Clark Griswold

Little more information getting out about the Ukrainian 737 (only 3 years old) coming out, got to 8000' on departure profile normal for that regularly scheduled flight then something happened and came down on fire with debris scattered over a wide area, consistent with a catastrophic event compromising the hull, saw an aviation talking head that found the continuing fire on the jet as odd, kinda agree with that as most jets have several shutoff / one-way valves for fuel/hydro upstream of the motors, also very effective halogen bottles for the engine pod(s). Media is not dismissing the idea of an accidental shoot down. What say this thread? I'm a maybe but it is only suspicious at this time. Sabotage seems unlikely as why would you bomb a foreign flag aircraft of a non-belligerant nation to yours flying out of your country's main airport? Mechanical / Structural failure is possible but unless it was a particularly extreme event the debris field would be localized when the mishap aircraft crashed. SAM engagement near Tehran is possible but would the Iranians be that itchy on the trigger finger that deep inside their own country?

Noted and your point is legitimate, I would call it a deliberate sacrifice to try to shape events favorably Take the sensors out of the oldest Block 10 GH and put a ballast load in, fly it just inside 12 NM off their coast let them give it a Viking Funeral Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 They will likely try an asymmetric attack so before that we should give them and asymmetric show of force demonstration. Basically all the oil they export goes thru Kharg Island and they have other critical points we can apply pressure to if needed. Right at 12.1 NM off Kharg, drop 500+ bombs from a mixed formation of B-2s, BUFFs and BONEs with a 30 ship of fighters generated and just waiting to be cut loose. Not waremongering but saber rattling for right reasons, if you retaliate against us in a way that can not be accepted (i.e. you kill our civilians or other non-combatants or have your proxies commit an act of terrorism against such targets) we will cripple that which funds your government and is the vast majority of your economy. That is the price, no apologies, no dithering, no discussion and no hesitation. We will destroy your oil exporting capability via stand off weapons and we will close the Strait of Hormuz, if others complain about it (left leaning nations of Europe, Asia, etc...) fine, you're own your own for other defense matters (collective security, deterrence, support, etc). Sometimes super powers just have to get shit done. Like or not, a COA was taken that has got us here, strength and resolve is the only way to get all players on an off ramp to lowered tensions. My unsolicited advice, give them an opportunity to save face and destroy another RPA to embarrass the Great Satan but use back channels to let them know we will destroy everything we can of value to their petroleum exporting capability.

Interesting article on Congressional interest in planning for a growth in Aggressors: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31697/congress-wants-an-aggressor-modernization-plan-before-adversary-f-35s-head-to-nellis Linked article also makes an interesting suggestion that we should consider it not just in Aggressor Fighters but Aggressor Capability and author (Rogoway) suggests Aggressor AWACS to supplement GCI. If you're in for a dime, you're in for a dollar (millions of them) so expanding the idea: dedicated Aggressor AWACS, Growlers/Prowlers, RPAs, mobile SAMs, etc...? We would still have RF at Nellis but build an entire Aggressor Wing(s) at an existing or reactivated base(s) for bigger LFEs Value or a product of the office of redundancy?

Yup, also keeping Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea afloat to pique at us from time to time. We should find clients to antagonize them also and support with little restraint so long as they cause them trouble (Ukraine, Vietnam, KSA, etc...). Another article on the subject https://thefederalist.com/2020/01/04/killing-soleimani-was-necessary-and-shows-america-must-withdraw-from-iraq/ Decent and a short read, correctly repeats the refrain that another pointless US led conflict in the ME only benefits the Moscow-Beijing-Tehran axis of shit.

