Clark Griswold

True - it is an institutional character flaw in the AF. Pride, stubbornness and a lack imagination have infected it at the deepest levels. Agree that they were disruptive both short term and long term, the TAMI-21 sh*t sandwich though I think was way more damaging. There was a requirement, the AF stepped up to meet it but to reference Gates again "with the fine motor skills of a dinosaur" it manned it in a 1950's style that treats highly skilled valuable difficult to produce aircrew as interchangeable cogs to be used until failure then replaced with another. Unfortunately for the AF as a bureaucracy, it has not gotten the message that people have options, the ones your want to keep are hard to recruit, train and retain so it continues to stumble... if it were Gen Clark Griswold designing these programs, they would have heavily recruited from the ARC, not tried to nickel & dime the orders so that I could get a high degree of participation, looked for volunteers in the RegAF with the carrot of special programs following successful completion of their MC-12 / UAV tour rather than some pixel pusher who will need disability for repetitive knees stress (in residence PME if desired, base of choice, etc...) We have resources, we can retain key airmen, we just need to stop acting like an AF or military for that matter from a different era. What drives us into the dirt is that the world has changed, the wars / operations we are in are different than we are institutionally structured to meet yet we really don't change. The AF should be running head long into getting a LAAR not just as a cheaper way to deliver Airpower but as a strategic retention tool. I can only speak for myself but I worked my ass off to get a Pilot Slot to be a... Military Pilot. If you got 100 to 150 of these aircraft located at a few different, varied bases to give options for personal/family choices and QOL... instead of Capt X quitting after his second assignment UAV tour, he might stay for a career because he had a follow on in an aircraft, doing the mission and rebluing an officer in the process. Same thing for CSO. This will pay for itself for being about 95% cheaper when operationally employed and also when it retains hundreds of qualified aviators in the AF over the course of its operational life:

Depressing but likely a reason that could get them to the party (around 14 years late depending on your opinion of when we should have realized we were running a marathon and not a sprint). It's going to take a public brow beating ala the SECDEF Gates chiding the services and specifically the AF that spurred Project Liberty and got an FMV surge. Not judging the efficacy of that project but I cite it as an example of an event that shocked the AF into action. If a SECDEF, Senator or other serious politician publicly humiliated the AF or threatened to send the mission to the Army, that might spur action. Just buy one AF... if we can not figure out how to buy a light turboprop or jet, crew it appropriately and not crash the AF then we might as well hang it up and head to the house.

Do you really think commissioned officers of the AF, who are rated aircrew entrusted with millions of dollars of equipment on a daily basis, have legal authority over probably hundreds of enlisted personnel at Vance AFB, who could be put on a plane at a moment's notice to fight in a war.... do you really think those people could be entrusted with this on government property or at government sponsored social functions?

Yup, that came to mind when I read that article too. We like buying big high end systems and only buy the smaller lower end systems when reality calls us on the carpet. We have to reframe this argument, it is about buying the right capability, Global Precision Attack, at the right levels: Low threat and low effect - LAAR Moderate threat and medium effect - A-X High threat and up to strategic effect - B-21 This is not about this plane or that plane, we get fixated on the toys and it gets into debate with guys vicariously imagining which plane they would want to fly and we end up solving nothing. But I still want us to buy the Scorpion...

Good article. One most insightful line: An A-29 will simply not arrive on station as quickly as an F-15, survive contested airspace like an F-22, or have the situational awareness of an F-35; nor does it need to. This simple obvious fact that not every aircraft has to be supersonic, LO and the pinnacle of capabilities can't be grasped or publicly acknowledged by leadership hell bent on enabling the MIC to sell us what they want to (big ticket high profit on sale and service) vice what we actually need. Some want to sell us the systems we need and for their own interest; that's fine but methinks LM or others don't want a low cost, operationally successful LAAR to cause serious debate on the acquisition of 5th gen multi-role strike aircraft (or at least question how many we should buy, seeing the LAAR as competition for some of the resources necessary to acquire big ticket projects - money, time, political will, logistics, force structure, etc...) A LAAR doesn't get rid of the requirement for 5th gen strike but I think some with lots of political capitol are fearful it would hence the impossible to rationalize stubbornness of the USAF and other services to acquire that which is obviously needed.

Maybe but there could be other reasons to go back to a single advanced trainer even it is more expensive. I lean towards a single track but SUPT does make a helluva lot of sense still. To mitigate the cost of a more expensive advanced trainer (assuming a single T-X track) - could the instrument phase in T-6's be expanded and the instrument phase in T-X be shortened? Just use T-X to teach military specific items (form, mission, etc.)? 60% T-6 & 40% T-X or some other ratio... The T-X program seems to be emphasizing capability vs. cost (to a point).... http://aviationweek.com/defense/high-performance-t-x-could-edge-out-low-cost-bid If there is to be a T-XXX as a Tone replacement, maybe Big Blue would be willing to get a new jet with the luxury options? A jet that has range, modern avionics with full automation to manage (capable of full auto flight & HUD), NVG compatible cockpit, short field capability (landing on 5K' wet asphalt at ISA), a UARSSI just like the T-X will have even if only for dry plugs, etc... Swing for the fences for T-1 replacement...

Valid critique. Going back to a single advanced trainer is fine by me with the breakout of Fighter Rec'd and not later in the syllabus. However, if SUPT survives and not GUPT and they want to replace the Tone, then another modern suggestion would be the Syberjet SJ30, fast light jet, about the same size/weight as a Tone but a fuel miser with long legs.

T-1 back in the crosshairs (sorta)... Full article behind the paywall but the idea that the T-1 (as it is now) is past its prime is back. http://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-us-air-force-overspending-t-1a-its-forgotten-trainer If the T-1 is too much to upgrade/sustain, get a Cessna Mustang.

Thread bump on a related topic, RAAF looking to automate the boom. http://www.janes.com/article/68425/avalon-2017-raaf-and-airbus-to-develop-automated-refuelling-boom-for-kc-30a http://en.c4defence.com/Archive/airbus-to-develop-automated-refuelling-for-raaf-kc30a/3886/1

Ouch. The proposal was supposed to only need a 25% modification to the A model, I imagine it was whole new pressurized section and the rocket motors in lieu of the jets. That seems a little too good to be true but whatevs, it was an awesome idea from a different time...

Possibly.

2 On the related subject of Building Partnership Capacity, a briefing from NGAUS & Textron making the argument to buy something you can afford and is what you really need. http://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/TEXTRON.pdf In the case of the PI, when the US gives you 120 mil+ in 2016 in military aid, we do have an opinion that counts on what you should buy. https://fronteranews.com/news/asia/much-foreign-aid-manila-lose-washington/

Agreed - from the articles/videos, the super flankers stand a chance if enough can survive either the first volley and/or get close enough for the surviving formation to overlap sensors to get SA (still BVR but close enough to find a Lighting) Break, break... Possible Polish F-35s in a few years: http://www.defence24.com/251668,new-fighter-for-the-polish-air-force-f-35-complementing-the-f-16

Sub-orbitial T-38 concept. Talons in Space: Northrop's N-205 Proposal

Can't argue they are wanting. Thank you sir may I have another! Yeah, they are not to referenced in a 3-1 or besides my spurious post but they stir the pot for a discussion on a "4++" vs 5th gen. From his musings, I thought there was one point worthy of discussion, can a 4th gen that is likely one of the best of its class, can it maximize its best qualities (energy potential, combat load, radar/IRST) to overcome an LO opponent?

