Clark Griswold

Yeah, that is a statement without the necessary context or specifics to make it more meaningful. Total offload capability, offload capability at X range, etc... As to defensive systems and the current capabilities of the KC-46, I have no knowledge of them other than it has them but I would imagine that they are there to defeat while in retrograde / enable survival from a pop-up threat not to linger in the WEZ of a threat while performing an AR mission. Defending and Running like hell so I can live to pass gas another day. Unless it is a purpose built "tactical tanker" with low/greatly reduced signatures, significant defensive capabilities and for a large platform has a good turn rate, acceleration and speed... keep tankers in their safe spaces, they're very sensitive and get upset by AAMs and SAMs. Returning to the point of Strategic AR capability and the argument against divestment (platform aside), it's a needed capability as we will have to respond to the fight from our side of the court if a major contingency dusts up. Having a capability to launch a receiver capable tanker with both boom & drogue AR and 350k+ at launch is not something we can shit can unless our rich uncle is going to surprise us with a 777 tanker at Christmas.

On the subject of tankers: https://warontherocks.com/2019/10/the-case-for-a-three-tanker-air-force/

I can't say that I do either but I won't dismiss it completely. IMO, It's a concept meant for the collective action of nations that can act and who feel compelled by their values to act. Not the responsibility of just one nation no matter how powerful/wealthy compared to others and not without the consent of the governed who will be required to serve and sacrifice for others with no definite end in sight and no assurance of success. All of those caveats have not been met by those advocating for humanitarian intervention. No honesty as to the cost, the time and risks. Powers and those who push for western nations, especially America, to act on the concept of the Responsibility to Protect along with those who push for what I would call Indefinite Engagement aren't honest about what it required to execute missions that act on these ideas and that dishonesty erodes trust in leadership, exhausts a military structured to mainly deter and win conventional conflicts and breeds a cynicism in the public that infects every other way we view our government. Joe Kent wrote a good article on this at Breitbart: https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2019/10/07/kent-why-president-trump-should-follow-his-gut-on-foreign-policy/ From the article: If the American people do want to go to war for human rights, then we need to reinstate the draft and double the size of the military. There are plenty of places in Africa, the Middle East, and central Asia that we would need to fight decades-long conflicts in to right the world’s wrongs. That is probably a pretty good overview for what would be needed along with financially capable Allies being required to do the same and participating in these missions with no ROE restrictions, not holding breath for that. Likely, whole conventional mission sets would need to be dropped to shift resources to grow other mission sets to handle this much demand for Occupation/Stabilization forces. I'm not for America alone to go out and fix the world but if the Western world just can't tolerate the mass tragedies then we have to be honest as to the cost, risks and requirements while explaining clearly to the people who will bear this cost as to why and what are they sacrificing for.

Nothing but trouble unless you believe the US and other countries with the capabilities and means should honor and act on the concept of the responsibility to protect political theory then it is a duty we (and ideally others) will/should take up. Not advocating just commenting. I am not sure we do or anyone does individually but collectively I think there is a stronger cause to say we (collectively) should, not saying we (collectively as a sovereign nations) will but that the theory merits greater consideration then. I read this article this past weekend: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/10/book-review-the-education-of-an-idealist-samantha-power/ and it seems relevant to this latest development. Interventionist and Realists again. But at what cost and if it is worth it why can't they (interventionists) be honest about the costs if the cause be worthy? Unless we and others who are capable and publicly call for a world order where certain national behaviors are not tolerated are willing to pay the cost, sacrifice and remain engaged for causes that do not directly defend our nations and interests then we should abstain from seeming to offer false hope..

Not sure if this was brought up earlier in this thread but what about Contractor / Dept of AF Civilian flight instructors? I believe the AF is using them for the CAA A-29 program (contractor I think) so why not a limited program (3 years) to get out of the hole without burning out another cohort of the rated force? If not enough military IPs then civillian IPs? Thinking recently retired or separated but not ruling out CFIIs necessarily. Sidebar question: Can the total amount of resources available to train SUPT studs handle all this? Aircraft, Sims, MOAs, MX, etc... or is it all tapped out? Never put it past the Bobs to try to put 10 lbs of excrement into a 5 lbs bucket... that would lead to opening another SUPT base but if the need is there then it is there.

Yup. Mike Pietrucha proposed an anti-dote to this a couple of years ago: RECLAIMING THE AIR ATTACK MISSION: A RADICAL RETURN TO A PROVEN SUCCESS Good article and worth a read IMHO. Light Attack Armed Reconnaissance (manned) is still a requirement but the environment has moved on from the COIN/LIC mission of the early 2000's and while it may seem counter intuitive (or not depending on cynical you are about the AF) if the requirement(s) were updated to the current/projected operational environment and the solution to said requirement(s) were likely a bit more expensive but more capable, the AF might give it a second look. When rebels or insurgents have modest conventional military capabilities as is becoming common in Grey Zone conflicts, the requirements are going up and if though it is bitter and frustrating, militarily participating in these conflicts to some capacity is often better/cheaper in the long run. In practical terms, a platform with: Medum Strike, Multiple Sensors, Good Endurance, Good Speed, Good Survivability, Growth capacity and low to modest cost for high utilization over long conflicts. Nothing great but a lot of things done pretty good. This would never be a silver bullet but a platform that will be relevant to a range of conflicts in capabilities delivered, threats it can defeat, reliability it can deliver with care and attention to cost.

