Clark Griswold

WTF? 3 Year tours, 35k bonus with no 365, ARC will bite...

This. I have disagreed with @Vertigo over other topics but the man (assuming) is honest, borrowing a shit ton of money to boost GDP, is a Polish Blanket trick, no offense to Poles...

Big 2 on that... Fleet number is something that gets overlooked, the number of sustainable CAPs and tails for flexing gets overshadowed by the capabilities of individual tails.... Attack is a spectrum from inside the WEZ of an SA-400 to inside the WEZ of an AK-47... remember your roots AF and support the door kicking 20 something in Turdshitistand... And just buy one... Honest question to AFSOC and ACC types... if both want this type of platform (I think ACC types would particularly want this on their ALPHA tour) and both are such big dogs in the force supplying world, why the hell can't y'all just get one? I can't believe with all the money sloshing around out there that even with sustainment cots figured in that these MAJCOMs couldn't find the money to buy one of these in the 100 to 200+ range...

Copy that Range/Endurance has been the requirement that has been to my knowledge defined (900 NM Ferry Range & 5 hours endurance with 30 minute reserve) but not with the necessary caveats (internal fuel only, two wet stations used for external tanks to get the required range/endurance, etc...) and AR was not on the list of requirements. No argument from me as the costs need to be kept in check but as the fight evolves from mainly Afghanistan with some large airfields/MOBs dispersed throughout the country to other existing/potential AORs that have the tyranny of distance (HOA, Phillipines, Mali, etc...) from MOBs, we might want to invest in a fixed wing platform that is Long Range LAAR+. My suggestion (repeat) would be a military modified Saab 340 MSA or like aircraft... still inexpensive to fly (around $2500 a flight hour) and with range/endurance to not require AR support (9 hours or about 2000 NMs) Give it multiple sensors, links and a mixed PGM capability... less than a Gunship but more than a Reaper. Cheaper than either & would allow absorption of newly minted pilots/CSOs and a good fit for any number of ARC units

Tactics development for LAARs at Pitch Black... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22950/australias-exercise-pitch-black-saw-mv-22-ospreys-escorted-by-light-air-support-planes RAAF PC-9s not really LAARs (article references some mods for training but not a full up ISR/Light Strike platform) but were performing FAC-A role. I suspect the Osprey could potentially out range and out run the LAARs under consideration by the USAF (with a SCL and integrated FMV sensor) so again why buy an already max'ed out aircraft not able to support in potential mission sets? To repeat the mantra, just buy one AF but because we eliminated the most capable of the offerings (Scorpion) we are likely to have some buyer's remorse (better than not having but...)

Military version of a supersonic biz jet... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17039/lockheed-likely-sees-big-military-applications-potential-in-aerions-supersonic-bizjet From the article: By the images released by Aerion, the aircraft looks ideally suited for a weapons bay between the nose wheel gear and the main landing gear—basically where the cabin is located. But even if a relatively tiny set of weapon bay doors or stores ejection system could be fitted into a variant of the type, it could provide a form of regional time sensitive strike capability. And this is a very enticing capability for the U.S. military at this time. Even being able to drop Small Diameter Bomb sized weapons or a single stand-off weapon could provide a flexible and easily deployable quick-strike platform. This is a capability we need, supersonic multi-role with loooong legs. Needs tactical radar, new avionics, new radios, datalink, defensive suite, ELINT/jamming suite, embedded EO/IR sensor, weapons bay, AR mods, e-seats, etc... so that'll be cheap but this would be worth it...

Raptor v. Lighting https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-military-norway/u-s-f-22-stealth-jets-simulate-dogfights-with-norways-f-35-warplanes-idUSKBN1L01YX

Paywall block but yes show them the door. No stealth for you... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22859/no-stealth-for-you-trump-signs-defense-bill-that-blocks-transfer-of-f-35s-to-turkey

полностью

Yet here we are so we have to play the hand we're dealt. If we do this right (acquire a new design 4+ gen fighter) to compliment and enhance the capes we wish we had in the existing 5th Gens then we have a better overall package (sts). More missiles, more range/station time, more sensors, ea, etc... while not altering the LO of the F-22 or hampering the delivery of the F-35, that camel is about 1 straw from failure... What the hell is it that drives us to buy white elephants? Every time I buy a car I don't demand it has to get mileage 3x better, go 3x faster and be self-aware. Now I get I don't use my car in life or death battles but the point is there, not every soldier needs to be Delta and not every fighter needs to be Firefox.

