Clark Griswold

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.

Well it’s a good thing Boeing is not associated with shady insider acquisition shenanigans then. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why would you buy an LA platform with likely low persistence? Even with a mod like CFTs you just end up with a small 4th gen still requiring a lot of AR support for vul times. More survivable in that it could run away faster but compared to a clean sheet purpose built LA design it brings fewer capes with higher costs (dollars and req operational support) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I know but one can hope / post on BO forums Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Buy land if not owned by the Federal Gov. Cost is important but it is affordable. It is not theft if the land is needed for the national security of the USA and appropriated with just compensation. Curious as you have no comment to the subject of the majority of my post, the wall is necessary for its own purpose to stop illegal activity and also necessary for millions of deplorables to see that their government responds to their wants, needs and concerns particularly after a very unexpected political victory/shock to the system. Condescending to them or just blowing them off is a recipe for disaster.

Valid. I envisioned partners like India, Columbia, Brazil, etc... with that comment. Capable of affording higher-end systems but still needing something affordable to buy/operate to go out and mow the grass.

Really? No sarcasm intended. Depending on the particular effects needed by a HN I think either of those platforms could support a FID mission set. Particularly the Scorpion (another shameless plug) with its endurance, sensor flexibility, open architecture and as it is derived from mostly commercially available systems it seems a low risk solution to offer to allies for either potential compromise of technology or giving them too much capability if we are unsure they will not apply kinetics proportional to the threat/provocation/attack. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Acquire by 2020? Scorpion or F/A-259 then Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Understood and legitimate point(s). I will partially defend the hardliner position on Dreamers and other Illegal Aliens as to amnesty and eventual citizenship but I could support short to medium term visas in exchange for increments of funding for construction and maintenance of an enhanced border security system / policy. Three year visas for X billions in security construction, patrol and maintenance along with immediate return policies for those caught crossing. There are deals to be had, both sides have enough to give to make the other less angry and receive enough to satiate their constituents.

Source? There are many out there so I will counter with another that is closer to reality IMHO: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/trumps-border-wall-how-much-it-will-actually-cost-according-to-a-statistician BLUF this guy estimates 25 billion in construction, I'm sure MX and patrol costs would come up to a billion or two a year. Worth it IMO again as it asserts sovereignty, security and could be instrumental in lowering the temperature in the cultural war in America. Nationalist (like me) have many grievances against the status quo and the willful maleficence of the unholy alliance of globalists, leftists, ethno chauvinists, and the like. There are one set of laws, codes and policies for some people and apparently another for other groups, even ones who are not citizens of this country when they illegally enter or overstay their legally sanctioned visit. The rage is not against people of certain skin tones, ethnicities or non-maleficient reasons for entering, it is the hypocrisy of those who excuse the violation of our laws and sovereignty, careless disregard for our cultural tradition of rule of law and ambivalence to the deleterious effects unchecked illegal immigration has to our most vulnerable citizens. By tolerating that which is wrong, you ironically destroy what is worth saving: a country whose culture is for the greater part is ruled by laws not by men or the whims of the mob, where the government attempts fair and equal treatment under the law and where the interests of its citizens come first but with consideration and reasonable generosity to foreigners whom we interact with. There is nothing inherently magical or different about the land north of the Rio Grande except the culture, customs and principles to which it attempts to live by. By disregarding them to do what feels good in the short term, you destroy the truly best part of it in the long term. You and I have argued this issue before and I think you come to the debate in good faith, I see this not as just another phase in our history that will be looked back on nostalgically as the immigration surge of the early 20th century is but as that which leads to a decline and potentially painful end to our Union over time if not resolved in someway at least minimally acceptable to opposing sides. Why would you want to remain in union under a federal government led by a hypocritical caste of decadent, greedy, corrupt elites that pervert a legal and economic system while lecturing you about your moral failings to not accept your displacement in the nation of YOUR birth? I do not want to see violence, instability or even worse but civil wars are the result of accumulating grievances, let's stop this one from getting worse while being merciful and reasonable. Secure the border, enforce immigration laws and return to the melting pot of assimilation. Understand the plight of others and walk a mile in their shoes as we implement laws and policy. Both can be done but I feel that those who tolerate, excuse, minimize and thru willful ignorance are the aggressors, you go first and Nationalists will see that as a legitimate cease fire in the culture war, peace can be negotiated then. Otherwise we are on the road to somewhere we don't want to go. Probably but not all of it needs a wall. Walls, sensors, vehicle barriers, patrol roads and air support as part of a comprehensive system. Walls are only necessary in highest traffic, highest population density areas with LOCs or adjoining urban areas. Physical barriers in conjunction with other technology in adjoining urban areas (vehicle barriers, sensors, lighting, drones, etc...) patroled and enforced by CBP. Rural areas would become military enforced sovereignty and law enforcement areas, National Guard permanently posted to patrol and secure. Legal, historically normal and necessary in today's world. Deterrence would be the first objective, arrest and detention next but if force is required, then it would be applied appropriately. Barriers deter and funnel determined illegal crossers into rural areas either preventing their entry or hampering their efforts. If I were designing this system, every effort would be made and directed to assist those in distress in harsh terrain when located also. I don't want them to die or suffer but I don't won't them to illegally cross either, assert your sovereignty but try your best to be merciful and humane while doing it. Interior enforcement and securing the northern border is just as important but first the SWB.