Maybe but maybe not... never underestimate the AF to finally do the right thing after 15+ years of doing the wrong thing. The light attack requirement is there and we should have years ago gotten into the lead on this, the Brazilians want to build one: https://www.airway1.com/brazilian-company-wants-to-launch-light-attack-aircraft/ https://www.janes.com/article/87662/laad-2019-akaer-presents-conceptual-mosquito-multi-role-aircraft Just a bit like the OV-10 but imitation is the most sincere form of flattery. Light Attack should have segued into Light Fighter ala an F-5 or F-20 that would have been part of a family of compatible systems to deliver modern, relevant airpower effects at a reasonable cost to sell to our Allies and keep in our own portfolio.

Ad Astra.... Daddy issues in space is the most succinct description of the plot. Fair overall with good special effects and action sequences (questionable physics in some scenes) but overall story too drawn out to rate higher. Wait till it is on Netflix streaming if you are thinking of going to see this.

Yeah but keep charging that windmill, you'll win someday, maybe... - Break Break - Has the USMC released any requirements for a light attack? There have been mentions of a partnership with the Marines (and others) if the AF finally got to acquiring Light Attack... https://www.defensenews.com/smr/federal-budget/2019/03/13/air-force-to-buy-handful-of-light-attack-planes-but-will-a-bigger-program-follow/ https://www.businessinsider.com/senate-gives-marine-corps-100-million-for-cheap-light-attack-aircraft-2018-6 Doubt they would have requirements that different than the AF's but you never know. I would argue the original LAAR requirements are dated and new ones push to a more capable system (shamelless Scorpion plug) but anything official on what the Marines and other potential partners (Aussies) might want/need in LA?

https://dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/poland-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-aircraft Another member of the club.

That would be a helluva pimp slap to the AF from Congress but would probably get the message across Just buy it AF and get it over with Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.defenseone.com/politics/2019/09/tired-air-force-slow-rolling-one-lawmaker-threatens-give-next-attack-plane-army/159814/?oref=d-topstory Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool, interested to hear. On a sidebar issue and idea: So they wanna shorten the time in SUPT to produce pilots faster then why not begin training pilots sooner once selected for pilot and deemed medically qualified? That is at the Academy or ROTC, once selected for Pilot and passed an initial medical screening, start flight training sooner (prior to commissioning) to get training started so that either IFS is now skipped or is just a quick quality check prior to reporting to SUPT? IIRC, we were selected for Pilot/Nav at the end of Junior year and depending on your school's academic calendar, initial flight training could start the summer following Jr year, intensive 2.5 months to get PPL + some hours then Sr. year, you would work towards instrument certification. IFS is a quality check and off you go to SUPT with around 100 hours. This would involve the AF having to risk some money as some cadets would not either complete initial flight training, medically disqualifie or choose not to continue but I think they would be a manageable number. SUPT graduates arrive more prepared, more likely to succeed in an abbreviated SUPT syllabus (would argue for replacement of those flight hours but that is another fight) and the cost/risk is very affordable. For OTS cadets, a separate program for the approximately 100 hours unless they already have flight time.

On the original topic of this thread, has the Navy started to experiment with shortening their pilot training syllabus and/or introduce technology to compensate for less flight training time? I saw that two Navy guys went thru PTN but as far as changing their program, is the Navy looking to this also?

Copy that If Air Tractor could modify the AT802U for a liaison / light cargo version without breaking the bank, there's a contender if the USAF wanted to get back in that business. AT's website says the AT802U can launch with an 8k payload, use some of that payload capability for a rugged cargo pod and 4-6 pax seating with a stretched model. AF would need to get comfortable with single pilot utility ops, not sure they could get on board but the times are changing (sort of). On the subject of Light Airlift / Liaison Aircraft, I'm not sure if this is the right one for this proposed mission but I just know the AF needs it:

This maybe related to that idea: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/defense-news-conference/2019/09/04/controversial-changes-coming-soon-in-air-forces-next-budget-its-top-civilian-says/ Probably more aimed at older systems vice one in procurement but it's possible.

All true but here we are and there is no turning back from acquiring the F-35 nor should there be any attempt to abruptly stop procurement but I think there is a reasonable amount of room for a serious debate on whether or not to buy the full lot.

Copy. Agreed un-fornicating that which exists now is preferable (cost/risk/timing/possible) but... if restarting the Raptor line is a NO GO, then while the 35 line is open, exploring what is possible (perhaps not practical) would be wise IMHO. A reverse of the process that developed the A-7 from the F-8.

