Clark Griswold

Interesting write up from Tyler Rogoway on Boeing's T-X win: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/23898/boeings-t-x-win-is-really-much-bigger-than-just-building-a-replacement-for-the-t-38 He speculates on aggressor, light fighter and a naval variant. All possible I assume in later contracts but referencing my earlier two cents (on arguing for buying from different vendors occasionally as it promotes a health industrial base IMHO), I would still argue not for a one airplane to do it all plan... If I ran the USAF and could appropriate money VFR direct for acquisition: T-X for advanced trainer, eliminate T-1 and buy more T-X. IFF in T-X and a multi-engine trainer for UPT grads going to heavies (an "IFF" post grad course to cover crew concept, AR, NVG LL, T/O, Landing, short field landings), probably a C-12 or CJ4 with an NVG flight deck, UARRSI and hard points for pods to allow threat replication for an additional mission in some specialized dets at some fighter bases (as Cobham does for the RAF with Falcon jets). 0.69% chance of that happening. T-50 for aggressor & light fighter (allocate to ARC units tasked with ACA/ASA mission). 1.69% chance of that happening.

All true but a mono fleet also leads to a mono industrial base - fewer companies fewer innovative/different solutions to missions. We have to distribute contracts to give us more options than Big B or Lockmart Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Stop using common sense and lessons learned over the history of military aviation. Was surprised by Boeing / SAAB's win, seemed LM / KAI had the lowest risk option (jet with years of flying vs. new kid on the block) and from the released propaganda, pretty much all the bases covered for the requirements for T-X.

No doubt. Passed thru Romania years ago and the talent was plentiful. Just a guess but I think that is the runway being not exactly smooth as glass and causing that pitot boom to go bipolar... Skip to the 5:00 mark for this MiG 21 landing (nothing special) and the same thing is happening

True. We've had ad nauseam examples of that but... we still kept up with development and eventually what didn't actually work eventually did. Crawl, walk, run. Start simple, develop the first generation with realistic capes for where the technology is and the actual requirement. My humble suggestion would be to work on a common air vehicle for an unmanned wingman and an RPA capable of operation in contested airspace. Radar or satellite link in the nose, your choice... wild oversimplification but that's the basic idea. Keep it real and don't demand unrealistic capes of the unmanned wingman or RPA versions like 9G load factor, supersonic, etc... but looking at the Avenger concept, a weapons bay for at least 4 missiles/stand off weps, combat radius + 35% of the F-35 to cover egress, etc... useful capes but not shooting the moon on the first gen...

HUD tape of a Split S to a landing in a Romanian MiG 21

Tin foil hat on... check... Yup, the first step in autonomous unmanned air systems, sifting thru the 95% chaff to get the 5% wheat of X-INT feeds, with this AI being done on board the vehicle and only transmitting/cueing when it has good data, thinking of persistent ISR in a contested environment main but I could see that being applicable for Air Dominance also, unmanned wingmen out front of the manned platforms either active or passively sensing and relaying/engaging only when they have something determined on air/ground threats... nothing original in that comment but it is probably that time to start the manned/unmanned teaming to get ready for the next war

Fox 2 (computer voice) https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/19/mq-9-gets-first-air-air-kill-training-exercise-air-force-official-says.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true

On basing, there's no need for self-inflicted wounds... Distribute evenly across the CONUS looking for joint basing to be near training partners. For the ARC, same story, look for units/bases with consistent training opportunities. UTAs at those units should be coordinated with customers so a DSG at any drill could fly a solid training mission rather than attending a Green Dot class. Figure a buy of 110 tails: 20 to the FTU/Lead Wing (Associate Unit), 90 distributed in 10's to 9 Wings, 5 AD & 4 ARC.

For my two unrequested cents, I think LA should (if it happens and is beyond a BPC building mission) keep the pre-requisites fairly wide and recruit from the whole of the AF flying community. The U-2 is a good model, different mission and a difficult plane to master with high level of expertise demanded, but repeating that model in LA would keep the net wide to gather talent and has a precedent for success. The aircraft (LA) is / would be inexpensive enough that a full syllabus teaching the attack mission set from basics to advanced could be accomplished, dudes would not have to come with previous experience to lessen the required flight/sim hours in an LA program, IMHO and very scientific bar napkin calculations. Keeping the door open for dudes who have the talent, developed skills, demonstrated ability in their first assignment but their time / scores at UPT didn't set them up for an Attack aircraft assignment right out of the chute seems reasonable. They would likely not be the majority of LA crew but methinks they could be a reasonable percentage without putting risk to a potential LA program in terms of training required to achieve required proficiency. Not familiar with the IFF syllabus but 30 missions at 1.5 hours each and guessing at $1500 per flight hour if the LA is ever bought is the AT-6 or A-29 comes to about $67,500 in flight hour cost, not sure what the expendables would come but guessing $10k per student seems reasonable. Other costs would come in also (range fees, contractor OPFOR support, travel costs for off-station missions, etc..) but I think you could probably train a crew for about $100-125K in a 30 to 35 mission syllabus with AT-6/A-29. Scorpion would be more but worth it... That cost is low enough that if you had someone from a non-tactical background and 30 to 35 flying missions is a lot training, seems to me (from an outsider's view) you should be able to accept a capable student and train to standards, regardless of background. Do you think, would 30 to 35 missions in an FTU syllabus cover Surface Attack, CAS, ISR focused missions, etc... to an acceptable degree for initial quals?