Whoops... https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/07/world/spanish-fighter-jet-accidentally-fires-missile-estonia/index.html

Best thing on the Internet for 2018.

Bingo. We can't be the force we used to be plus the new capes, the money is just not there. Ultimately we have to decide what kind of AF we want/need to be and somehow Jedi mind trick Congress into letting us reform into that.

That's a safe bet (unfortunately) but one can hope. I'm not sure if the idea of an all 5th gen fleet has finally impacted with the brick wall of financial reality but it appears to be getting closer. The only critique or input I would offer and it is likely addressed in details in the actual proposal but why not specifically design a 4th gen compliment to the 5th gen fleet and keep the Industrial Base dynamic (can't just all be LM)? That is use the same sub-system, engines, landing gear, tires, seat, etc... as your 5th gen to the maximum extent appropriate to minimize cost for both fleets? Additionally dff load to the 4th gen compliment fighter the capabilities you want in the 5th gen but are too costly too add after the fact, still get them in the strike package just not on the 5th gen aircraft Aerial Warfare is changing but it is not changing so much that we don't have an overriding need for a relatively affordable, new & modern 4+ gen multi-role platform to perform the traditional mission set(s) while being valuable to the new Night 1 fights.

More on F-15XXX... https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22372/exclusive-unmasking-the-f-15x-boeings-f-15c-d-eagle-replacement-fighter From the article: "Still, next to nothing is known about this initiative, including where it came from and what it entails exactly. Although it has been framed as a Boeing solicitation to the USAF, the opposite is actually true—the USAF began the discussion over a year and a half ago." Very interesting that this is not the Boeing Good Idea Fairy trying to coax the AF into something but the AF making an inquiry.

New capabilities for the U-2: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22469/usaf-plans-to-test-a-system-called-symphony-inside-an-irascible-pod-on-a-u-2-spy-plane

Yeah they leave a lot to be desired compared to other carrier based jets (max weight at carrier launch) but it’s just the point that a land aircraft design if rugged enough can be made carrier suitable. The Sea Gripen is probably not a bridge too far due to original design for STOL & dispersed basing. What kills them (MiG and Su) in naval ops is the lack of a catapult system.

Yup, I think Boyd would have loved it and adapting a land design to naval is not crazy, ref. MiG-29 and Su-27 to MiG-29K and Su-33 and the yet to be built Sea Gripen... Not a Marine Aviator but I've always thought the Sea Gripen would be a good steed for an amphibious military force with a doctrinal slant towards expeditionary, austere ops with limited logistical support... Operate from the boat then establish the land base, roads as a runway are acceptable... VSTOL gives you that but comes with such a cost in performance and dollars that IMHO, a STOBAR / STOL would effectively achieve at a fraction of the cost and way less risk.

Understand the critique but the physics / logistics of operating off the boat necessitate size / performance expectations (sts)... Sea Eagle stuff: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-sea-eagle-how-americas-f-15-fighter-almost-became-18051 https://tacairnet.com/2015/04/15/f-15n-sea-eagle/

Don’t follow - are you saying the Hornet/Super Hornet are useless?

Would have to be a recessed weapons pod like the Super Duper Hornet has...

An initial opinion on the RAF Tempest concept: https://hushkit.net/2018/07/19/project-tempest-6th-generation-combat-aircraft-assessed-by-former-british-technical-liaison/

Might be I suppose but if this was ever built it would likely have a pretty good IR signature due to small size with likely major increase in avionics/mission systems to add 4.5/5th gen capabilities (AESA radar, datalink, satcom, EW suite, integrated EO/IR sensor, sensor fusion, etc...). Now that comes with the assumption that if you remade a 3/4 gen design to incorporate LO or reduced signature you would necessarily incorporate all of those features, someone might just want a reduced signature capability to give them an advantage over regional rivals, not to go toe to toe with the USAF / USN

I know A particularly good vaporware airplane