We may be told to leave and a new can of worms opens: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-iraq-security-blast-primeminister/rival-shiite-leaders-in-iraq-call-for-us-troop-expulsion-in-rare-show-of-unity-idUSKBN1Z20JO Not sure how to view this move, but they killed an American, that's Trump's redline and unlike the other guy, he acted. Something had to be done as you can only be pushed so many times until you have to give someone a bloody nose. Dude was a legit target but try to avoid by 10 NM anything that would draw us in any further (directly) into any conflict in that region. We save blood and treasure by not taking the bait sometimes. The whole ME is just an insoluble problem that is not actually that important to the US anymore. We should begin a slow disengagement over the next 3 years. Tucker Carlson with JD Vance had intelligent commentary on this, at the 18:20 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLk22tGaD1Q

Agree that it would get shanghaied often with too much visibility / control by high level / centralized folks so I would argue due to the low cost, low footprint and low capability of this support asset, it should be penny packet'd down to the Wing/OG level to allow for that support you alluded to with the gone too soon Spartan. The AF would have to relax it's typical death grip of control and junkie like addiction to constant visibility on every asset and allow the lower echelons to self-organize and manage these small airlift requirements and maybe even ISR requirements. Likely a mutual support system at a peer to peer level, help your bros and your bros will help you, don't and you're probably on your own. Now that (de-centralized control) could come with a lot of second order effects (good and bad) - quick support to units with requirements that fell below the line in a centralized planning process but airspace coordination/control issues by unknown players showing up if not communicated properly as examples.

A potential problem no doubt but methinks the Bobs could only be sold on this if it was cheap, has multiple capabilities and little to no developmental risks. Hence, a platform like the Churchill modified Caravan or another similar turn key solution with sensor stations, hard points, payload capability, etc... already engineered is the only option, if acquired. Just my two cents but I would see the fleet of these switching roles as the conflict changes. During major combat ops, it serves as a liaison platform for light cargo/pax movement where it can operate, during stabilization ops with low threat airspace established it can swing as required to ISR support.

Yup but more mobility focused likely. ISR (stations, sensors, downlinks, etc...) purchased as required for augmented capability as required, ditto for Strike capability. Yeah, it's not revolutionary in ISR capability necessarily and integrating the sensors would require the vendors of different equipment to be open enough with specs to allow for plug-n-play in an Open Mission Architecture. Likely challenging but feasible. Tom Churchill in the video said that they had worked with multiple sensor manufacturers in their Mission Management business so they could probably deliver. Now would that be a seamless cross-cue between different sensors (SAR to FMV for instance) and/or a sensor fused display for all data, IDK but seems that is what they were alluding to. Posted as an example of what I think would be required of a Utility Platform that could also fulfill a revised Liaison Aircraft role. Utility platform with capability to expand / contract roles as required for capabilities that could be delegated directly to units.

Grist for the mill: Churchill Navigation has a mod for a Cessna Caravan that could fill a light / utility aircraft role Pylons for sensors (no mention of weapons capability), removable sensor stations, open arrangement for cargo/pax Buy it with a defensive system or capability to accept one, military radios, NVG compliant cockpit, etc... and assign to the Air Guard 😉 Utility platform for light airlift, tactical ISR (fully/semi-manned with federated sensors), possibly light precision strike if hardpoints are/can be weaponized and just my two cents, a potential tactical C2/Sensor Overwatch platform for small scale GMTI / AMTI for dismounted movers and small RPAs / UAVs (ISIS used quad-copters fairly effectively against SDF / YPG)

ditto

Godspeed @matmacwc.

Yup, expeditionary/dispersed capability built in from the wheels up.

Yup...that's about the same range as Northern Australia to cover all of Indonesia or Spratly Islands. An LO platform that as a singleton that could deliver the A/G effects of 2 x F-35 without AR across a theater (I define that as 750 NM) is what were talking about IMHO. Develop a platform to compliment the F-35 to continue the strategy of raising the capes of capable allies to keep the strategic competitors deterred.

Another potential partner for new LO attack platform to give Allies regional power projection / deterrence.

File this under never ever gonna happen but if the Aussies could find a partner to build enough airframes to get a cost per tail down to something reasonable, A-12 Avenger reborn would likely meet this potential requirement. Delete carrier suitability requirements and make a it a little bigger (sts) with a subsequent increase in range/payload. Big Mac was the vendor for the ill fated project now Boeing who would own the design, data for it. Try to use Super Hornet systems/engines which the Aussies already fly incorporated into a reborn and updated build. Potential partners could be Japan and SK who might want their own capability to keep NK, China on notice.

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.