Clark Griswold

Publicly propose sweeping changes to the AF and DoD, engage Congress and the media, if there is no traction on reform, resign en masse. If you truly want to change the system you must be willing to sacrifice, rationalizing that you will fix it from the inside is bullshit. If GOs, started punching out and saying that which is known but not acknowledged at the highest echelons, you could potentially build the consensus in Congress for necessary change. That's an if and it is a risk/sacrifice but that is the only way to get the pols and relevant media's attention to make a persuasive argument. Easy for me to say as an internet nobody but that's all I got.

I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a Viper today. Is this the first Viper to hit the private market?

Might but contractors don't do certain things so maybe not.

Really? Divest the U-28 & MC-12? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a pretty tough cost per flight hour to beat even on the top of that range. Found this on Bronco per flight hour cost but only quotes a $1,000 per hour with no other details or references, caveat emptor: https://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a19887/ov-10-war-isis/ Article is interesting on its own, origin story of the Bronc... Just a guess but if there were an OV-10 back in operational service (modernized or new), $1,500 would likely be a conservative and realistic cost per hour. Downrange, just guessing $3,000 per hour for all the expeditionary logistical costs. Coulda, Woulda, Shoulda... Buy 350 at FFP of $15 mil with sensors. Guard and Reserves get half. Fly, bomb, repeat.

Glad to hear it got a second chance and went to a good owner On another Bronco topic, I'm curious as to why it never found a second life a contract ISR/CAS/JTAC training platform, seems it would be cheaper than a jet (L-39 and the like) and reasonably supportable.

Oh yeah forgot about those Found another one that was for sale, sold for $130k: https://www.guns.com/news/2017/10/31/ny-school-selling-ov-10-bronco-some-assembly-required-photos https://www.govdeals.com/index.cfm?fa=Main.Item&itemid=193&acctid=7921 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is there an STC for the OV-10 for an MX-15 or other sensor/tgt pod? I’ve seen L-39s with an FMV ball and a turbo contract JTAC tng platform seems like an easy fit. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’ll raise you one A-7... https://www.controller.com/listings/aircraft/for-sale/33968927/1969-vought-a-7-corsair-ii Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup We only need to close a 900 billion dollar deficit then start to whittle away on 22+ trillion in debt Simplify the tax code (15% flat tax on 75k and above with no deductions, credits or exemptions. Treat Active and Passive income the same. Uncap the limit on payroll taxes to fund Social Security, Medicare. Estate tax on assets above 25 million at 25%. No overall spending increase till budget in surplus. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

F-35 / 22 concept:

Maybe but I have a naive hope that when the JSF was in a conceptual stage the real and likely increased risk of technological compromise due to the wide sale among various partners was openly addressed and mitigation was baked into the concept with the most sensitive information being limited to the US or UK only (Primary and Level 1 participants). Any info leak is a compromise but perhaps not a ship sinking hole in the boat. On other F-35 news: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-stealth-f-35a-just-surpassed-f-22a-one-key-metric-59552 More F-35s delivered to Big Blue than 22s built.

Yup. One day, one of these carnival barkers we elect every 4 years will have to tell the truth: More has been promised than can be delivered and that like after any period of excess, a period of sacrifice will have to be had by all. The rich will pay more in taxes, the middle class will have to wait till they are older to retire and the poor will receive fewer benefits. We will do less on the world stage than others are used to us doing, we will have to stop borrowing & loaning to our enemies and rivals and require more from those who desire our protection.

I would not put it past prominent Dems to ask foreign governments to not recognize the winner of a race as the President if they didn't like the results and thought they could get away with it. They could state they recognize Candidate X for President and if the State Governments of the largest, most prominent states refused to accept the results, the world just might follow them. As it would be the equivalent of an H-bomb on our economy, this might cause all the other institutions in our country to say screw the real results and give in. They currently flout federal law, interfere and attempt to hamper federal law enforcement when it suits them and ignore the growing censorship, exclusion and harassment of "woke capitol" on private citizens in the economy and public sphere when it suits them. They suffer no repercussions and only have more incentive to try more. The Republic as we know it is dying.

