divest the U-28 & MC-12? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a pretty tough cost per flight hour to beat even on the top of that range. Found this on Bronco per flight hour cost but only quotes a $1,000 per hour with no other details or references, caveat emptor: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a19887/ov-10-war-isis/ Article is interesting on its own, origin story of the Bronc... Just a guess but if there were an OV-10 back in operational service (modernized or new), $1,500 would likely be a conservative and realistic cost per hour. Downrange, just guessing $3,000 per hour for all the expeditionary logistical costs. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda... Buy 350 at FFP of $15 mil with sensors. Guard and Reserves get half. Fly, bomb, repeat.

Glad to hear it got a second chance and went to a good owner On another Bronco topic, I'm curious as to why it never found a second life a contract ISR/CAS/JTAC training platform, seems it would be cheaper than a jet (L-39 and the like) and reasonably supportable.

Oh yeah forgot about those Found another one that was for sale, sold for $130k: https://www.guns.com/news/2017/10/31/ny-school-selling-ov-10-bronco-some-assembly-required-photos https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=193&acctid=7921 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there an STC for the OV-10 for an MX-15 or other sensor/tgt pod? I’ve seen L-39s with an FMV ball and a turbo contract JTAC tng platform seems like an easy fit. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll raise you one A-7... https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33968927/1969-vought-a-7-corsair-ii Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup We only need to close a 900 billion dollar deficit then start to whittle away on 22+ trillion in debt Simplify the tax code (15% flat tax on 75k and above with no deductions, credits or exemptions. Treat Active and Passive income the same. Uncap the limit on payroll taxes to fund Social Security, Medicare. Estate tax on assets above 25 million at 25%. No overall spending increase till budget in surplus. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-35 / 22 concept:

Maybe but I have a naive hope that when the JSF was in a conceptual stage the real and likely increased risk of technological compromise due to the wide sale among various partners was openly addressed and mitigation was baked into the concept with the most sensitive information being limited to the US or UK only (Primary and Level 1 participants). Any info leak is a compromise but perhaps not a ship sinking hole in the boat. On other F-35 news: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-stealth-f-35a-just-surpassed-f-22a-one-key-metric-59552 More F-35s delivered to Big Blue than 22s built.

Yup. One day, one of these carnival barkers we elect every 4 years will have to tell the truth: More has been promised than can be delivered and that like after any period of excess, a period of sacrifice will have to be had by all. The rich will pay more in taxes, the middle class will have to wait till they are older to retire and the poor will receive fewer benefits. We will do less on the world stage than others are used to us doing, we will have to stop borrowing & loaning to our enemies and rivals and require more from those who desire our protection.

I would not put it past prominent Dems to ask foreign governments to not recognize the winner of a race as the President if they didn't like the results and thought they could get away with it. They could state they recognize Candidate X for President and if the State Governments of the largest, most prominent states refused to accept the results, the world just might follow them. As it would be the equivalent of an H-bomb on our economy, this might cause all the other institutions in our country to say screw the real results and give in. They currently flout federal law, interfere and attempt to hamper federal law enforcement when it suits them and ignore the growing censorship, exclusion and harassment of "woke capitol" on private citizens in the economy and public sphere when it suits them. They suffer no repercussions and only have more incentive to try more. The Republic as we know it is dying.

Listened to this podcast: https://warontherocks.com/2019/07/net-assessment-is-america-poised-to-lose-the-next-war/ and read this article it discussed. Not a short read but not onerous either: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/CNAS+Report+-+ANAWOW+-+FINAL2.pdf My TLDR summary: The way the Joint Team fought in the 90s and 2000s for Desert Storm, Kosovo, OIF, etc... MOB establishment, unrestricted overflight rights, piece by piece threat/enemy destruction, etc... will not work in potential conflicts with Russia, China. A new approach will be required to dissuade aggression, defeat if required and allow options for favorable escalation/cessation of hostilities. Worth a read IMO, from an AF perspective it seems the AF to support this New American Way of War needs greater range, greater self-deployment capability along with a dispersed/austere basing capability. This would mitigate the reliance on safe, relatively close MOBs as Russia/China would not allow those sanctuaries to exist or function in a potential conflict within reasonable range of the conflict, enable faster surging for to Deter and React if aggression appears imminent or occurs and presents the enemy with a much harder targeting problem by proliferating tactical assets to unexpected or changing temporary locations. He mentions several times hard choices and giving up on assumptions, ideas, paradigms that will not work or don't apply in a Great Power Conflict, to me this sounds like (in relation to Airpower) the classic Destroy the Enemy's Will / National Capability to Fight vs. Destroy the Enemy's Forces. The Strategic (conventional) vs. Tactical. Equally applicable to other services in shaping their Capabilities Portfolios. I'm not 100% convinced he's wrong, putting aside our personal preferences and biases, is it time to reforge the AF to meet this growing threat? More Strategic and less Tactical - thoughts?

Driver Cited For Using 30-Can Beer Pack As Toddler’s Booster Seat

Ordinarily I would agree with you @pawnman but when one side is no longer a good faith partner in a rule of law, respect for minority rights, democracy by their open secret perversion & warping of our immigration, asylum and legal process(es) to rapidly change the demographics of this country while demanding a less rigorous process to vote than to check out a library book while simultaneously using what parts of the American government, economy and institutions they do control to harass and intimidate their enemies... IMHO, it is possible that neither side will accept the election results and then where do we go from there? This is likely an inflection point for American Democracy as we currently practice it, do we trust the processes and accept the results?

Yeah, not having Russia bully the Euros is in our interests but they will not change unless the circumstances they find themselves in change, namely operationally significant amounts of US forces stationed in their countries that provide deterrence thus allowing atrophy of not just their military forces but also the cultural will to use them. The evidence is there IMO that it (oversized direct American provided European military deterrence post Cold War ending) led to an erosion of national will of several of the major Continental European powers, I would liken it to trust fund kids and the often corrosive effect of not being either in danger from irresponsible actions or required to pay/work for the resources you enjoy. Leaving NATO is not desireable but appears to be necessary, they don’t change no matter if a conservative, liberal or nationalist administration prods them, something else has to be tried. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk