Clark Griswold

Yup - that's why I am realistic about the chance of meaningful reform...

No swipes at you from the peanut gallery I think, just lament I believe at the fecklessness / meandering of the AF, in particular to Light Attack acquisition or not. On the related subject of upgrading the A-10 why not go for broke (technologically) as the AF loves the most expensive and technically riskiest concepts (usually)... as the A-10 is built for and around the 30mm why not develop a concept attack aircraft built around a new precision engagement weapon, my suggestion would be a laser, nsplayer made a persuasive argument for getting one in the field earlier in the thread. The AF wants the new hotness, put the first operational weaponized laser in an A-10 successor. Give it a laser in lieu of the 30mm (give this A-X a 25mm with enough for a few trigger pulls still), radar in the nose, strong ECM suite, internal weapons carriage capability along with LO external weapons pods, DSI and recessed engines with very slightly swept wings and conformal fuel tanks. Flex AR capability (probe or boom) and short field capability. 350 NM combat radius with 30 on-station. Shoot for a fly-away cost of about 50-60 mil a tail and operating cost around $7.5k an hour.

Don't think they have an endgame in mind, that is a plan to fundamentally change the AF. My two cents, I think they believe this is just a normal rough patch for the AF to play thru. No, you're not naive to be optimistic but be realistic, this CSAF and the MAJCOM/CCs are not revolutionaries nor particularly reform minded from what I have observed. At best they are tinkering at the edges, it will take a boss willing to fire his/her friends to get movement at the top to enable reform. You can want to fix an organization but unless you are willing to remove those in leadership that will filter, dilute and stymie you efforts, you probably won't change anything. Do good work, argue for common sense, take advantage of opportunities, roll with the times and never drink the kool-aid - from the perspective of one individual.

Not taken personally - it was inevitable to happen but maybe my assessment that it looked like a softball test was not right, it was T-ball. Show me a contact made and sustained in chop with a less than proficient receiver pilot during a big offload with the tanker CG starting aft and transitioning fwd and I will be impressed but will say keep the boom. Here's a challenging day in the pod: Don't think HAL would roll with this too well.

If they do nothing, a dwindling number of AD and faster dwindling number of ARC members on Involuntary Mobilization orders. The spiral will wrap up tighter and tighter.

Techy question but is a hardware translator between the two systems possible if the OEMs don't want to integrate their system? Just take the data to/from the pod and make it just another data stream on their bus to go to the BLOS links and keep command and data feed from having to be integrated into the platform system tightly Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Vote with your feet if you have to, I wish I could say I see a turning point but it just gets to be more of a jobs program all the time with some Air, Space and Cyberspace power projection done for good measure. Pains me to say that without offering some kind of solution to the problem but maybe it (the AF) is just in need of a massive reset vs "fix the glitch". How to reset is the 64 billion dollar question.

You're right - the contractor has a profit motive that will get bigger F ups done faster and for more money with less iron bought - genius! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Gotcha - thanks Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is more of symptom of what's wrong with the AF rather than the cause but it reeks of shoe clerkism & process worshiping versus professional, competent, confident decision making... Unprecedented: US Air Force Will Let a Defense Company Pick Its Next Jamming Plane Like the Boeing 737 Compass Call, would be a good part of a re-cap strategy for an 737 fleet for JSTARS, AWACS, RIVET, etc...

From your comment a sidebar question: If OPSEC allows... Has dual sensor (FMV) on a Reaper (or similar Tier II or above RPA) been discussed / proposed? Not the WAMI you mentioned earlier in the thread but maybe a SNIPER pod or another integrated sensor? Bandwidth likely a bottleneck but something akin to GORGON STARE with fewer frames per second for a secondary capability (general SA of the compound / area).

Automated boom AR Seems like a fairly softball test, smooth air versus appreciable chop.

False comparison - an A-10 may be / is currently tasked with missions that Scorpion if it is acquired will do but there are no plans to use Scorpion for the BAI in a contested environment that an A-10 is by doctrine / strategy tasked to Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What? If the AF gets the Scorp, a luggage pod for the mission bay would happen. Plenty of room.