Listened to this podcast: https://warontherocks.com/2019/07/net-assessment-is-america-poised-to-lose-the-next-war/ and read this article it discussed. Not a short read but not onerous either: https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cnas.org/CNAS+Report+-+ANAWOW+-+FINAL2.pdf My TLDR summary: The way the Joint Team fought in the 90s and 2000s for Desert Storm, Kosovo, OIF, etc... MOB establishment, unrestricted overflight rights, piece by piece threat/enemy destruction, etc... will not work in potential conflicts with Russia, China. A new approach will be required to dissuade aggression, defeat if required and allow options for favorable escalation/cessation of hostilities. Worth a read IMO, from an AF perspective it seems the AF to support this New American Way of War needs greater range, greater self-deployment capability along with a dispersed/austere basing capability. This would mitigate the reliance on safe, relatively close MOBs as Russia/China would not allow those sanctuaries to exist or function in a potential conflict within reasonable range of the conflict, enable faster surging for to Deter and React if aggression appears imminent or occurs and presents the enemy with a much harder targeting problem by proliferating tactical assets to unexpected or changing temporary locations. He mentions several times hard choices and giving up on assumptions, ideas, paradigms that will not work or don't apply in a Great Power Conflict, to me this sounds like (in relation to Airpower) the classic Destroy the Enemy's Will / National Capability to Fight vs. Destroy the Enemy's Forces. The Strategic (conventional) vs. Tactical. Equally applicable to other services in shaping their Capabilities Portfolios. I'm not 100% convinced he's wrong, putting aside our personal preferences and biases, is it time to reforge the AF to meet this growing threat? More Strategic and less Tactical - thoughts?

Driver Cited For Using 30-Can Beer Pack As Toddler’s Booster Seat

Ordinarily I would agree with you @pawnman but when one side is no longer a good faith partner in a rule of law, respect for minority rights, democracy by their open secret perversion & warping of our immigration, asylum and legal process(es) to rapidly change the demographics of this country while demanding a less rigorous process to vote than to check out a library book while simultaneously using what parts of the American government, economy and institutions they do control to harass and intimidate their enemies... IMHO, it is possible that neither side will accept the election results and then where do we go from there? This is likely an inflection point for American Democracy as we currently practice it, do we trust the processes and accept the results?

Yeah, not having Russia bully the Euros is in our interests but they will not change unless the circumstances they find themselves in change, namely operationally significant amounts of US forces stationed in their countries that provide deterrence thus allowing atrophy of not just their military forces but also the cultural will to use them. The evidence is there IMO that it (oversized direct American provided European military deterrence post Cold War ending) led to an erosion of national will of several of the major Continental European powers, I would liken it to trust fund kids and the often corrosive effect of not being either in danger from irresponsible actions or required to pay/work for the resources you enjoy. Leaving NATO is not desireable but appears to be necessary, they don’t change no matter if a conservative, liberal or nationalist administration prods them, something else has to be tried. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Light Attack in FY20 NDAA Amendments: https://rules.house.gov/bill/116/hr-2500 Amendment 73 with 6 FL Republican sponsors (A-29s here we come): Revised Provides U.S. Special Operations Command procurement authority for Light Attack aircraft in support of the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) Combat Air Advisor (CAA) mission. It also directs the Secretary of the Air Force to obligate, or transfer to USSOCOM, the necessary funds that have been made available for light attack aircraft to procure the required number of aircraft for Air Combat Command’s Air Ground Operations School and AFSOC’s CAA mission

All true points, cost to stand up TDY units vs. permanently based units and I would give the Euros some chance to pull it together and build a credible deterrence, but I have to ask if they won't defend themselves when they have the capability but choose not to for various reasons (economic, cultural, etc..) does that obligate us to defend them? If your neighbor refuses to cut his grass, are you obligated to cut it for him? Yes it keeps the neighborhood up but keeps you on the hook for responsibilities that are not yours. Imperfect analogy but there comes a time when people must stand or fall on their own, if they are not willing to secure and defend that which is theirs when they have the capability then they are not worthy of sovereignty. Why defend them when they trade with our enemies (Iran, Russia and China) in ways the undercut efforts we expensively and with considerable risk perform to ensure a rules based order vice an only might makes right world? You may say those are two different things but as all blood and treasure that is paid by the United States ultimately comes from one source, the tax-paying citizenry, they are all interconnected. You can not truly be our friend and look for ways to undercut major security efforts we undertake not to defend our homeland but to defend a reasonable world order against aggressive repressive dictatorships. https://schiffgold.com/key-gold-news/european-alternate-payment-system-to-circumvent-us-iran-sanctions-nearly-ready/ What kind of "allies" are they? Fair weather friends for the most part it seems. Some are not as bad as others in their pack but this and other actions are not acceptable. They want the security of friendship with a superpower but no significant costs in terms of restricting their foreign and economic policies. Alliances are not meant to last forever, history moves on and it is time for us to move on from the NATO alliance. There are still nations in Europe that I think we should assist in defense and deterrence (Poland, Baltic states, Czech Republic, Romania, Bulgaria, etc...) of their territorial sovereignty only but not major continental European nations. They can and should stand or fall or their own. I'm a 40 something and the world has always had NATO and a firm trans-Atlantic alliance for defense between the US and Europe, but just because something has existed for a long time doesn't mean that it should continue forever. In 25 years, will we still be the de facto defense force for Europe? When will it end? What if they just disband their militaries entirely? Are we still liable for their defense then? I am fully aware it would be a political/economic shock MUCH larger than Brexit if the US announced its withdrawal from NATO and ideally (IMHO) proposed a new strictly defensive alliance with Central & Eastern European nations but it needs to happen. What we have now is unfair, unwise, unsustainable and unnecessary.

