Clark Griswold

Apparently Mexico doesn’t have a problem with using its military without restrictive ROE on the border... https://www.theblaze.com/news/mexican-soldiers-detain-us-soldiers https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/04/19/politics/mexican-troops-american-soldiers-border/index.html?r=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theblaze.com%2Fnews%2Fmexican-soldiers-detain-us-soldiers Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What the other side of the pond is thinking about: Airbus looking at a family of big wing ISR/C2/Patrol/VIP based on A320neo https://www.airbus.com/newsroom/news/en/2018/07/Airbus-evaluates-an-A320neo-multi-mission-version.html https://defpost.com/airbus-evaluates-military-multi-mission-version-a320neo-airliner-a320m3a/ Just grist for the mill, 320s are built now in Mobile so the made in the USA container is checked (parts from subs are another issue) but maybe Big B needs a loss to re-focus on not delivering new jets with FOD in them, little details like that... On whether or not to recapitalize or not with a large manned aircraft vs. going with a purely distributed networked system... from the original article: The Air Force must instead divide the RC-135 recapitalization into wartime and peacetime requirements and choose at least one new manned big-wing aircraft, just as it has in seeking a replacement for the Open Skies Treaty OC-135s and approving a replacement for the Constant Phoenix “nuke sniffer” WC-135s. But what should this peacetime airplane look like? IMHO, it's not an either or situation but rather both but then how much of each and then what are the new requirements for the current/projected operational environment that each will operate in? Distributed and networked systems are fine to add to existing manned/unmanned platforms (assuming no undue burden for joining them into a network) and bringing RPAs on-line for augmenting the delivery of C2 and theater level ISR with AMTI, GMTI, MMTI, ELINT, etc... however that new capability due to the advancement/miniaturization of sensors & links doesn't displace the need for a large, specialized ISR / C2 family of platforms, with them being manned IMHO being the best approach. New big wing manned platforms coupled with RPAs integrated into the ISR/C2 platform community will bring: - Room for growth in equipment and space for additional crew members if necessary for new sensors. - Always incorporate some or all of the PED process via their crews to make the intel they collect usable to the customer directly and timely. - Flexibility that unmanned systems will likely be unable to answer in the near term (next 10-15 years). Satellite footprints, link vulnerability to EA, airspace restrictions on unmanned systems, downlink spectrum access in host nations, logistical challenges for unmanned systems, etc... also, sometimes it is just easier to send a manned platform for a short time vs. the fairly involved process to get an RPA to a new op location. If you wanna maintain X CAPs for the next 15 years, set up RPAs; if you want to monitor yearly military exercises for 1-2 weeks then go home, deploy a manned platform. - Viable career community for the crews and specialists. With manned and unmanned, there's a larger place to develop well rounded leaders and experienced crews / specialists, they will likely spend a larger portion or the entire career in this community. All that said, there is a valid requirement for fielding operational systems that we know can not go into a A2AD environment, not all of the AF's missions are in those environments. We (the AF) have a tendency to get infatuated with some new technology or idea and then just go all in without being a bit cautious about departing from ways of business that have done well for us in the past and we should be prudent about abandoning. Dropping our large, manned platforms for ISR/C2 for as yet not operational way of performing this mission (distributed networked sensors) with no corollary operational experience from which to confidently infer should give us pause. A bit skeptical attitudes to radical changes, prudent feasible improvements and a realistic approach to requirements...

2 This photo sums that up perfectly: An ally flying a new modern tanker, refueling a new modern C2 platform over an AOR supporting combat ops now... while we put 500 million dollar radars in 40+ yr old 707s using old motors, just now getting a very basic flight deck update being refueled by 50+ yr old tankers... On fleet density vs larger fewer platforms... valid point. Keeping it real and trying to minimize risk, replace the E-3 with the E-7. Good enough to support American platforms in a Coalition, good enough for the USAF to fly now. Smaller platforms to replace JSTARS, G-650 based sounds fine. EA / ELINT G-650 also. RIVET / COBRA / OPEN SKIES / CONSTANT PHOENIX etc...probably needs to be a 767 based platform for range, size, power, space, etc..

I don't think it is a matter of cutting but the best / least bad allocation of finite resources to cover all the missions / responsibilities assigned to the AF. Not sure if the author of the article is going to to follow up with his argument for another large manned aircraft with a discussion on what the requirements would be but from the cheap seats... - Range / Endurance: at least 4000 NM in mission configuration / 10 hours endurance unrefuelled - Open Mission Architecture / Sensor flexibility / Growth potential - Other capes (AR, Self-defense suite, etc..) Basically a 737 NG platform.

From War on the Rocks: https://warontherocks.com/2019/04/air-force-manned-reconnaissance-at-a-crossroads/ From the article: The world today isn’t the Cold War world of yesterday, and Cold War requirements should not justify acquisition of new assets for tomorrow’s military needs. The RC-135’s innocence has long been compromised as it has evolved from its original peacetime role into a valuable combat asset, but both missions must be performed in the future. No single replacement solution can meet both of these disparate operational requirements. The U.S. Air Force must look beyond its obsession with warfighting to identify and procure a second manned big-wing peacetime replacement for the RC-135. Overall the article was pretty good but the last point (last sentence of the article) I thought made a particularly interesting point, I think obsession might not have been the right verb for the AF approach, prioritization on warfighting (major conflict preparation has to be number one but not necessarily one that takes up a disproportionate amount of resources from other missions, contingencies, etc..) but it made the point that not everything is peer v. peer with double digit SAMs and 4/5 gen fighters weapons free lobbing missiles at anything that flies, there's a range of military operations. Big Wing ISR/C2 may not fit into peer v. peer on Night 1 anymore but has a role to play in AF/Joint ops across the range. Recap would not be cheap but a new Iron Triangle based on a common platform (ideally) seems reasonable. Thoughts?

Well there you go Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur Two engine fighters could provide some capabilities the F-5s, A-4s, etc.. might not be able to provide, the high fast flyer profile but if the customer wanted that they would have asked for it. Not sure if MiG-29s could deliver that repeatedly without causing over-taxing engine use (early overhauls, replacement, etc...), there might be some platforms divested from other AFs that would be supportable, F-4s maybe Mirages but cost would be crazy for a particular threat profile vs. a more generic one Cobham has some interesting platforms for delivering ADAIR, particularly the Falcon 20 based platforms with EW pods https://www.aerosociety.com/news/flying-for-the-dark-side/ Surprised the American providers haven't looked into this as it seems the most cost effective BVR threat replicator platform.

Copy all - just a bit surprising to me (view of military aggressors) but understood it is not the program of the 70s / 80s, nor the same operational environment. Yeah, I see that point. The private contractors with the profit motive took a pass for a reason. War Zone had a good article on that idea, contractors & customers being very realistic about aggressor requirements and costs to get to their desired solution: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25075/how-f-5s-beat-out-f-16s-for-the-navys-latest-commercial-aggressor-contract

Yeah but using fanboy reasoning and disregarding logic we're going with second hand MiG-29s... #neverhappeningever NOTE - tedious rant to follow: To me as an outsider looking in (herbivore), the Aggressor mission could be/should be a good deal assignment to retain AD fighter types and retain in the military fighter types in specialized ARC units that want to move on but keep a military affiliation. I hear the AF's argument that the cost of organic Aggressors are too high and that contracted Red Air (mostly) is the future but in our sprawling budget, there has to be enough margin for a specialized fleet of aggressors to retain pilots on AD or the ARC, provide credible opponents and develop pilots in their operational skills. From this article: As we can all see it costs a shit ton to train a replacement pilot for almost any platform, in terms of money just on this graph and figure 3 years on average to get an AC, 2 ship flight lead, etc... in terms of time. Retention is key (duh). So we're throwing some money at the problem (good), now we need to add to that pull factor(s) and have good deal, only in the military opportunities that will retain talent. Just a guess but the possibility of flying exotic/foreign jets and employ them in tactical training would make me or an average fighter dude seriously consider staying in AD or rushing hard an ARC unit that had that mission. This tactic in the strategy to retain fighter pilots would not be cheap but neither is replacing them and keeping the ones you have and want to keep is lower risk as they are a known quantity and likely to be successful in this next assignment/role. Figure a fleet of 85 aggressor aircraft and crew at 3.0. Program 500 hours an FY per tail at 12k a flight hour with CLS based MX. Add 35% for other stuff my bar napkin math is missing (cadre tng, ranges, expendables, etc...) and the total bill comes to 688.5 million. But, if you factor in retaining the 225 pilots in the program and and say its 50/50 AD/ARC, you can also save X number of pilots on AD from separating by their interest and desire to fly unique iron. Depending on tour length, keep it 3.5 years, you rotate out 40 pilots every FY and you could line up up to 80 with 2 year planning. All that gonkulation comes up to 200+ fighter dudes retained on AD, which equates to about 1.95 billion (average fighter tng cost figured at 9.75 mil). That's a savings of about 1.26 billion if you retain your people all while further developing your cadre of experienced fighter pilots, profit. Just requires us to shed the traditional way of thinking how to do things and asking for relief from the machine not designed to work, the AF requirements, acquisition & contracting process. Good bonuses, golden apple programs to retain and perform needed tng, mission focused culture will help sustain the 11F force. On block 30 Vipers being the best aggressors: https://theaviationist.com/2015/03/26/f-16n-best-adversary/