Article on deficiencies: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2019/06/12/the-pentagon-is-battling-the-clock-to-fix-serious-unreported-f-35-problems/ Like Brabus, I think getting the F-35 right is the best outcome but LM getting a correction vector in the form of a truncated buy might be necessary. As to the F-35 replacing the Eagle, maybe if they could optimize the outline for lower drag. Longer fuselage, lower cross-section with a slightly taller airframe, additional third weapons/mission bay forward of the existing two, finback conformal fuel tank, etc... if this variant were ever designed/built I would base off the A model to attempt to maximize commonality between the two to mitigate one of the major problems of variant incompatibility with parts/sub-systems. Lower drag, two more missiles, a bit more gas. Japan might be interested in this as they have expressed interest in a 22/35 hybrid, this would not be exactly that but an air dominance focused variant, close enough.

Possibly, as to light fighters in greater numbers but we are where we are now but if we did acquire a smaller, nimble fighter like Gripen just as an example, a light airlifter force that meets the fighter at a dispersal or roadbase for a quick turnaround then launch again for all involved could be a viable concept to sustain launches while the threat of long range fires still exists. Ex: Two ship of light fighters recover to a road base approximately 200 NM from the FEBA and meet a light ground party who handle initial recovery and approximately 5 minutes later a two ship of light airlifters land at same roadbase with 2k of ordinance, 4k of fuel. Ground party turns the jets in 20 minutes and they immediately launch on next combat mission, turboprops launch immediately after them for RTB for next re-supply mission and ground party departs road base for next rendezvous. Small airport, roadbase or grass strip used for 30 minutes max to keep from attracting long range fires or enemy RPA attacks. That scenario is a pretty tough triple flip off the high board coordination trick for ops, mx and logistics but a likely example of what will be required if we go bare knuckles with Russia/China.

No doubt, that is what the authors with a better platform than my erudite postings on BO net should argue with, concept/platfrom/application (admin, costs, capabilities) Another in the series (Airpower Orphans) this one on Liaison Aircraft: https://warontherocks.com/2019/08/airpower-orphans-part-ii-whatever-happened-to-liaison-aircraft/ Like the Carbon Cub but you always want more, Pilatus PC-6 would be my choice: https://www.pilatus-aircraft.com/en/fly/pc-6

Concur on it being primarily a sustainer after the momentum is established by the Medium/Heavy Airlifters and that could be (enough airlift if we drank the adaptive base kool aid, I believe we should as the Russians & Chinese didn't build 6.9 thousand surface to surface and cruise missiles for nothing) but having a little bit of a plan B would not be bad or too expensive, IMHO. As to your point that the arguments being made now for another light airlifter are the same as have been made before, true but that doesn't invalidate them necessarily. Light and nimble are two things the AF is going to have to learn, not that acquiring a few light airlifters is going to completely build out a robust mobile combat capability in the AF that but it would be a step in the right direction. Low foot print, dispersion capable attack/fighters supported by Light Airlifters capable of quick resupply then hop back out of range of the enemy's long range fires; low cost high availability military airlift to move the small loads during normal ops, win-win.

Roger that - that's a possibility.and agree with you that the concept not the details are what is to be argued for. What is it the customer wants or what the authors think the customers need but are not getting supplied by the AF right now? Faster light airlift and more direct interaction with the airlift supplier. How do you do that? From the cuff, I could see Lt Airlift Dets with light FW capabilities on tap for pax/cargo that's not palletized, requires no special handling (hazmat), not a regular re-supply, less than 4,000 lbs. (just a number to start with) and parties of less than 12 (another starting number) that need movement within 36 hours. Requests can not be placed in both airlift request systems (main and mini AMD) to prevent gaming the system placing two requests and seeing which one gets service first. Every 36 hours the slate is wiped clean and new request queue built. Smaller cargo requirements to remove those requests from the big AMD's plate, inside the typical planning cycle with some restrictions on the type of requirements to keep it to small cargo/pax movements that need direct customer service.

No doubt (cost, overkill, etc..), just a sidebar discussion but if there was a widget that absolutely had to get somewhere as fast as possible with the greatest flexibility on destination requirements, a tilt rotor capability would be it. For what the authors of the article are advocating for (light intra theater affordable quick responding on demand airlift) it's a FW solution. What the requirement exactly is what keeps me a skeptical believer. The requirement as to how many tails, how much do each of those tails need do? Payload, speed, takeoff/landing capability, other capes (NVG, Defensive Systems, etc...). Just a WAG, but a 25 tail fleet of SkyCouriers figured at 2 sorties a day per tail at 3,000 lbs of cargo/pax with 10% sortie attrition gives you the capability to move 135,000 lbs over a range of about 640 nm. Now is that enough or too little? That was just a guess but you see where I think this needs to go, how much gap coverage is needed to cover?

I thought about the Osprey too but the per flight hour cost I don’t think fits with this capability / mission Not a terrible idea though for tilt rotor delivery and there are other tilt rotors that could work this mission like the Bell Augusta 609 Smaller but could be a solution if timeliness needed to be increased considering the effect on cost Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk