Clark Griswold

With Boeing it's not so much a tin foil hat you need, really more of a helmet... https://www.investors.com/news/t-x-trainer-jet-contract-boeing-lockheed-t-50a/ They undercut LM/KAI and Leonardo by over 10 billion so there had to be something else in store for the T-X "franchise" (using their term from the referenced article) - Big B was going to be made whole on the other side of the contract by suddenly finding it was a great fit for Light Attack, Aggressor, Nat Guard fighter, etc... not even Boeing with the huge resources it has on hand could deliver the 350+ T-X jets at that much of a discount compared to the others... The contract is for up to 475 aircraft and mods to the potential extra 125 to light fighter, aggressor or air demo team (maybe) would again give B more business to be made whole again for a ridiculously low bid for the trainers I don't have a problem with spreading the contracts around to keep the whole industrial base healthy, we should have at least 3 major aerospace companies viable in all areas of defense air/space, but do it more honestly please.

LM is not having any of this without a fight it seems... https://www.defenseone.com/business/2019/03/lockheed-martin-waging-war-boeings-f-15ex/155598/?oref=d-river

2 - this mission has moved on from the original requirement from the conflict(s) circa early 2000s “Experimenting” is pointless with these two types Light attack development for the 20s and beyond should be to develop a manned/partially manned platform capable of delivering - A2G fires focused on PGMs and a DE system capable of lethal anti personnel / disabling unarmored vehicles effects - ISR with up to 2 organic sensors and/or the ability to carry an Agile Pod plus other mission pods. Provision for BLOS system if desired for an ISR primary mission and/or partially crewed. - Low on mission support requirements either for logistics or operations. AR capable but enough range / endurance it is likely not needed, 2000nm ferry range, 500nm combat radius with 1.5 on station @ 10k with no external tanks and an SCL of 6 PGMs and 2 defensive missiles. Either self-cueing thru multiple organic sensors or high connectivity to net(s) and cued thru by on mission partners - Self-defensive capable to low/moderate threat environments. Can defend and successfully egress from a pop up radar threat, if engaged by an air threat capable of defensive maneuver and a defensive missile shot. 5G turn, with SCL and 600+ knots dash speed - Reasonable signature reduction and mitigation. - Modest acquisition and low operating cost. $45 mil a tail with sensors and $4k an hour or less to fly. - 2 crew but can be configured for 1 on board crew with additional fuel and 1 virtual crew via datalink This is just my ranting but the AF used to be known for innovation, get back to our roots big blue Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Another day at the office... https://nypost.com/2019/03/13/nypd-cop-accidentally-recorded-oral-sex-with-her-boss-on-police-body-cam/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry, those two will cost as much each as the original 20, so no under execution problem

Likewise on decisions to defend the US and its Allies so I will still hold Buzz and other CSAFs to some account (and other Chiefs of other branches, DoD officials, etc...) for not building a portion of their respective forces to run marathons versus sprints. No hate for Buzz (or his predecessor Jumper) but legitimate critique IMHO, not saying that his push for more Raptors was wrong in the long-term but that his inability or inactivity in reacting to his boss' number one priority (the immediate fight) caused the rift that put a lot of bad blood between Congress/OSD and the AF, ultimately wounding the AF's long term priorities and not effectively meeting civilian leadership's priorities. Even if you think your boss has it wrong and you've made your case to the contrary but to no avail, you can either quit or come up with a way to execute his priorities in what you think is the best overall way possible. His priorities get met and you give him an acceptable way to let you meet what you think is the long term strategy for the AF, in this case it would be extended Raptor production, likely at the expense of something else but you take action. Buzz was right that we needed more Raptors but was wrong in that he didn't say "I hear you boss, we need to be ready for the future and win the fight today. We need more Raptors and meet the COIN/LIC air mission(s), here's how we do it boss..." We need at least 350+ Raptors, get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability. 60 CAPs, X above our steady state? Need you to get a supplemental appropriation and/or let me reprogram these resources and curtail X capability. Etc... Life is about choices boss, choose to print mo' money or divest stuff you don't need. As to Light Attack, I think it would have helped if robustly executed to meet the operational need to replace the 4/5 gen in permissive environments and strategic need to keep them training / conserved for the big fight(s). Robust means probably an acquisition of 200 tails and crewed at 3.0 to absorb aircrew, sustain rotations, spread operational experience, etc... It would also mean buying a platform legitimately capable of replacing a 4/5 gen in the wheel, i.e. a Scorpion rather than a relatively short range, short endurance, fixed architecture platform. What's done is done.