That’s one use Pick this one up too btw - it’s already restored and good to go: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/mig-29-for-sale-for-465-million-2019-1 Buy the Hungarian MiGs and the other one now you have 20. Just a WAG but figure 25 million to refurbish and modify for aggressor service with a common standard. Figure in another 10 million to overhaul the spare engines and buy whatever spares you can get. Probably about 10k an hour to fly and get CLS MX - golden apples to reach for... Poland would help us out (training, MX, logistics) as they are looking at divesting their 29s and want closer military ties with us. They’ve got 30 still in service, start flying them at the new base Ft Trump in Poland 🙂 and then set up shop in the CONUS. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

On the subject of ADAIR... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27320/marine-corps-f-5-aggressors-are-receiving-red-net-tactical-data-links and if you're in the market for some second hand MiG-29s with spare engines, Hungary can hook you up... https://alert5.com/2019/04/13/no-bidder-for-hungarys-mig-29s/ 19 jets with 20 spare motors for $10 million, bargain... as money grows on trees, this would be perfect for a specialized aggressor unit (Guard/Reserve ideally IMO). Update with the above mentioned red-net tac datalink, civilian avionics suite, other updates, etc... profit

If only there was an aircraft designed to provide Attack, Observation and ISR in one airplane, ideally suited to combating VEOs in COIN & LIC, inexpensive to fly, low technical risk, easy to operate and capable of delivering a variety of effects (observation, strike, multi-int ISR) in one platform and on every mission.... This aircraft could even have an open architecture and be flown by CAF and SOF, customized for each. One might want several FMV sensors, A2A radar and the other a SAR and EO cross-cue capability, space and power for other systems in a compartment... The units equipped with this plane, could train almost exclusively for this mission set and get really good at it, allowing 4/5 gen equipped units to focus training mostly on high end fights, there could be cross-flow between these manned platforms and experience in operations across the spectrum could be gained... Sarcasm rant - Complete (P). Directed at the AF, not anyone on this thread.

Not only robot wingmen but IMHO this loyal wingman RPA concept should be expanded but based on one common Air Vehicle with multiple ways to employ it, changeable in flight, rolling from human directed to AI directed as required: - Loyal wingman to a manned platform serving / defending that formation and under a flight member's control - AI directed platform as a singleton or in an unmanned formation - On mission directed by an airborne controller via multiple secure LOS links for minimized latency Keep the first generation realistic and affordable-ish: Good endurance but doesn't have to have the legs of a Global Hawk, 3 hours on station from a 500 mile launch or AR point. Decent missile capacity, 4 AIM-120s internal capacity, external stores capable when LO not needed any longer. Good radar and IRST, but less capable systems than the manned platforms is acceptable to keep costs under control. Open Mission Architecture

This one time at Bomber Camp... https://www.bombercamp.org and the video...

True Not the best way to say what I really think, he’s creepy... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup - I don't like accusations without proof but where there is smoke there's usually fire, after this dust up the political talk shows have been saying that Diamond Joe is know for this weird / rude / inappropriate familiarity... doesn't matter to me as he is a confirmed POS after I saw his "white man's culture" speech comments. https://thefederalist.com/2019/03/28/bidens-attack-on-white-mans-culture-is-a-mix-of-historical-illiteracy-and-dishonesty/ White privilege, guilt, yada yada yada is horseshit and he knows it, now Rich & Connected privilege is something... Like getting your kids into colleges they would never honestly be competitive for thru nefarious means and I'm sure Ole Joe when he was VP had no connection to getting a 40+ dude a special commission into the Navy Reserve for his son who then pops positive for coke on a Drill Weekend, nah no way.... there was no planning to get military service in preparation for a political campaign, no way... https://www.cnn.com/2014/10/16/politics/hunter-biden-discharged-from-navy/index.html Anyway, the Onion knows Diamond Joe best... https://www.theonion.com/tag/joseph-biden

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Valid critique and suspicious for them to showcase a capability they say they are developing but still indicative of their thinking, marketing ploy for potential customers (China, India, Iran) and/or propaganda also. As to the Chinese, more than pictures are emerging of their Dark Sword LO RPA https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21324/image-of-chinas-stealthy-dark-sword-fighter-like-combat-drone-emerges This could be just a mock up but then again maybe not.

To have a persistent active & passive sensor equipped platform for air to air data / fires, AI enabled wingman, remote arsenal platform, SEAD, EA, ELINT, ISR in contested airspace, etc... The competition is working on this also, it's gonna be a factor in the next peer on peer conflict: https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/25/lets-talk-about-russias-hunter-next-gen-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-spotted-on-the-ground-at-Novosibirsk/ https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22676/Chinese_Unmanned_Fighter_Jet_Could_Have_Extreme_Maneuverability#.XKASMORlI_w

Good article and interesting idea of bifurcation of air domain responsibilities: https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-tactical-air-control/

Syria worked out for them, why not try it in Venezuela... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27143/russian-transport-aircraft-deliver-men-and-materiel-to-venezuela-direct-from-syria

Unfortunately I don't think this will change much. The Dems are Khan, they will never give him up until their obsessive quest destroys them (or the country as we know it or used to)

Copy but it would not need more basic logistics than any other MDS, just saying that the design would have baked into it a requirement for low MX/high availability ala the F-20 or Gripen. This would not be infinite or excessive (this required level of low maintenance or reliability) but would be high enough to give an operational advantage both in cost and ability to execute sorties reliably and repetitively with a low to modest MX cost.

Modern systems designed from the gear up for dispersed / expeditionary basing Gripen is already designed this way but my hypothetical resurrected A-7 or Super Scorpion would need designing. Basing a new, modern A-7 on new proven systems and or civil aviation ones like the current iteration of Scorpion is might be one way to get to higher availability rates There would be a logistical footprint just not an onerous one, shoot for a jet reliable enough that could deploy with 5 to 8 MX per tail Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Lots of maneuvering room there... From the article: Funding projections in the five-year outlook are subject to change as requirements evolve... LAA [light attack aircraft] squadrons will provide a deployable and sustainable multirole attack capability, capable of performing a diverse array of attack missions, including but not limited to close air support, armed reconnaissance, strike coordination and reconnaissance, airborne forward air control, and interdiction,” according to budget documents. The new aircraft could also fly combat search-and-rescue, rescue escort, and maritime air support missions, the Air Force said. LAA will provide a deployable, persistent attack capability that can be employed with low footprint and light logistical support requirements. My grumbling two cents... I'm getting the feeling we are looking at Light Attack for the last wars not the ones likely in the future. As we go into the next generation of long term warfare in failed states/ungoverned areas (hybrid warfare, grey zone conflicts, COIN/LIC, etc...) a manned light attack platform is part of the air mission but one more robust/capable than we currently envision. Next Generation Light Attack (to me) is precision fires delivered with additional effects (ISR, EA, etc..) organically, capable of moderate mission endurance with little or no logistical mission support (DCA, AR or large ground footprint). Consider a hypothetical mission in a hypothetical failed state called Venezuelastan, where the country's not in civil war but not in stability, military elements of it have split and some are receiving support from outside actors, governments and some direct military support in deployments of foreign military forces. We support one side(s) and there is sporadic fighting where we provide kinetic/non-kinetic support to our local partners and likewise for the other side(s) with their allies. The foreign military forces are not targeting each other openly but could attack each other in about 6.9 seconds if things change. To provide that support with a manned platform and provide the level of effects we want to while keeping the risk at an acceptable level and keeping the costs sustainable, we won't need a platform that can't deliver enough effects and is incapable of defending itself thus incurring an unacceptable cost to enable it and defend it; all the current offerings of turboprop based light attack suffer from that. We will need a platform that is not a liability in itself while on mission, one that doesn't normally need DCA or AR support and is cost-effective enough to fly repetitively in long, slow progressing operations. That said just to be clear is not to discount a light attack platform for a SOCOM type mission (individual or coordinated one time strikes supporting SOF) but for a conventional type mission (major campaign or operation using combined or coalition forces over extended time), this is where a Next Gen Light Attack is needed IMHO. Not to padlock on specific aircraft but something like a modernized/modified A-7, modified Gripen or enhanced Scorpion is what I would envision filling this role. Good Strike Capability, Tactical ISR, Self-Defense Capable, Excellent Range/Endurance with other modern effects capabilities. All that at a modest and sustainable price/footprint. If we are willing to pay $40 million a tail for light attack platform, I think we can/should get more capability.