Clark Griswold

Agree that if exclusion is a possibility it would be a gradual tactic and not applied immediately & unexpectedly; I hear your point on managing a relationship with a difficult, changing ally and that is a good point on ceding the ground to him (Erdogan) with his domestic political efforts that we (the USA) object to.

Maybe but if you don't stand up to Biff you'll do his homework for the rest of your life. An alliance with the Turkey he is making is not worth it, Turkey of today is not the Turkey of yesteryear. As Turkey is expelled from the institutions and looses access to Western markets/finance, it will decline economically and hopefully that would greatly lessen or change the course of Turkey back to secular stable republican democracy.

Are these aircraft still on the 2B software? Hearing about this (good idea) reminded me of another wrinkle I remembered in the F-35 saga from a couple of years ago: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/a28685/f-35s-unfit-for-combat/ The Pop Mech article said there were 108 A models with the 2B software that would need upgrade to 3F software and hardware, the article was updated (no date on the update) that said the AF was going to upgrade all jets to 3F but that sounds a lot like the check is in the mail. Is this a happy coincidence? Save money by not upgrading some and getting a unique aggressor training capability? On this same idea (high end LO aggressor force) - would it be overkill to take some of the Raptor fleet not combat coded or potentially not combat capable following the Tyndall / Hurricane Michael disaster and have a Raptor aggressor?

Potentially but we have to push back against the slow moving Islamo-fascism of Erdogan and the "Freedom & Justice Party" in Turkey slowing erasing Ataturk's Turkey - secular, mostly tolerant and a reasonable actor in the region, situation with Kurds considered separately. Demonstrating to Turkey by withdrawal of support and inclusion in the institutions of the international West (NATO, EU, etc...) is the only tactic IMHO that will change / dissuade non-democratic, rule of law, minority rights respecting, threatening behavior. I think we should press-to-test and see if Erdogan really wants to change the strategic alignment of Turkey to Russian & Iran, my two cents is that he would blink first.

Probably so then remove those assets and get tough with Erdogan

Valid concern, it would take an AF leader who recognizes it is platform divestment vice mission divestment or ambivalence that is required now and that the mission of a manned Light Attack / Observation platform is NOT the same as Persistent Tactical ISR / Strike. Don't see any GO singing that tune so not holding my breath. Not without historical precedent, after Vietnam, the US decides it will never get into LIC / COIN again and it decides to focus on major conventional operations / capabilities and let atrophy the systems and knowledge gained in the last painful, arduous LIC / COIN fight only to get it another one and the cycle repeats itself.

Probably - I don’t know if the AF is just doing Kabuki theater to keep Congress at bay and/or if they are worried about the USMC being interested in Light Attack and wanna keep some involvement in it in case it grows legs do they can control or influence it. That’s a bit conspiratorial honestly but... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

How about both? https://www.defensenews.com/2019/05/08/air-force-to-give-sierra-nevada-corp-a-sole-source-contract-for-light-attack-planes-but-textron-will-be-getting-an-award-too/ and https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2019/05/08/light-attack-aircraft-is-the-solution-to-the-us-air-forces-dwindling-fleet/?utm_source=clavis Second article is penned by a retired GO fighter dude associated with a think tank, maybe the Borg Collective is thinking about this? Get aggressive Big Blue... tell Congress you need to divest your oldest & brokest jets to pay for the new capes you want (or should want) to rapidly acquire.

Very cool. Gotta give some love to the Delta Dagger: and a good story of a Deuce v. Deuce, F-102 vs U-2, from back in the day: Such a different time, different Air Force...

No - Griffiss AFB, NY. Checked the youtube page again but no date given by the poster, but just a WAG it looks mid-80s to me and airshow seems right. 49th Fighter Interceptor Squadron (tail flash from the video) was at Griffiss and flew the Dart (one of the last two AD squadrons) till Sept of 87. Found another 106 video, fam ride with a 4 ship formation:

Another video of the Dart, beautiful jet: Website that is all things F-106: https://f-106deltadart.com

Could be the beginning of the end of Turkey in NATO but I think that is a small possibility... The thing pushing this to even get close to happening is Russia's need for a partner to help cover development costs and lower per tail acquisition. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-stealth-su-57-fighter-might-be-media-rockstar-it-has-big-problem-52602

Related to the 45th President, Code Pink may have reached peak woke: https://www.theblaze.com/news/codepink-venezuela-white-savior-embassy So woke they have to yell at POCs about how it is better for them to starve or be shot by an evil dictatorship because said dictatorship is socialist and hates the US...

Turkish Sukhois... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27812/right-on-cue-russia-says-its-ready-to-offer-turkey-su-57-fighters-in-place-of-f-35s

There's a lot of straight and level time in both but Airlift has more events / missions that are AP off and can be challenging (Low level, NVG, Assult strip, Airdrop, etc..). Tanker has some events that are require some of that pilot shit (Min Interval TOs, AP off AR, Formation, IP demos, etc...) but there is more time in the Flight Levels with the AP on. Blessed and lucky, got to fly both over my career, Tanker was my first assignment and I enjoyed it and later in the ANG got to do Airlift enjoyed it too, I'm back at a Tanker wing now and still enjoy it. Good trips in both and crappy trips in both and it is even with me as to which I would recommend. Saw more places you would want to go to in the tanker (Pacific, Europe, Canada) dragging fighters / bombers occasionally though. Both communities have their quirks, about equal on what I found good / annoying. Everything is what you make of it. Good luck.

More on the incident and a Google Earth shot of where it occurred: https://www.newsweek.com/mexican-soldiers-question-disarm-two-us-army-troops-apparent-confusion-about-1401939 Looks like rural / suburban area, where the river snakes and could be confusing, where oh I don't know a lighted 30' barrier would clearly mark the border and stop illegal crossing between both countries would be helpful....

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/