Probably so but fight the good fight / argue on BO.net Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Likewise Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Got to be light vs heavy attack - now how light is debatable Scorpion seems the right weight (cost & capabilities) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur - I think we could have finished that op and many other fight stabilize missions by not expecting too much from the host nation - SK is a good example of how to save an ally stabilize then modernize them to self sustaining - it just takes decades, patience and not expecting a lot at first Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

15 years - even by our recent reluctance to admit mistakes and change course that would be epic My guess is another 5 and when/if we cross the 20 year mark without a viable partner in the NUG - we'll call Knock It Off and RTB Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God, I hope you're right.

Google is not coughing up an answer on AT-6B per tail cost but an A-29 is often quoted around $15 mil a copy so it is likely around that price. I believe Lawman said once that 15 million is actually lower than what it really costs, could be advertised without the sensor or some other shenanigans. $20 million a copy for the Scorpion I suspect is lower what the actual fly away costs will be if it lands a launch customer but I would not think it to be north of $25 million when all is said and done and it will probably cost about $2500-$3000 per flight hour, still a bargain as it will not need a $15k per hour tanker (assuming -135) twice a mission to keep it on station. That's where the real cha-ching is with a LAAR, lower mission support tail requirement. Probably you could get more AT-6s or A-29s versus Scorpions but probably not that many more (assuming the same procurement budget for a LAAR regardless of type acquired) but overall the cost would be more (more MX, Logistical footprint, manpower, etc...) and we likely need around 100 to 125 to round out our capabilities with our other systems doing these mission currently, versus a 200+ sized fleet, just my two cents.

The thing about the Scorpion that I think makes it worth the money (IMO) is that you bring to the ISR / Light Strike missions a range of performance and capabilities that is wide for the mission and compared to its competitors, a major improvement over platforms usually assigned to these missions, with a modest acceptable increase in cost. Ultimately that has to be point behind a "high end LAAR" - you get a wide range of capability and a large improvement to those capabilities for a modest increase in cost with a platform designed after an extensive period of COIN / LIC with those LL incorporated into it. I like the A-29 and AT-6 but you are basically constrained by the design as it is now, not so with the Scorpion. It has been designed to be modular and scalable. Again it is the range of capabilities / possibilities with this design. Need dual sensors, no problem. Open architecture, done. Modular payload bay for stuff you didn't consider on initial design, got it. About 40% faster than the turboprops, service ceiling 25% higher, endurance greater since you can keep the wings clean with the weapons capable payload bay, higher altitude on station orbits possible, slow loiter speed at 140 KIAS, etc, etc... That is just my rant for why I think the Scorpion should be the LAAR, my primal scream is for the AF to just get a LAAR, any LAAR at this point. Legit critique of the frenzy for a non-mission proven aircraft but I think that is an apples to oranges comparison, the small light attack jets you are referring to were likely designed years ago and don't have what makes the Scorpion as a light attack jet unique and much more capable for this mission, endurance. Which light attack jets are you referring to? A-37, Strikemaster, Alpha Jet? They are combat proven and effective but they lack the endurance of the Scorpion. Not to be cheesy but it really is game changing when you can have a tactical jet on station for 3 to 5 hours with no AR required.

I see said the blind man. A-29, just buy it AF. Lowest risk, great capability, already flown by a number of AFs. I'd prefer Scorpion but LAAR will have to cost pennies compared to the Golden Calf to get any money.

Maybe, but as we have discussed and speculated on bringing back former attack aircraft for COIN / LIC missions we have a tendency to want bigger than is probably warranted for a Light Attack. I think it was only a desire and not a requirement for about $1,000 per hour flight cost but as long as it doesn't go north of $3,000 per hour and doesn't need much support to execute a 5 hour mission (AR, cueing from another airborne asset, etc..) going up to the level of Scorpion Jet is probably ok, IMO. Beyond that, it is probably too much to execute the anti 3 dudes in a Hilux mission.