Yup - I have since moved on from that idea... The economic exchange between belligerents in war is perhaps the most dehumanizing metric but always relevant. The fact our leaders then and to some extent now keep trying to keep the future at arms length and will not wholly reconfigure the AF when there are multiple systemic problems bordering on failures is indicative we need an outsider, empowered to fundamentally reform to change, not holding breath.

What did you (fighter guys) expect after Buzz would not get with the program (grow, stabilize and mature the RPA enterprise, accquire Light Attack, etc...) and put a greater percentage of institutional focus/effort/comment/resources/etc... on the fight we were in then (still are) instead disproportionately focusing on the next big fight? Particularly after some of the public comments by Gates, his boss? He didn't have to shift the whole of the AF to the counter-insurgency fight at the time but he sure as hell could have shown he "got it" and had a better plan to answer his boss' priorities Not saying that he (Buzz) or any other CSAF should not have that in his cross check but we shift focus at times as required to shoot the pop-up 3m target and then return to the 25m target looming... No particular love for Norty nor strong dislike, could have done better IMHO but the "fighter general" community needed some feedback.

If they had just put a f*ckin' afterburner on the Scorpion would that have made them happy and then we could have bought it?

Sputnik (grain of salt) is reporting the Pakistani F-16 was shot down by a pair of MiG-21s https://sputniknews.com/asia/201902281072828764-india-pakistan-air-strike/ More articles: Indian Navy aircraft carrier sortied with AIS off... Surgical Strike in Pakistan a Botched Operation?

After this and the debacle of Joint Cargo Aircraft big blue is now big blue balls Yeah, I’m really into this it’s really cool ... several years later .... yeah don’t worry about it... but I may be interested later, I’ll let you know... Manned Light Attack / ISR has to be assigned to another branch if the Joint Team wants it as US military capability, after this latest iteration of pump-fake, give it to the USMC as they are doctrinally OTE’d for small wars now would it need to be small deck capable? maybe but that’s another matter... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Has AFSOC released anything (openly) on requirements for next gen manned ISR? Only found one article with mediocre Google-Fu: https://insidedefense.com/daily-news/afsoc-plans-next-generation-manned-aircraft-replace-u-28

No. "The Wall" is a device to perform prevention, dissuading, delaying and directing to harsh terrain device to make interception of the determined illegal crossers highly likely, resulting in a far higher level of security that our current rusty screen door with a broken latch physical barriers are. You have to have an imposing physical barrier to prevent crossing then quickly melding/disappearing into adjoining urban areas or difficult to scan/detect and physically intercept rural areas. It is the first step in interception if the illegal crosser is not dissuaded, direct your opponent to where/how you want to fight then finish the engagement. No doubt it will not prevent all illegal crossings but countries still put up SAMs as they know they dissuade and destroy some X percentage of air aggressors. The problem with the detection then interception strategy is the American Legal system coupled with the Globalist Legal / Political / Media Complex. The warping and perversion of the law is incredible, leftists say they want the "smart wall" because they know even if they are detected and caught, that detection and apprehension did two things: used up CBP resources that will likely allow leakers just behind them to get in as CBP will be come saturated and then those apprehended will consume legal resources to prevent removal and again just wear the system down.

Returning that serve... https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/south-bay-news/150-migrants-attempt-to-climb-border-fence-throw-rocks-at-border-patrol-agents Mass gatherings of Fighting Age Males harassing, attacking and attempting mass illegal crossings is nothing to be worried about /s. So let me ask you, if Iran, Russia, China, Cuba, etc... sponsored say 1,000,000+ males on trips to Mexico and then direct them to cross into the USA wherever they could without interacting with a civil authority of the USA you would be ok with that? They have a "human right" to cross any international border when they want, where they want and for whatever reason they want? After seeing the political effects on Europe of the migration crisis of 15/16, I'm surprised our enemies are not exploiting the ignorant and open secret subversion of the left, naive extreme libertarians, the pampered and childish "woke" cohort of America and just flood our insecure borders to destabilize our country even further.