Yeah, aircrew manning would be an issue but the ARC would probably bite if it was a decent deal, contract pilots would probably be the solution though. I'm not opposed to the dual qual concept @HuggyU2 mentioned above either if the companion aircraft to their primary is simple enough and the CT beans are not made too stringent. Dual logging instrument currency could be helpful and keeping the Liaison Aircraft beans basically type specific (takeoff/landing/practice EP maneuvers) could probably make it feasible with the pilots in theater needing this capability. That said, the Grand Caravan would then be likely my recommendation. Probably speedy enough and at around 1.8 mil a tail and about $500 an hour to fly, affordable in aviation terms. Now it is it needed? Still TBD but methinks it is justifiable, just needs better arguments for it.

True on both points, may not be worth the cost and how do you prevent abuse which would be tempting to say the least. That said I don't think the idea is not without merit, just maybe not enough merit to warrant acquisition, not sure as they had plenty of anecdotes but no other data that proves there is a need. How many times has this come up in recent operations? In recent history? On your point of maximizing pallet space or capacity, I think that is a different issue than the one they probably should have emphasized which is timeliness. This asset would not really be (IMHO) for more efficient deliveries of small cargo by using a smaller asset vs a grossly oversize one but for timely deliveries with little or no time from tasking to dispatch of small cargo hopefully truly high priority cargo. Yeah but that anecdote (short notice F-16 tasking) was really about the poor customer service (the authors imply) by using only civilian delivery services once in place. Not that a military owned Cessna based light airlift capability would have gotten them home sooner but that it would have helped to have a military owned and thus focused cargo support capability to access while deployed. They should not have put int the snarky six-month comment in to imply they were still there because of want of airlift support just that they were there probably longer than anticipated and having support capabilities like light on-demand military airlift would have helped operations significantly. At least that's how I read it: In yet another recent case, a small package of Aviano F-16s was deployed on 48-hour notice to an undisclosed location on a 21-day taking. Six months later, they were still there. Supporting the operation was a challenge in the months to follow due to the initial logistical movement — whatever could be packed and loaded on a pair of C-17 for 21 days of operations. After the initial deployment, all logistical support was pieced together by either DHL shipping or the occasional contract flight that flew in near the location. The time lag to get parts on-site severely impacted aircraft readiness while deployed. The authors should have emphasized (IMHO) it was about timeliness not efficiency per se. If it is about timeliness then other options are probably warranted (if the AF was really interested in this), a King Air 350i with a cargo door, upgraded engines/props and STOL options would be fast and efficient.

Groking on this concept more... it seems a niche or occasional capability that might not fit into the doctrine or strategy that the Force Providers have but one the COCOMs want, if it is this small in terms of total footprint (cost of acquisition, sustainment, operation, training) is this a case (maybe like Light Attack) where the COCOMs could/should buy/own this iron?

Another earlier article by the same authors advocating for light airlift and discussing distributed ops, particularly in Eastern Europe: https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/uplifted-the-case-for-small-tactical-airlift/ Amen

Copy all and was surprised that they did not seem to know about the various turbos that AFSOC has that could perform this mission. Yeah, we kinda already have this capabilty (small on-demand airlift) but not integrated as part of conventional operations. I think that is what they were hinting at, airlift capability directly tasked by the customer vice customer putting a request into an AMD and waiting to see when they will get airlift for the small, high priority widget or party to travel between close to moderately separated locations. How much is enough or necessary to be operationally relevant? 50, 75, 100 tails?... felt they should have filled out that as they allude to losing LOCs in a European conflict and needing this light airlift to fill the gaps created by losing a bridge, port, major runway, etc... How much capability does this platform (if accquired) need? Range/speed, payload, defensive system, comm cabilities, NVG cockpit, etc... they seem to want to keep it basic (I would agree with that) and not too customized from a likely civilian airframe but would likely need some options not offered regularly offered from the factory... Just my two cents but if there was a way to pull some shennanigans and gain a possibly relevant capability, co-locate these with RPA bases and some overseas locations for good deal tours. Not the cheapest airplane but a Cessna Grand Caravan would probably fit the bill for STOL, speed, capability and adapability for other roles along with most of the desired military capabilities already engineered for this type