Clark Griswold
-
Posts
3,035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Clark Griswold
-
Gonking further on this, WTH would be come of the T-1 Phase III if this dumpster fire of a COA becomes policy? I don't see AMC, AFSOC, AFMC, etc... ok with deleting half of the training for some of their future pilots and accepting that likely very large and expensive training bill to get them to the experience and proficiency level required to complete their MDS qual. ACC for that matter is likely to get shafted with a sizable bill also, again who the f actually thinks this is a good idea?
-
Doug would totally rock this problem out... If retention is impossible/improbable and you can't grow fast enough then you have to load shed / tap reserve capacity. In all of this I have not heard the idea floated for Involuntary Mobilization, I don't think they should but T10 - 12304 is fairly broad in scope and doesn't take that much if you get the right people to say yes. IM under that authority limits you to 200k for only up to 365 days but if you needed dudes that bad you could pull that T-handle but accept the consequences (long term). Rather than that, offer 3 year ADOS tours with a 50K bonus, no 365 TDYs, no staff work with an offer to continue to 20 years of service at end of orders, ARC folks might be worried about going back to their unit, give them the option of another home if they want (assuming they don't have a civ job to return to). 3,000 man years with bonuses is not cheap but it is not unaffordable either. Load shedding is the third rail, not sure where a modern AF leader would say we can't give you X and still provide Y and Z, there's just not enough Shlitz. If it were me, I would probably ask for the Army/Navy/USMC to pick up 15 RPA CAPs (could be exchange personnel at AFBs and using AF RPAs); I would probably ask for relief from the growing non-traditional mission sets (Cyber, ISR PED, etc...) and then I would load shed the big one and ask to drop the air delivered strategic nuclear deterrence mission, switching the strategy of the AF to a tactical nuke air delivered strategy only. Reprogram those resources to tap ARC resources in a way to encourage voluntary take ($$$ and specific duties/responsibilities contractually spelled out) and keep the AETC pipeline turned up to 11 for years on end.
-
Looks like they are testing the waters for Stop Loss: https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2017/11/21/break-this-force-air-force-warns-cuts-manning-woes-could-hurt-war-zone-fight/ “I don’t think there’s much the Air Force can do right now ... except invoke stop-loss in order to stop this gross departure of pilots,” Venable said. “I had the chief of staff here at the Heritage Foundation [at the beginning of the year] and he said stop-loss is not on the table. But, at one point or another, you’ve got to maintain your combat capability. And if they can’t ... I think he’s going to have to [consider] stop-loss. It would be draconian, everybody would hate it. But I’m not sure what their alternatives are going to be.”
-
I just figured out where the good idea fairy got this awful idea from:
-
So if this abortion of an idea comes to pass, what does or would the FAA have to say about this? While the military is a self-certifying agency there are some basic assumptions between the DoD and the FAA on aircrew training for qualification and certification, that we won't do anything reckless, risky, dumb or that would endanger the public or property unduly. Like marginally training people and then putting them in the control of a jet they by any other standard would not be qualified to operate at their given level of experience and training. I doubt they would be cool with us certifying someone good to fly a multi-engine jet if they had no turbine or multi engine experience, so extend that idea to someone only having 100 or so hours in a high performance turboprop, some sims (not even Class D) and then put in the seat of a supersonic jet. Methinks they would not be ok with that person at the controls in the NAS. How can the Air Staff or AETC Staff seriously bounce this idea around without considering the first incident and then the subsequent investigation, reports, headlines, etc... and not see the AF losing all confidence in its ability to operate? I mean really, look at the Navy right now, they took shiphandling and turned it from a formal course into a stack of CDs for dudes to review prior to reporting to their first assignment, how's that working for them now? https://www.npr.org/2017/09/07/549117911/navy-officials-examine-training-procedures-after-ship-accidents
-
Cool Valid points All the points/suggestions I’ve been making are just techniques to try to pump water faster out of sinking ship while there’s still a hole in the boat
-
Gotcha - that spool up is Tweet like Thinking about this temp det I️ was thinking used L-39s refurbished & modified to a common configuration - with money and top cover to just get it done, figure 6+ months to buy/modify/bed down aircraft while simultaneously training the instructor cadre and modifying an existing syllabus and finishing out a campus at an AFB Project Liberty was far from perfect but an example of getting it done fast
-
Copy - was hoping to get your opinion on the Albatross as an advanced trainer. My suggestion for the L-39 was mainly due to the likely availability of enough airframes quickly to stand up a temporary training det.
-
No argument with that (retaining already trained talent is better) but just offering a what is IMO a viable Plan B. Wow... just wow if that rumor is in fact truth. Now if you had a program for HS grads to join, train, get an Associate's Degree from the CCAF and then become a WO1 with an 18X AFSC in about a 2.5 year time line, I think that is viable and would alleviate the pull of 11Fs to Droids but straight to single seat manned fighters? Really AF, this is a good idea?
-
I'm not doubting there would be or are growing pains (in cycling non-CAF pilots to T-38 IP positions) nor am I doubting there is a cultural difference that is imbued in students when their instructors have a CAF / pointy nose background, my point is to say that this is a tactic that can be used to deal with this immediate, particular problem (F-16 pilot shortage requiring new approaches to manning) not as a wholesale change in policy.
-
Not exactly what I was saying and I don't doubt there are some unintended consequences. Will every heavy or multi-crew pilot be able to be an IP in the 38? Of course not but some can and would, that would alleviate some pressure. Probably not much but I were CSAF, any help would be appreciated. I am not suggesting in this discussion for a direct heavy to viper program (via 38s), although I don't have a problem with it, I am suggesting that an official, established program to recruit capable heavy pilots to first instruct in the T-38 is a good idea, IMO. Yup, so let's do the opposite of what they have been doing the past 15 years. Were they that bad? (Rhetorical) You've hung up your jersey and your on the issue from the other side now, I am passing mile marker 18 this year so I have a tad bit of perspective also, there are heavy pilots who hold to high standards, can handle stressful situations, multi-task and prioritize. I think that it has become canon in the modern AF that only dudes who went 38s out of SUPT Phase II can do that, I beg to differ and request your two cents on the matter.
-
Why the hell are they not at least pulling all the 16 drivers instructing in 38s, in droids back at least first? Don't FAIP any 38 studs to the 38 (or 6) but offer to capable and motivated heavy drivers, T-1 grads, a chance to qual and then instruct in the 38 (to include a chance to attend IFF if it is in the needs of the AF) with the understanding the devil will get his pound of flesh for this crossflow. Another idea that could work (also would be no fun for those having to do it) would be to shift work schedules, some dudes fly & work weekends and Monday/Tuesday are there weekends. Would boost your output, needs more manpower (mil and contract) but could be done with $$$ but keeps the aircraft and training maximized. And if you really wanted to get jiggy with it, look for a short / medium term lease option for a common fast jet trainer, L-39 or similar, and set up a 3 year program to produce some studs in another training program. Get 30 aircraft, set up 3 flights in one super det at a SW base (DM, Kirtland, etc...) and fly 7 days a week. Need about 50 ARC instructors, 3 year ADOS orders (no loss of ARC affiliation) and a great bonus (50K per year). No sim, extra flight hours, make it work. Not run thru a BCA and would cost some serious $$$ but would clear at least part of the problem. Probably about 500 mil for the whole program (over 3 years).
-
NK defector shot 5 times in his escape from a worker's paradise. http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/22/health/north-korea-defector-parasites-health/index.html Amnesty for all DPRK officials who defect with monetary compensation, park cruise ships right at 12.1 nms for pickup of anybody defecting, anything to start cracking the dam... it will be expensive as hell to unfornicate NK but it is better than doing nothing.
-
Good grief... are we that bad at running an AF we are really considering this? Flew the mighty T-1 back in the day but I am guessing the T-38 Phase III program is about 75 flight hours + 15 sim hours or so, so at 10K per T-38 flight hour and just figure 2K per sim hour (WAG) that comes to 765K per 38 stud. Now let's say you fly them in the 16 at 22K per hour and just guessing 4K per hour on the sim and you give them half the time for dedicated basic airmanship / systems (37.5 flight & 7.5 sim) that is 855K. Will that be coincidental with the mission employment training and there by save some flight hours in total? Maybe but my calculator, my experience and my common sense say probably not. You're going to pay more per stud and wear out your 16s faster more likely. Non-concur. Flight hour cost ref: http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/
-
Not air to air but an example of AI likely to migrate to fighters... https://www.wired.com/story/ai-can-help-hunt-down-missile-sites-in-china/
-
Yup The economic exchange factor between belligerents is always relevant, even more so in COIN / LIC. If we plan to keep running these marathons, we need a sustainability plan as much as we need an exit plan as these things will likely run 15-20 years to kill, build and suppress the enemy long enough to "win".
-
Definitely inspired by There’s 0.69% chance of acquiring that airframe but a successor to the MC-12, U-28, RC-26, RC-12, etc all based on the Emb-120/Saab 340/Beech 1900 platform is the right mix for a 1-2-3 punch to delivering Persistent Stare - ISR/Light Strike. New platform manned ISR + LAAR Couple that with an all Reaper ER fleet and you can whack a mole more effectively
-
Just to stir the discussion: Sukhoi Su-80 with a proposed (not sure if actually fielded Su-80PT (patrol/transport) ) variant for the Russian/Kazakhstan Border Guards and a few others, looks like it would be ideal with some mods for COIN / LIC: References for the PT variants (caveat emptor) but some data on how the FSU have thought this capability (or one closely related to it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-80 http://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/civil/su-80/ https://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/80/pt/s80pt_e.htm http://cosmopark.ru/s80.html
-
Or just buy the best airplane If the AF can’t figure out that the Scorpion is the best overall system for this mission and going forward into the future with its built on flexibility and growth potential; then it probably should not have the LAAR mission
-
Stealth hornet
-
Drop it
-
That would be something but maybe with this POTUS / SECDEF that are not beholden to convention they could do going to Advanced Capability Hornets / Super Hornets. How do you sell that to Congress though? With perfect hindsight and just my two cents, an A and B model fleet with the Navy (and Royal Navy) along with the USMC all flying the B and a D / G model made from a baseline B sans lift fan for a WW version or two seater for foreign customers desiring those types would have been a better one size fits all (kinda) approach. Some articles from 2015 that maybe this RUMINT coming to pass, maybe... https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/22/us-navy-to-lockheed-martins-f-35-stealth-fighter-w.aspx https://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/f-35c-a-wrong-turn-for-navy-cnas/
-
Getting closer to getting another nation in the F-35 club http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15896/germany-says-the-f-35-is-the-preferred-choice-to-replace-its-tornados http://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/germany-wants-fifth-gen-fighter-replace-tornado Get France & India in the club also and keep distributing the cost overruns, have to come up with an export version specifically for those two but it can be done (probably).
-
Intercept of Iranian civil registered A310: https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/30/rsaf-intercept-a310-sanaa/
-
Good article On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense From the article: The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II. To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans. During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO. Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint. US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence, USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets. We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice... Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.
