Clark Griswold

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

To the last I will grapple with thee... Air Tractor contesting (again) limited Light Attack buy https://airforcemag.com/Features/Pages/2019/November 2019/Air-Tractor-Wants-Another-Shot-at-a-Light-Attack-Contract.aspx

Agree on the tech (platform and weps) as to multi-role, they (single role) are still viable mission relevance wise but I would caveat that I can see that with lower cost aircraft to procure/operate/sustain like Light Attack (shameless plug) just from a sequester influenced budget environment.

They've had their problems in the past, including recent memory: https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/event/indonesian-confrontation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_East_Timorese_crisis https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/indonesia-future-threat-australia/ Regaining the capability to hold targets at risk at distance from Australia only enhances their defense position lost when the F-111s where retired.

Aussie B-21s? https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/11/15/should-washington-sell-the-b-21-bomber-to-australia/#1a603c6134b0 https://www.aspistrategist.org.au/is-the-b-21-bomber-a-viable-option-for-australia/

Interesting. So if it proves interoperable then? Just buy it AF.

Cool Agree that single role is not likely to come back.

Copy that - I think you are right about the absolute necessity on more missile shots in training (nice but not necessary) Curious as to your opinion on the authors other point on the specialization or focus of Hornet squadrons to A/A or A/G was, no passive aggressive in that interrogative. Skew training to favor one or the other - good idea or not so much? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I need more information before I say this is true or not. //SIGNED// Gen Clark Griswold Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bingo Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 If any decision maker reads this thread, buy it and give it to the Guard. There's a lot of old iron in the Guard they (AF) don't want to update or support, convert those units to Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance and be done with it. If I were Gen Clark Griswold (God help us in that case), Light Attack would get paired with ARC aggressor squadrons vs outsourcing most of it or another related mission partnership like co-location with a Reaper wing, ASOS, etc... recruit and retain talent, conserve our operational experience and Make the AF Great Again.