Just another shameless plug for the Scorpion... Controlling drones from a manned platform: https://theaviationist.com/2018/08/10/interesting-video-of-the-textron-scorpion-cockpit-in-manned-unmanned-teaming-demonstration/

A missed opportunity... Indo-UK made new Hawk combat aircraft looks to take on China IIRC, Scorpion was offered in 2014 to the IAF and about 2016 to the KSA, we should have pushed them hard as hell to buy offering a discounted FMS price, with us buying a first lot (probably around 100 tails) and then leveraging that into other potential customers in SE Asia, Africa, South America, etc... I still can't believe we let the right one get away..

From back in the day... CF-5 rage over Canada.

Knowledge gained... One more vaporware that's a Photoshop mod of the A-29.... Bears a passing resemblance to a P-38. Add ER saddle-bag tanks like the MC-12/KA350ER, take the fuel tank out of the backseat for a CSO station, keep the cannon in the nose but upgrade to a 25mm like the Rutan Ares concept had, integrate an MX-20, etc... and you have a good medium attack / ISR platform... probably would need to grow some for that wish list but it's worth it...

I thought the guy building the model might have thought the same thing also (exhaust over the wing for IR masking) but I'll be a contrarian and will push for a tail ducted exhaust but over the horizontal stab for some masking and keeps a large IR source away from the crew in the event of a MANPAD engagement. Harriers in Gulf War 1 had a relatively higher loss rate due to MANPAD shots hitting the plane center mass due to the larger IR signature from the engine/exhausts and getting more damage in when they fuzed. You might be right that having it masked over the wing would be a better overall design, more to preventing a hit vs. mitigating the damage one could do. No disagreement that the long nose is a forward visibility problem and better engine placement would be better but some long nosed aircraft have had good records in the Attack mission set, ref the F4U Corsair in Korea and Westland Wyvern in the Suez Crisis used by the Royal Navy (cockpit seems raised and the nose tapered for vis, that could mitigate some forward vis problems). Point taken though that more have a shorter nose than a schnoze Not exactly what I envision for this never gonna happen idea but conveys the general idea.... would need to be larger to get the range and/or endurance I think a Medium Attack / ISR aircraft would need to make it worth the while. 600 NM combat radius with 2 hours on stations with an SCL and only one external fuel tank. Yup, I doubt it too (damn it) but one can hope...

If we're gonna dream about resurrecting old iron with new bells and whistles... it's a repeat post but this modeler guy had it just about right (would have made it a two seater, you need one for the COIN/LIC mission)... Methinks the exhaust should've been routed to the tail but whatever, it's vaporware... Sidebar from actual light attack aircraft... as we dream about larger aircraft than the two offering currently being "considered" by the AF, is it that the AF has been sitting on the pot so long that the original requirements that were used to solicit proposals (sts) are no longer valid? That is the fight(s) have moved on from the combat of Iraq circa 2004-2009 and Afghanistan 2001 to now? The Joint Team needs an ISR/Attack platform now that has greater range, payload, survivability, etc... but still be more economical than a 4/5 gen fighter? It doesn't need a tanker to execute a typical mission profile and would ideally be in the $2500-5000 range per flight hour? About $30 mil per tail... but we plan on the USAF being the principal operators of this Medium Attack Armed Reconnaissance aircraft, if Allies or PNs want/can afford it, great, but BPC is not a mission for the aircraft, maybe the program but we select the platform for this ISR/Attack mission set to fit into our way of doing business first... I don't know, if the USMC can somehow Jedi mind trick Congress into thinking flying VSTOL jets is a good idea and get away with that for decades, I don't see why we can't convince them to let us resurrect the A-1, update it and field it. I mean really, is buying a proven design updated with modern systems to fill a role in the doctrinally called for mission sets really as crazy as an VTOL fleet to operate from mini-carriers that have major performance limits in VSTOL profiles or just in the cost of having VSTOL in your design?

I wish I could refute that... Why the hell can't a COCOM be a pseudo Force Provider?

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