Clark Griswold

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.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31002/usaf-may-launch-new-light-attack-aircraft-tests-to-explore-a-requirement-it-already-has

Not sure about that, given the technology of the time I think that most after action reporting was crew reports and maybe radar tracks from ground / airborne stations. I'm not an expert but I think the Mass Memory devices (bricks) were introduced with the teen fighters in the late 70's that could provide electronic mission data for debrief/analysis. More Valkyrie UAV/Loyal Wingman news: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30988/air-force-wants-its-xq-58a-valkyrie-drone-to-help-f-22s-and-f-35s-talk-to-each-other

Not applicable for flight time logging, no mil sim is I believe Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From WOR on training/readiness for Hornets: https://warontherocks.com/2019/11/improve-super-hornet-training-and-readiness-with-more-missiles-and-fewer-missions/ Good arguments for changing training tables, allowing for more/often missile shoots.

Agree with @Danny Noonin Just a guess but sustainment and operational cost(s) depending on which numbers you believe. They (Europeans) have been putting a lot of effort into getting the cost of flying a Typhoon down and using the savings to pay for improvements with a program they started in 2016, three years in and they ordered more Typhoons so from the perspective of sunk costs (no intended derision to the Typhoon) they would be not exactly giving up on a lot of what they've already spent but acquiring something not compatible (logistics wise) with a system they already own and organically support. There could be other caveats for inclusion into the club at whatever level for Germany if it chose to buy into the F-35 program/aircraft could incur that might that give it legitimate pause. Just a guess but as a late to the party guest, I think Germany would not find a lot of opportunity for industrial offsets like depot level work but with Turkey gone from the program, maybe they could pick up those contracts? Or they could be putting all their eggs into the Airbus LO fighter effort, FCAS.

Yeah, this would require quite the investment but if the Germans are serious about upgrading their mil capabilities, maybe... Saw that and reminded me of this: https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/10/04/boeings-f-18-may-have-a-leg-up-in-germany-over-eurofighter/ Offer Growlers in a combined buy for Tornado replacements and to fulfill this requirement, just my two cents.

Airbus LO UCAS: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/30845/airbuss-secret-stealth-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-research-program-breaks-cover and not exactly air to air but on getting new configurations/missions, proposed Typhoon ECR/SEAD variant: https://www.janes.com/article/92377/airbus-proposes-ecr-sead-eurofighter-emphasises-german-requirement

Light Attack getting support: https://www.militarytimes.com/opinion/commentary/2019/10/29/the-case-for-light-attack-aircraft/ Another article on the Brazilian Mosquito: https://www.janes.com/article/87662/laad-2019-akaer-presents-conceptual-mosquito-multi-role-aircraft

Something is better than nothing

I'm not saying I think we should do those things unless we are honest with the public as to what these 40+ year missions will take and if we decide that this is something that we should do.

Not advocating for this but if I were at the Puzzle Palace / Congressional Liaison and asked to make a slide(s) on how to do this (a national policy / mission to intervene in multiple long term humanitarian security/stabilization missions simultaneously): 1. Reinstate the draft but not implemented thru random selection and not necessarily skewed to only very young adults (18-21). If this is to be an enduring national mission then it is an enduring national responsibility for all socio-economic, cultural, racial, regional groups. Would recommend 1/5 of main ground combat forces be conscript members to balance mission objectives with human cost calculations by political & military leaders. 2. Establish military objectives and strategies that will be honored/adhered to over any changes in administration. No legal mechanism to do this so it would have to be informal and understood by all relevant parties. 3.. Levy dedicated taxes as required to pay for these operations. Funding vehicle authorized over multiple FYs to lessen administrative/political risk to sustained operations with likely political/administration changes. 4. Expand the size of the US military to accommodate high operational utilization. 30-50% expansion sounds about right/expensive. 4a. Reorganize the US military to execute these protracted / permanent missions. Delete / Curtail some conventional military capabilities to allow for further expansion of COIN-LIC-Stabilization forces (infantry, light armor, ISR, etc...). 5. Reduce deterrence presence in militarily / economically capable allied nations. Europe except for Poland, Batic countries and GB would have no significant US forces, only logistical ports/airfields. SK & Japan would also have a reduction in garrisoned forces. 6. Expand agencies for rebuilding, establishing civil societies & economies. Local populations engaged in productive labor with subsidized industries likely. 7. Temper expectations, tolerate some cultural practices that would be unacceptable in our country. 8. Begin education, cultural exchange and information programs to promote values that would increase the probability of an end state after several generations that is acceptable. 9. Massive expansion of refugee resettlement. Some situations would be impossible to stabilize, large scale resettlement would be required in some cases into the US homeland. Laundry list of things, some military some not but what I would say is required and again to my earlier posts, for leaders to be honest about what is it that we are trying to do in this conflicts, what it will likely cost and how long it will take. I am not advocating for this necessarily but IMHO what would be required if the US decided that as country it was a national priority to intervene when it deemed necessary into conflicts for primarily humanitarian and not national interests. I did not even list attempting to cajole allies into this endeavor, no other country in the modern world as it is would even think about doing this.

2 Not privy to any of the concept planning for Gen 1 loyal wingmen or UCAS but methinks the best first mission is an on-call semi stand off weapons cache for cueing a BVR AAM from its inventory via secure datalink vs having to fire your own weapons. High altitude, long endurance UAV on station (above 50k, on station 6+ hours) with 4 AIM-260s waiting to be cued from a fighter or AWACS, could also be adapted to provide an unmanned sentry DCA CAP for HVAAs. Mission expansion to follow as experience and technology is developed. Just my two uneducated cents but I doubt anyone is going to a merge when fighters are truly cut loose to achieve Air Dominance against a capable opponent and allowed to use all their tricks and toys. Shots will be taken well before anyone gets WVR.