Clark Griswold

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.

Another site on the RECREATE Cruiser - Feeder concept: https://transport.weblog.tudelft.nl/2014/11/05/recreate-research-on-a-cruiser-enabled-air-transport-environment/ How they envision the AR event to be, an offset enroute reverse cowgirl AR... And rendezvous points, on the nat tracks, enroute points and close to departure... Just grist for the mill but interesting. Me thinks AR close to their departures would be better if they ever actually deployed this system (doubtful). Benefits: Check AR capability before the receiver (cruiser) is over BFE low on fuel and could more quickly cycle one tanker (feeder) for multiple customers.

That is a damn shame. It's been years since I have driven a droid but the pain of mid-shifts lingers on... really, for the long term health of the people who fly/maintain/support this mission, that is a huge QOL issue and ultimately a major factor in retention, thus Big AF should have given it more weight. PR to Guam with bases scattered in between to keep the crews working normal times, more CODELs interested in supporting the enterprise to bring home the bacon to their bases and options for career RPA folks. Vandenburg is my vote FWIW (not anything) as that is at least on the other shining sea and a great location.

A step in the right direction, now to really get better Z clock coverage, time to add that PACAF MQ-9 base(s)

Found this: http://ipadpilotnews.com/2012/06/having-trouble-viewing-your-ipad-with-night-vision-goggles-theres-a-filter-for-that/ and this supplier: http://www.consolite.co.uk/nvg-filters/ipad-and-tablet-filters/ Both MIL STD 3009 compliant but no idea if GPC eligible. Follow on, just a red light filter you might be interested in, doesn't advertise frequency blocking for NVG operations but if you're interested: http://www.siriusastroproducts.com/products---red-eyes-computeriphonedslr-light-shield.html

The only thing I can think of that makes this (commercial AR) worth the effort would be for a UAV or manned platform like a BACN (a civilian version) or a SAR aircraft. A civilian platform (commercial or state aircraft) needing / wanting extreme endurance. The application to passenger air travel seems / is unneeded but there is a sliver of requirement for a few possible operators if they wanted the capability (USCG, CBP, DoS, Telecomm providers, etc...) to fly for 10+ hours.

This. Don't give a drunk a drink. Until they tell you they are ready to quit growing the blob of non-mission relevant bullshit and the shoe clerks who feed on it. Make them squirm and publicly state what will be dropped, eliminated and changed. The SECAF & CSAF made a step in the right direction with the attempt and some success in the elimination of excess / unnecessary additional duties but it has MUCH further to go. You're going to have get him to strategically change the career intent, focus & development in the officer corps to level the wings. There are issues in the enlisted cadre also, careerism at the expense of primary duty competency, but the lion's share of the problem is that the AF stuck in an Industrial Style HR system (particularly in the officer cadre) that strives to maintain a force structure not really suited for today's workforce, operational environment or financial realities. Also, make them buy a LAAR - that would be the cherry on top.

As JarheadBoom said, it is reverse cowgirl with the receiver on top probably still on autopilot with the tanker (feeder in their terms) pumping fuel up to the receiver aircraft. The boom is automatic or drouge if they went that route and the skills would be required by the "feeder" aircraft. Agreed it looks like a solution to a nonexistent problem but it was/is interesting how much research they have done, simulator time and serious engineering work is not cheap so someone thought spending a million or whatever researching this was worth it. This would have so many moving parts, places to go wrong, expensive (possibly dangerous) risks, that I don't see how the airlines that would do this could break even considering the whole endeavor and doing it only for the longest flights in the world that are just not the revenue makers for the airlines.

Had not heard of this, kinda surprised they just don't go to a single multi-role fighter for logistical savings but have at it, there should be some options out there to keep LM on it's toes.

Valid point - but I should serve myself some humble pie here as I wiki'd the Luftwaffe before replying to your post, more combat capability than I thought but in my infinitely correct American opinion they should be more assertive with it. 120+ EF-2000s & 80+ Tornados is not a haymaker of a punch but a helluva jab... Valid. They (the Germans) were interested in V/STOL at one time for dispersed basing to survive an expected Soviet first strike against established bases, kinda surprised they are not still at least somewhat interested in that... Russian cruise missiles and asymmetric attacks could make having some kind of dispersing capability worth the while...

