Clark Griswold

Valid point(s) but I wonder if the problem is not the concept of dual qual but the current execution / concept of it. We (the USAF) have always executed it as an afterthought or in response to a manning crisis / operational need instead of anticipating it or planning to make it part of our strategy to deliver a Core Function / Mission Set. Flight deck commonality, synchronized and reciprocative training, tactics coordination, etc... these and other factors could be planned in advance to execute dual qual way better than the concept now of marriage to a faithful wife and having a girlfriend on the side... one is suspicious and the other only wants more, there has to be a better way of doing this.

KSA may be a Scorpion buyer: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/saudi-arabia-considering-scorpion-deal-textron-chie-439516/

Probably so - just a guess but is this gun testing/demonstration for price conscious potential operators? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Scorpion testing a gun(s) on the jet https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/paris-scorpion-tests-20mm-cannon-ahead-of-oa-x-438703/ Article doesn't specify if they are incorporating it (20mm) into the airframe - anyone know if this is the case? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No argument in fact I thought the first wing was better for the mission Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Curious as to why you think that - do you think it should be low wing or with more sweep? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy that, just curious and thought it was very rare if ever.

Just curious if there has ever been an Army pilot (regular officer) do an exchange tour with the AF or Navy/USMC? Rotor or fix wing (accepting service awarding or honoring a fix wing qual)? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How I think the relevant players want things: NK regime - status quo plus protection money China - status quo SK - status quo with naive engagement USA - status quo and maybe some ransom paid for less belligerence (quietly) Unless the Young General miscalculates whatever provocation or shenanigans he is attempting to pull off the status quo will probably continue absent something coming in from left field Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Really close air support http://www.dukeroboticsys.com/ http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/israel-is-buying-drones-that-fly-with-machine-guns-1796680707

35 Helmet Cam footage https://fightersweep.com/8242/watch-actual-f-35-helmet-cam-video-footage/

Then I'm betting AL and WI Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed and as to a pre-emptive strike, we can't bomb away the knowledge already resident in the DPRK's scientists and technicians and unless we want to use tactical nukes there is no strike option that at the onset of hostilities that can destroy and / or degrade their WMD capabilities fast enough or with enough surety to prevent a major population center (Seoul) from being hit (chem or nuke). So does that mean we're (SK, USA and Japan) stuck with being occasionally attacked by this regime like the SK Navy ship the ROKS Cheonan or USS Pueblo and having to just take it? No, respond tactically and forcefully in a controlled manner to provocations but it is time to pull out of the same thinking and strategies that is just continuing the stalemate at the macro level. I am not sure this is possible or would work but I know if we are serious about putting some serious cracks in the foundation of NK, we need to do different things and this is pretty damn different: How To Stop North Korea: A Geoeconomic Approach Strategic patience as the former POTUS framed it is not working and if we keep saying that the NK regime having nukes and/or developing ICBMs is unacceptable then we need a new approach. If our recent past has taught us anything, if we do get involved or find ourselves involved, time is not actually on our side. Start trying like hell to crack the foundation.

Get one of these too... http://www.xtiaircraft.com/home/

Not sure - I have not heard any RUMINT AF article linked below says after their initial candidate bases were identified in the spring of 17 that they just need an Environmental Impact Study then they will announce - approaching the end of the FY I think they could announce but that is just a WAG http://www.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/1022605/air-force-releases-candidate-installations-for-next-f-35a-bases/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Antares concept airliner 100 PAX off a 3000' rwy with low noise https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/culture/commuting/antares-an-aircraft-concept-based-on-a-nasa-design/article16232559/ http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-06/future-flight-new-designs-will-end-congestion '

NASA QSRA landing on the Kitty Hawk in the 70's Impressive as the aircraft didn't need to catch a wire or use the catapult for some of the tests.

War on the Rocks has a good article on NK with an apt title: TIME TO LOSE YOUR ILLUSIONS ON NORTH KOREA Articles like these are almost obliged to close with recommendations: Live with it, improve BMD, do sneaky shit to bring down the regime, tighten sanctions.

Excellent article - succinctly and clearly described the intersection of admin process worship with the quiet corruption of clique Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's possible (space has out grown the Air Force) and possibly cyber but really it is the idea of doman-centric military branches that is outdated IMO. Everyone spills a little bit or some into someone else's domain and that organizing the military differently, by scale/type of military operations to be performed is the better approach. It has the risk of having branches that in reality are only focused on a set of missions and pay only lip service to others but some would argue we have that now, i.e. space/cyber/coin/etc... Not a military historian but the idea of domain organized militaries comes from the very beginning of history and carried on to today, with our technology and capabilities, why is it that we think this is still a good model? Specifically though on your point, I can see your point that we are restricting the natural growth in military capability and I can also see the SECAF & CSAF position (doesn't support and their reasoning - unnecessary bureaucratic separation while the at least saying they want to integrate space) - my preference would be The AF putting a ring on it and becoming the The United States Air and Space Force or really totally reorganizing the DoD into 4 branches: Conventional - Strategic - Special - Hybrid. Not by domains but missions (size/style/culture/synergy). That would be the Mt. Everest of bureaucratic reorgs so I give it 0.69% so "fixing" the AF seems the most realistic COA.

Valid point Operationally disable is the first objective, destruction is secondary. Continuing the sidebar topic, 20 lb brains are thinking about it... http://www.dtic.mil/get-tr-doc/pdf?AD=ADA570475 Just thinking about this a bit, what's the defense? Besides stealth, stand off range, defensive maneuvering,,, Reflective coatings, mirrored quick deploying shields (for cockpit windows, probably preemptive), fully enclosed visor systems (no natural light, only video projection) and / or quick retract sensor pods / turrets? Just initial ideas. More on concept aircraft with lasers... Apache with a tactical laser.. http://www.interestingtechnology.net/us-air-force-attaches-high-energy-laser-to-ah-64-apache-attack-helicopter/

Likely.

Now the Navy wants the Space Corps... http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/against-air-force-space-corps-space-belongs-the-navy-21350

Yup - current efforts are on drones and inbound rounds but it's inevitable for DE to target manned... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Beam http://www.popsci.com/israels-rafael-shows-off-anti-drone-laser-in-korea But for aircraft, the gunship is the logical first step... Concept laser armed gunships: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-05/us-air-force-unveils-combat-laser-guns-ac-130-gunships https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2015/08/us-air-force-combat-lasers-for-both.html https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/11/boeing_atl_advanced_tactical_laser_fitted/

I think you would (still need AAMs) - I'm not an expert on lasers but for air to air I think the use DE weapons will be further down the road than the use against ground targets- for use against a fast moving and maneuvering airborne target will require a shit load of energy imparted to the target for the short period of time before the target defensively maneuvers - just my guess but I suspect the first gen of aircraft mounted lasers (in fighter/attack) will probably need a longer period of time illuminating their targets to be effective than an enemy air vehicle will allow - now large aircraft with large lasers like the ABL in a 747 are a different animal Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk