Clark Griswold

Stavatti's back: https://warisboring.com/this-weird-little-company-wants-to-build-the-next-a-10-bdfc0bda2b15#.vsopmjc9o

Just grist for the mill but found another concept for a Lead in Trainer / Light Attack aircraft: Rud Aero RA-6 http://rud.aero/our-aircraft/ra-6-multipurpose-jet-aircraft/

You would add points to it thus increasing it if you were collecting it but I have only heard of that as a rare exception and always associated with finance problems. You would not receive your pension for the days you were in Military Status for the Guard/Reserve unit you would be serving with but recieving drill/at/tp/orders pay. That pay status though would be adding to your calculated number of points thus increasing your pension. Clear as mud? Thus why I have always heard this being a pain in the a$$ that is really not done. Retired and collecting an AD pension and continuing to serve in the Guard/Reserve. Not a fighter guy but Brabus' advice is right, if you want to try to fly fighters, make the call now. I am guessing you would be an O-4 / O-5 if you waited and the more rank you get the less likely you are to be assessed by a Guard/Reserve unit without some other skill/qual/cert that makes you more marketable. Not saying it doesn't happen just less likely as there are few billets to slot you in and you effectively jump over dudes in the unit already there. Just curious as I am not completely familiar with FTS in the Naval Reserve but I thought you could apply for a transfer once you were FTS after some period of time? Could you transfer to an FTS job with a unit like VFA-204?

Particularly well said...

Don't worry... they're all green for CBTs... the main problem and I think there should be an LOR given to someone for not having reflective belts on those cadets.

30k and going strong... http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/1070623/u-2-breaks-30000-hour-barrier-in-fight-against-isil.aspx

Say it ain't so... Sidebar question: was there ever any movement to move 10s to Hickam? If operations in the Pacific have to deal with the tyranny of distance, a squadron of 10's in the middle of it (or close to it) would seem to make sense.

One main question and follow on one branching from that... Why put so many core functions / missions of the AF into one MAJCOM (ACC)? Does he believe that one MAJCOM can be responsible for so many different missions, aircraft, systems, etc... and truly allocate resources appropriately when less "sexy" missions like JSTARS, AWACS, RPAs, etc... have to exist in the same MAJCOM with high visibility "silver bullet" or TBTF programs like the F-35?

Won't deny that it has a... unique aesthetic appearance... yeah, let's go with that... but it gets the job done or could if it finds someone to take it home. Unfortunately for Textron-Airland, it's almost closing time and no one is offering a ride home.

Production configuration first flight for Scorpion...

Never do this, no matter how petty and insulting the policy/rule.

B model chalked up an assist... http://www.defenseone.com/technology/2016/11/f-35b-just-got-lot-deadlier/133379/?oref=d-dontmiss and SECDEF is taking a second look at the C model compared to the AC SH... https://news.usni.org/2017/01/27/mattis-orders-comparison-review-f-35c-advanced-super-hornet

Towed aircraft theme... Not the most exciting flying videos but interesting, heaviest aircraft I have ever seen towed into flight. and a 45' paper airplane... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9162771/Giant-paper-airplane-launched-into-the-skies-over-US.html

Yup, it's really a good movie, particularly Shatner's speech at the 45 minute mark. A pretty good explanation on how we rationalize tolerating the injustices we encounter in systems where people misuse their power.

Cool. Just my two cents but the increase in capability/requirements has made the second crew member more necessary... multiple sensors to manage on single platforms, data / comm saturation (multiple radios, MIRC, data linked from other platforms, etc.), complex engagements, etc... almost all the technology added has increased the workload not decreased it. Buying OA-X with two seats or offered in single / dual seat configurations is the best strategy to manage the range of missions a LAAR could be tasked against and potential growth. Two more articles on the subject... https://warontherocks.com/2017/01/light-attack-removing-the-veil-on-oa-x/ https://warisboring.com/stop-disrespecting-the-turboprop-c00acd3fff3a#.e2co17g4q

Sorry for the distraction of mentioning the 777 freighter specifically, not really necessary as this idea of an optimized wing - thinner and structurally different for lower fuel loads - for a Cruiser Freighter could be applied to any existing or a future design. Looking at what the RECREATE teams have proposed; the wings, stabilizers, etc.. are all unique designs mated to what look like conventional fuselage designs. Trying to keep it inexpensive by reusing current designs but trying to reap the full potential benefits doesn't seem to be possible from their proposals. Interestingly, it looks like from their comparisons, the Cruiser concept aircraft could be powered by smaller, less expensive engines. That could be a large potential savings in acquisition, operation and maintenance.