All valid and checks with my experience in AMC, 2000 to 2005, time frame. Just to light a candle could you fix this by tying promotion eligibility, flight pay, PCS eligibility, etc... by objective measure of flying hours (Other time excluded) and TDY days relative to MDS in AMC? If you don't at least have the average number of flight hours, TDYs, etc... no PHOENIX, in-residence, etc... a bright and shiny could be selected but in order to actually go, he/she would have to get their Died time and hours, this could give a respite for the commoners when needed. Getting an extra pause or two before going back on the road would have been a Godsend. Flight Pay, changing the eligibility or level of pay (full or partial) based on flight hours is probably too big a fish to fry but if the AMC/CC wanted to (that's the rub) - he could change the AMC culture to favor operational experience as the key to leadership opportunities. The bright and shiny's can still have their club but to go to the next level of the Chosen, you have to have one tour where you at least met the average in operations... not holding breath.

YW - just my opinions and worth what you paid for them The world is changing and nothing does or should last forever, not giving up on Europe but making a change that is better for us is long overdue Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Major Burns probably wrote that order...

Agreed but he is not above weakening, distracting, disorienting, intimidating, influencing in ways that border on aggression in several ways. Breaking up the EU to further divide and conquer is probably the long term strategy. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-germany-europe-idUSKBN14R0G8?il=0 All great powers meddle with lesser powers and to some extent push or probe other great powers but his tactics and goals cross lines we (usually) don't. Good article on whether or not NATO serves our or their purpose of collective defense: http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/02/03/obama-wants-u-s-to-spend-more-on-europes-defense-europeans-should-pay-instead/#1b726effb949 There's good place to put assets that could come home from Europe:

True but I think that is starting to wear thin, Merkel is still the Chancellor so they are not there yet to assert sovereignty / control immigration, but getting close. On your anecdote, they (average Germans) must not view or value engagement (military) outside of Germany as a priority or their responsibility... A Quora thread on the subject with several posters stating they are from Germany and their responses: https://www.quora.com/How-can-Germany-spend-so-little-on-defense-thus-rely-on-the-United-States-and-NATO-treaties-for-defending-them From the thread: Bernhard Støcker, Native German and "Kölsche Jung" Written Jul 30, 2014 why should we spend more? our army is able to handle its tasks. germany is not interested in participating in any war, so the money spent to military only needs to cover the nessecity to self-defence. and since germany is in regards to engineering one of the leading countries, we are able to use very good technologies making it unessential to have a bigger army. we like to spend our money on important things like free education and social protection. something that is maybe also a good idea in the US, doesn't it? Guy could be just a troll / poser but from the perspective of the average German, when America is willing to do the dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, expensive missions around the world to keep the current international order / stability / deterrence / etc... why do they need to do anything? Follow on: If we don't want to leave NATO just restate our relationship that we'll come to help if the territorial sovereignty of the members is violated/increase deterrence presence if necessary/etc... then how much foot print do we really need there?

Feasibility with a President Trump of a call-out on the free riders? Somewhere between good and really good. Looking at you Germany... Implications of Associate Membership for the US to the Alliance? Could be not that bad but it depends if they step up to the plate and take a leadership role. Looking at you Germany... NATO should be lead by one of the strongest (economically) members with the most to loose from a meddling, aggressive Russia. Looking at you Germany... Cato think tank option piece on the subject: https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/should-us-leave-nato From the article: Retired Gen. Robert Scales, commandant of the Army War College, recently complained that: “At 30,000, there are fewer American soldiers protecting Western Europe, a piece of the planet that produces 46 percent of global GDP, than there are cops in New York City.” But why can’t an area that accounts for almost half of the world’s production (an overstatement, but never mind) and has a larger population than America provide its own soldiers for defense? Why can’t an area of such economic prowess, which has around eight times the GDP and three times the population of its only possible antagonist, Russia, deploy an armed force capable of deterring any threats? We're going to have to kick them out of the nest or in the ass to get them (Germany and company) to self-actualize and basically double to triple their capabilities. For the life of me, I can't understand why the Europeans are not on the rapid build up with: Russia overtly and covertly taking territory, aiding rebels and conducting hybrid warfare in Ukraine, getting aggressive in the skies over the Baltic Sea, refugees poring in from a war torn area not that far away and numerous terrorist attacks in their own nations. Don't forget too that in about 5-10 years, Iran will be at least a nuclear weapons capable state with a ballistic missile capability and your principle defense strategy is a to rely on a country 1800 miles across an ocean that just elected a rather eccentric leader shall we say... I would buy my own gun(s) if I lived in their neighborhood rather than relying on my friend across town.