Trying to get three more partners on the 35 team... http://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-australia-lockheed-idUSKBN16A0DW And from the internet so caveat emptor, some F-35 vs. Su-35 analysis... http://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/usa-f-35-jsf-vs-russian-su-35s.html http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-vs-russias-su-35-who-wins-13855 Two Youtube videos on a hypothetical 4 v 4, defending and attacking setups with Flankers vs Lightings: Part 1 Part 2

Copy all. Since we're having an exchange between the crew and single seat communities I don't want to leave the impression that in the multi-place world that we are incapable or don't occasionally fly for some periods of time with duties normally distributed between the pilots all done by the PF (physio breaks, controlled cockpit rest, mission requirements in some crew aircraft will pull the right seater away for other mission tasks, etc...). Usually the split of flight duties, challenge and response checklists, confirmations, etc... is not because the PF is tasked saturated with just flying of the jet but to enhance SA, communicate to the crew (flight deck and back end if applicable) and utilize all the resources available. It keeps the PNF from getting out of synch with the PF and ready to take the jet, if required. Just one herbivore's take on how we do business...

You have altitude hold in single seaters also, you don't use it when you have to multi-task?

They talked about it but never pursued it, can't meet the sustained turn requirements they want in T-X for BFM instruction. They added 4 degrees of sweep to the wing and and all moving horizontal stab for better high speed control. I thought they had it right with the first aircraft and it's Hershey Bar wing but they modified based on testing inputs so be it. It's still not going to catch an airliner unless it is OEI but a supersonic BVR missile fired from it will catch almost anything.

True, but selling the AIM-120C model should not be a stretch or the Israeli Derby BVR missile. The case for the fixed wing is made for the capabilities (speed, range, endurance, altitude, payload and self-defense) matched with much lower operational costs. Particularly when you have a large geographical area to patrol and secure like the PI, Columbia, Nigeria, etc...

True but it is probably what they could truly afford. Now if we want to just give them second hand 16s then that changes the equation but this idea is that Country X is paying for everything themselves. I was thinking something similar also, County X with limited resources for defense uses a Patriot battery for their first ring of air defense with Super Scorpions forming a second echelon that fires and retrogrades to preserve the asset and the aircrew lives.

Possibly but my comment was mainly meant for FMS customers like the PI's, Columbia, etc... For the cost of one F/A-50 at $30 mil, you could get a hypothetical Super Scorpion at $25 mil (WAG) and 6 AIM-120C + 2 AIM-9X for Air Defense and 20 SDB + 10 AGM-114 + 10 APKWS for Precision Strike. You'd have about 800k left over for training, spare parts, etc... That's just simple math but you get the point, a less expensive platform that still has enough capability to deliver advanced weapons is a more viable COA than blowing all your money in a few fighters that you have no money to arm, train or maintain properly.

It would be tough - read impossible - for Scorp to intercept anything but a recip or turboprop but that's not its bread and butter. This hypothetical capability would be as a second echelon or compliment to a true fighter. Real fighters cost too much to buy and operate, they carry prestige but often can't be procured in relevant numbers or the fleet is not nearly as available as needed due to MX costs. This is the case for a lot of our budget conscious partners. Providing them an option that lets have some A2A capability but gives them a lot of ISR and Light Strike can fill a niche the F-5 used to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool - no offense taken and good points made. As a T-1 grad looking from the outside at the potential change to SUPT, just send everyone thru T-X and at some point in the Phase 3 syllabus make the split between Fighter rec'd and everybody else with the syllabus diverging at that point. Good for the Aviation Community as it encourages common culture and gives everyone a chance up to some point to shine and get to earn a single seat fighter.

By air defense, how do you mean? Air Defense as a fighter capable of BFM - no way. Air Defense as a missile platform for BVR missiles then defending or egressing, maybe if you wanted to invest that kind of money into this platform for this new/added capability. For the US, it could be useful but would likely substantially increase the cost and likely doom the project for us but you could use it to entice a FMS customer. Take a potential customer like the PI, they have a basic Air Defense needs but large FID needs with various insurgencies, TNCO, etc... Have a "super" Scorpion model that has that capability to deliver ISR & kinetic effects inexpensively and with a suitable radar like a Raytheon RACR, to shoot AMRAAMs then egress bravely to avoid a shot from an encroaching J-15. The platform is not a fighter but a missile platform, a slow moving interceptor really. How effective would it be, don't know. But if you are a resource short AF needing some capability to defend against air to air threats and a lot of capability to deliver ISR and light/precision strike, this could be a novel way of doing it.