5.7 billion for a wall that directly protects the security and sovereignty of ‘Merica vs 15 billion for what exactly in continuing the Syrian mission? 45 billion per year for Afghanistan? X billions per year deterring aggression for Germany with the 4th largest economy in the world? Spending a modest amount to keep out illegal aliens (some from hostile nations and/or members of TNCOs) is well worth it Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Light a candle or curse the darkness We should look at what has worked before if we are unable to make what we have now work Sell the bonds, reopen the gubmint Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That could be true... From CNN: Sell Wall Bonds Who would set the coupon/maturity for this bond?

First one accepted: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/25896/usaf-finally-accepts-its-first-kc-46a-tanker-but-the-design-still-needs-years-worth-of-fixes

To be honest, not to my knowledge. The military value/effect of first wave heavy strike would likely matter more than the political/psychological effect. I hear your point but I don't think he built his entire argument on that foundation, maybe half the house but not all of it. I agree with him that a change in force structure and organizational core function focus, etc. is needed but can't follow him on his dismissive view of "short range fighters". A reasonable change not a radical one would be prudent, exactly what that is is the 69 billion dollar question. Yeah, I would agree with that idea, that Deep Strike is independent for the most part of support for the entirety or at least majority of its mission and that it is done before Air Superiority/Threat Suppression is complete. As to lingering in a non-permissive, agree again with you that it is not part of the classic conception of deep strike but methinks it will become part of deep strike & aerial interdiction as some/more strategic/theater (AI or DAS type targets) will be mobile, have decoys and be harder to detect in the peer/near peer fights in the future. Lingering will be required sometimes to find-fix-finish a mobile/evading target, be cued from another platform/sensor or re-attack immediately. Not saying this will be a preferred tactic just that I think it will be required as the targets/threats will present themselves for short windows of opportunity.

Yeah, I'm sure he comes to the table with biases as we all do but I would not completely discount his point. Bio and background info I found on Hendrix to give more context to his article and point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_J._Hendrix https://www.cnas.org/people/dr-jerry-hendrix Classic argument of airpower, destroy his fieled forces vs. his centers of gravity. Tactical vs. Strategic. I would argue it is possible to do both simultaneously with the right mix of sensors/networks/platforms/weapons now. Deep Strike vs Air Superiority is false choice but his point has more merit than we in the current incarnation of the AF might want to admit. Our enemies have built themselves to defeat us as we are now, a change of course may be necessary in force structure. Makes the enemy spread himself too thin: By attacking or presenting the capability to attack both levels of targets simultaneously we will force the enemy to spread his AF/IADS/A2AD resources allowing for greater possibilities of exploiting a gap or weak point in his forward or rear defenses. A significant Deep Strike capability allows for this ability to "prep the battlefield" by forcing the enemy to posture himself in a way we prefer before we go offensive. We may have to: A peer adversary would never let us fight how we have been fighting over the past 30 years in conventional conflicts with steady build up of nearby MOBs to be followed by a massive air campaign ala Desert Storm, Allied Force, etc... with strike assets supplied and enabled close to the target areas...long range, deep strike with as little strategic or tactical telegraphing as possible maybe the only possibility in conventional peer force on force conflicts in the future with the expanding capabilities of the latest A2AD systems and the inherent deterrent effect of holding all of the enemies targets at risk, not just his forward deployed forces. More done per sortie, capabilities per sortie not possible except in a bigger platform: Another potential advantages of Deep Strike assets vs. Tactical Strike assets and thus an argument to increase their share as portion of the force is their range/persistence/payload inherent in a larger platform. A platform able to linger while searching or waiting to be cued from the network or a partner's sensor, deliver more PGMs over one mission and not require as many (or possibly any) support events (AR, EW support) factor towards the Deep Strike, IMHO. Hard first hit stops an aggressor before the fight gets out of hand: Deep Strike capable assets whether used Strategically or Tactically could deliver an unexpected bloody nose that might stop a fight before it starts also. If in one night, X-hundreds of targets are struck and even if the enemy could still fight, his leadership might give pause... That was just a list of what I think supports part of Hendrix's argument (that Deep Strike is more important than the AF has valued it of late) but I'm not 100% on board with his idea that that should be the focus of the AF either. But in practical terms, buy more B-21s, retire the B-52 & B-1to afford it and consider a survivable, reduced signature stand off arsenal platform to round out Deep Strike capabilities.

Related to the topic of this thread (organizational cultural decline & rot) but worth a read: https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/01/28/how-the-air-force-lost-its-way/

2 What’s so less dangerous about a single engine fighter flying around with thousands of lbs of JP-8, munitions AND hydrazine (a super toxic/energetic fuel) Not worried about leaking JP-8 getting lit off Air Force One movie style by a missile shot after it dropped off a rack at FL450 / 500 true Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought I could keep my doctor too but turns out not everything they say is true - as long as he sticks to the core principles of that argument from his campaign - actually trying to secure the border, enforce our immigration laws, not allowing our country to taken advantage of from specious asylum claims and removing illegal aliens with a priority on violent ones I can live with footing that bill Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For what? Why is the only perceived possible future for us one where the bullshit status quo continues, that we can’t address our problems? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup but it's not done anymore. The country is no longer to able to generate the levels of consensus necessary for the Federal government to function as it is currently structured. If we didn't try to do everything at the national level it would not be as big of a problem. Now the Federal budget is not the end all be all of the status of our national civic health, but it is a good bellwether. As to the Dreamers, the memories of President Regan's amnesty in 86 and the unkept promise of border security / immigration enforcement are not forgotten. They have to go first IMO (Dems, leftists, etc...) if they want any sort of permanent legal status for DACA recipients; give us at least 2 years of wall construction, heavy surge in deportations (focused on dangerous illegal aliens first), prosecution of employers who use illegal alien labor and English as an the official language of the USA and the Nationalists/Conservatives will reciprocate in kind... if it were me as leader of the Nationalists/Conservatives following that downpayment by the other side I would offer legal status first for the DACA recipients and then a medium term visa to green card status for the 20 million illegal aliens in the USA now, all of 'em, no path to citizenship at first but at a later state following other give and take transactions. The next big step would be IMO would be a program to allow a path to citizenship for the illegal immigrant population in the USA over a 20 year period but the concession would be a 20 year pause to legal immigration, end to birthright citizenship and an end to chain migration. Legal immigration is about 1 million a year so over 20 years, legalization of the existing illegal immigration would be about a wash over the 20 year period. This would allow enough time to release the pressure slowly not explosively. Harmony can be had thru give and take but both sides have to be willing to give big to get big. If not, this article by Jessie Kelly on the end of the USA becomes more and more possible: https://thefederalist.com/2018/04/10/time-united-states-divorce-things-get-dangerous/