Yeah - the whole sorted history of the JSF/CALF is something to behold. Giving up on the B model as it is now, STOVL, and modifying it would be my choice but as there are foreign buyers and a metric shit ton of politics at all levels this is likely not viable without some proof converting the B models to something else was viable. Take a few of the early B models facing early fatigue life issues and begin the engineering experiment, as they likely will not see full service life the risk and life-cycle loss is relatively low. New fuel tank, structural upgrades and improvements to the weapons bays that the B model had due to the lift fan. Getting rid of all this probably would open up a lot of possibilities for the B:

Agreed - pretending they are really going to be fighting all alone for two weeks is just ridiculous. As for a CAS focused asset to suggest for a revamp of USMC tactical aviation, an attack focused version of the yet to be built Sea Gripen would be my suggestion. Relatively low cost to acquire and operate, still in development so an attack focused variant is probably technically / financial feasible vice expensively modifying an in-production design. About $40 mil a tail and $4k per hour, relatively cheap in the military jet world. Larger canards & loiter flaps , BLC for slower approach to a small deck carrier, more gas, more efficient engine, integrated EO/IR sensor, etc... launch off the boat and recover to it, launch off the boat then land at a captured austere airfield/road as the MEU moves inland from the beach with its STOL capability. Basically a modernized A-7 with some signature reduction and defensive A-A capability.

Yup Why the hell didn’t they realize the obvious after 20+ years of Harrier ops and ask for small conventional carriers and get a 35C capable of operating from a new smaller carrier (non-nuke) with amphib support capability? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SLEP and strengthen the airframe. Forget STOVL, remove the fan, put in another fuel tank. CTOL only ops. Or turn the timed out B models into the worlds first LO FSAT QF-35s for TTP development against LO opponents.

Just another example of why you want more security (physical and manpower) at the border(s): https://www.breitbart.com/border/2019/01/29/previously-deported-rapist-child-molester-apprehended-near-texas-border/ Life is utterly remorseless; defend & protect what is yours or see it taken & destroyed by others.

Maybe but there are airfields everywhere and the need for expeditionary capability is debatable (possible though) for Scorpion or AT-X if the USAF follows thru with acquiring a jet based LA 2020 or beyond (not holding breath). I made a point earlier in this thread there can be an Our Light Attack and Their Light Attack, just like we had our multirole fighter (F-4) and their multi role fighter we sold to our allies (F-5) in the 60's/70s. One much cheaper to buy/operate/maintain. Methinks we should follow that previously successful model for LA. No doubt there are SOCOM missions in wonderful places around the world where an austere, unprepared field operational capability is needed in a light strike/observation platform but that is really a different mission than the "traditional" light strike/observation that Scorpion or like platform would be supporting. The Syrian model is what the pols of the 2020s and beyond are likely to support vice the Iraq/Afghanistan model. Air power, Artillery, ISR, Intel, some SOF boots and Advisory support while our local partners do the majority of ground fighting. Large scale occupations in failed states with high costs in blood and treasure are not likely to be attempted for 20+ years IMO after hard slogs with mixed results in Iraq & Afghanistan. Some US Land Power, Lots of US Air Power is the only thing we are likely to do in the future. That Air Power will need to be able to launch from outside the AOR or at the safer extremes of it and then fly to its mission farther than the small turboprops offered can realistically support. Acquiring systems that can legitimately replace 4th / 5th gen in Precision Strike / Observation (tactical ISR) will be needed to support effectively/efficiently the type of missions that we (the US) will be willing to do, Scorpion could do that, the turboprops under consideration really cannot. Again, buy something capable right now, capable of easy growth/modification and doesn't have a lot of LIMFACs to be solved after acquisition.

Non-Binary Air Warrior

Yup, future warfighters will need a CAS/ISR asset in the stack that has to yo-yo every 30 min.

First, enjoy your vacation. As to the wall, not all locked doors stop burglars but they stop enough of them they are worth the cost. The walls/fencing/barriers/etc... in strategic locations will not stop all illegal crossings but they will stop much of it, dissuade some of it and force others to attempt crossing where they will be unable to cross, unwilling to cross or be more likely to be intercepted and stopped by BP. Walls/Fences/Vehicle Barriers/Sensors/Patrol Roads/Lighting in adjoining urban areas and where LOCs cross international borders, everywhere else is covered as required with vehicle and foot patrols, outposts and aerial surveillance. Pay for it with some reductions in overseas forward based forces in Korea, Japan and Europe to fund a permanent US military mission to the SW and Northern borders to assist CBP and CG. America first. On the wall and your comment that I have a naive belief it will stop all illegal activity I will be more specific about my belief as to the specific benefit of the wall to sovereignty and security, it is there to mainly stop illegal crossing (vehicular and pedestrian) more than illegal immigration/illegal presence in the USA. I am well aware that most illegal aliens in the USA are visa overstay violators versus illegal aliens who physically crossed the border. The wall is part of the solution to assert sovereignty, enhance security and fight crime from illegal aliens, TNCOs, etc... other solutions are needed also (E-Verify, immediate return of illegal crossers, workplace immigration enforcement, etc...). Will dispute your assertion that the vast majority of Americans are not in favor of "the wall". Most polls reported in the media are push polls that ask skewered questions to illicit the desired response by the poller (Do you favor a system of barriers and sensors to prevent criminals from crossing the border? versus Do you favor a cruel wall that prevents refugees and children from being saved as they run from zombies?). "The Wall" (seems like trying to evoke a Pink Floyd like depiction of something evil) is not any different than what other moral and responsible nations do elsewhere in the world to protect their citizens, the first duty of any government. Why did the GOP not fund the wall? The Chamber of Commerce wing of the Republican Party listens to its agribusiness, construction, hospitality, etc... donors who want two things: cheap, non-unionizing, quiet, compliant due to their legal status labor and the pressure of continuing illegal immigration to keep wages and conditions for non-skilled labor cheap and under their control. The various wings of the Democratic Party (ethno-chauvanists, administrative social services, etc...) want members, voters and clients for the services they provide via government social service agencies. The unholy marriage of labor exploiting big businesses and left wing social activists reminds me of the end of Animal Farm, pigs and farmers together at the table and there was no difference. As I have said before, I think you argue in good faith but honestly how much longer do you think this will continue? The Constitution is not a suicide pact, as one side colludes with foreigners to subvert the law and sovereignty of the nation for their own political advantage the other side will eventually realize they are not working with a partner in a real democracy ruled by law.

Legitimate point, if so then Scorpion is still above the competition as its sensor balls can be retracted (sts just to cover my bases) along with a high wing and relatively high jet engine intakes, add the gravel/mud guards on the wheels along with intake doors/louvres and/or vortex dissipators and you probably could operate off dry, compact dirt without major issue. I doubt adding those systems/features would be that difficult. Going beyond that level would be unnecessary IMHO. Damn genius Gump. 450 NM from Sig to Benghazi, 280 NM Erbil to Raqqah, 520 NM PR to Caracas... None of the turboprops offered have that range, right now with no AR capability Scorpion could effectively still operate over those areas from bases 250+ NM away. Buy a LAAR, don't go super cheap and have a platform you don't have to figure out work arounds to make it useful.

My two cents, unimproved field capability is/would be nice but not necessary for a LAAR purchased in quantity for the USAF, SOCOM may have a need for it but for the USAF having a manned platform that can effectively provide light precision strike/ISR without much support required (logistically or operationally) it would not be a must have. I doubt it would be that hard of a capability to have built or retrofitted to a jet, MiG-29 has had it for years with main intake doors and upper louvres for ground and takeoff/land operations without incident to my knowledge. But there are other ways to prevent jets from FODing out that are tried and true: high engine mounting, gravel kits on the 737s (gravel deflectors on wheels, vortex dissipators on engine intakes) also have been used for years by Alaskan operators and some in Africa.