I winced when I heard that too but I think T is somewhat like Duff-Man... I take some of what he says with a healthy grain of salt and I am pretty sure he understands that saying that is like saying we're going to get rid of all bad people everywhere on earth forever. My hunch / hope is that what will be directly called "radical Islamic terrorism" will be a bit restricted and his administration will just accept the idea that the ME, HOA and in general parts of the Islamic world just work differently shall we say and only involve the US when our interests are at stake or it makes sense to nip a growing problem in the bud. Buy oil, sell them stuff, intervene when necessary, keep your expectations realistic and don't think it is your job to change them.

Good idea. Trade fuel for revenue producing cargo and/or lower operational cost/wear & tear and get the gas you need in the air. The problem I see from my overly simple calculations from above posts is the pay back rate from the direct profits to be made from the Feeder sorties, you would have to quantify the other savings you mentioned (derated takeoffs, longer times between major overhauls, etc..) for customers and have them bake that into their business model for Cruiser aircraft. Question(s), considering a hypothetical 777 Freighter AR Cruiser capable aircraft, if you stopped filling the wings to capacity for fuel, would that impart greater structural stress due to the loss of load spreading? If so, would that necessitate or incentivize a wing redesign? Designing a new wing to optimize a Cruiser AR (for operations and structural reasons) would seem to negate or again make the payback time too long to generate interest in developing the capability.

Yup. The AF will always make the right decision after it has tried all the wrong ones first. Looking back around 2005, the smart kids should have seen the need for a less resource intensive (cost & logistics) way to deliver effects in a long term COIN / nation building operations but here we are, there will be other places to mow the grass so let's buy a lawn mower rather than using a combine.

Better late than never... http://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-chief-lends-support-to-light-attack-aircraft-buy

Yup - it's time for the RPA community to have at least one great overseas location. The problem being the politics, I doubt any ally, would allow kinetic RPA operations from their soil, except in conflicts / operations against morally unambiguous targets (conventional enemy forces, declared conflict, etc..). There's always a chance as they face threats in the PI / Indonesia that could spread to and threaten Australia but unfortunately I doubt it.

For the Cruiser (receiver) pilots and crew, probably minimal. RECREATE designed / tested (simulators) on the receiver pilots pretty much doing nothing while a special autopilot mode, automatic boom and the receiver aircraft managed the AR event and fuel intake. Their reverse cowgirl AR keeps the tanker on the bottom and could limit the number of pilots / crew required to have specialized AR skills to a minimum for training costs. Agree on the smaller airport argument however unless some extra parallels are put in at some the largest airports, they are at capacity. Even then, gate congestion is getting to be an issue. An argument for this could be to clear gates/company ramps a bit faster but that is rather thin...

Most of the articles focus on a 230 PAX jet getting AR and saving 20% fuel for the trip via multiple AR events, doing bar napkin math... Assume Commercial Tanker costs 15K per hour and flies a 2 hour mission for two customers on the same mission, 30k charged to two airlines, so it's 15k to each. Both customer jets are at 200 PAX each and because they are departing less congested airfields at lower GW, the airport fees are lower, estimate those costs at $750 per jet. So distribute $30k in tanker costs, $1500 in landing fees and we'll make up a new fee for Commercial AR that would likely be charged by ATC if this system were implemented, $500 per AR event, and that is another $1000.... 30 + 1.5 + 1 = 32.5k over 400 PAX comes to $81.25 but then figure that the aircraft will burn 20% less fuel and assume these flights burn 80k over a 10 hour flight and that is 16k in fuel savings per flight so 32k total, about $20k less fuel costs so apply those savings to the PAX. That's about $50 in savings per customer so that takes the $81.25 down to $31.25 per PAX to pay for the AR. That does not figure in cost to acquire and start up the Commercial Tanker aircraft / service but a per PAX cost seems almost conceivable. Another WAG, the tanker would probably cost $40 mil a copy so to pay for it in 10 years figuring 500 AR events a year and adding 10% profit comes to $8,800 in profit per mission required, so the real operational cost of the tanker would need to be $6,200, just does not seem possible...

Yup - was thinking Australia for a new OL.

Copy that. Keeping OPSEC front and center there has got to be some requirement for that kind of infrastructure in the PACOM theatre, with the Pacific Pivot (supposedly) I'm surprised there is resistance to building out/up mission infrastructure and capability.