Depends on the practical interpretation of legalization... if you mean pathway to citizenship, no thanks; if you mean a pathway to a green card, maybe... There is a yuuuuge moral hazard to anything even remotely close to amnesty for illegal aliens being granted citizenship, if said illegal aliens have a sympathetic / no fault reason for being here when they were minors but just because your dad stole a car and gave it to you and you've been driving it thinking it is your own doesn't mean you really own it. The deal that needs to be made between Globalists/Nationalists, Liberals/Conservatives, etc. on the intertwined issues of border security, immigration enforcement, labor market saturation, social services eligibility, employer culpability, political & economic collusion, etc... is one where for every concession to one side is one where the other side gets a concession to a second order effect of the problem/phenomena being acted on... For example(s): Dreamers/DACA - Ok, Leftists get legal status (green cards) for the Dreamers but then Nationalists get strong Voter ID/Voter Integrity laws/systems as the underlying and not unjustified fear is that Leftists are trying to rapidly changing the voting electorate to ensure permanent national dominance by skewering key states in the SW USA overnight with millions of new citizens who can sponsor family based migration to again continue to skewer the electorate rapidly. Mercy & Opportunity given to a vulnerable group, Vigilance & Integrity over the political process to the citizens. Border Security/Wall - Nationalists want a wall/border security to prevent illegal and/or ill-intended crossings and to emphasize sovereignty/security but Liberals/Libertarians want an open/permissive border for humanitarian and economic reasons. Ok, give the Nationalists/Conservatives the border/port/visa security enforcement they want but then give the liberals/libertarians/businesses/politically inclined US states the to ability to sponsor X number of aliens on visas by application and assumption of financial responsibility. What is so damn infuriating to Nationalists/Conservatives is that entities like agri-business, some hi-tech industries, hospitality industries want the cheap labor of large unskilled alien populations with questionable legal status preventing unionization and agitation for better compensation but not the responsibility for inherent costs that that population will bring with them (strain on social services, criminality, disruption of labor markets, etc...). If business want unlimited H1-B visas, sure... they cost 20% per year of the alien's salary in fees to directly fund social programs for American Citizens to address the effect they have on American workers. If your worker overstays his/her visa then no worries, to get them here you posted a 20k bond to cover apprehension and removal for illegal overstay, we'll just give that to whatever local LE agency picks them up and delivers them to ICE. You (individual or US state) sponsor an alien for humanitarian reasons, sure and you fund their needs until they are self-sufficient and if they can provide for themselves, that alien can apply for a green card or citizenship. Security & Sovereignty given to a wary population, Opportunity & Responsibility given and assigned to those so inclined. Other examples are there but this method of honest compromise would be IMO necessary to begin lower the temperature, honestly admit problems/causes/solutions/costs to vexing modern problems and acknowledge (at least) tacitly that our union is not exactly strong but sustainable if we give each other space and some autonomy... blue and red states stop trying to infiltrate, warp and/or displace the economies, culture and populations of each other.

Yup. If money were free flowing, I would want an LO version of the EKA-3B Skywarrior with more capes (A-A and A-G missiles for cross-cue shots, self-defense, ELINT, etc..). As to fighter dudes flying it I guess you mean exclusively, I can see that point but there have to be golden apples to reach for, I'd want it open to all communities. If we want people who think tactically, operationally and when in higher positions take that attitude with them, we need more people to do missions directly performing kinetic ops or directly supporting kinetic ops (beyond traditional AR). As it's A-A role, it would be purely defensive or supporting as an arsenal platform, supporting the strikers and if called for delivering PGMs, just my two cents being a graduate of IFF would not need be a requirement. Just vaporware of a hypothetical medium weight Chinese LO bomber (H-18) but an approximation of what I think this platform would be:

Copy Not saying a middle man LO tanker with a small offload capacity is a great idea but I think it is likely the only financially feasible / lower technical risk option if the joint team decides it needs that kind of AR capability You could build an LO tanker or LO tanker / bomber / arsenal plane from a B-2 / B-21 with an extra 6.9 billion in development costs that would more closely resemble a conventional tanker in offload and station time but I don’t see the money for that but a smaller less ambitious design from something like an A-12 or F-117 stretched model, maybe... Still would be expensive for those LO “tactical “ tanker/bomber/arsenal platform and it would need to be multi-mission as the LO tanker role would diminish as the A2AD area shrinks as the threats are eliminated/suppressed and the conventional tankers can move closer to the FEBA Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk