Clark Griswold

Another round of OA-X demos in May - July timeframe: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/will-the-air-force-really-buy-new-light-attack-aircraft-24397 and IOMAX wants to adapt Archangel to a coastal / maritime patrol mission: https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/singapore-airshow/2018/02/09/iomax-may-adapt-its-archangel-aircraft-to-patrol-asian-coastlines/

This Onion headline seems similar to the the current situation in Syria.

Rand Paul on Neil Cavuto, not usually a fan of his but as we pass 20+ trillion debt now with a trillion dollar deficit forecast in few years, along with higher interest rates inevitably necessary, shit is about to get real IMO in a few years. Skip to 9:45 and he has a good idea, individual spending bills vs. the all or nothing omnibus bills we choke on now. Department by Department, vote on each and IMO should have 3 COAs for each: Full Resourcing, 5% haircut across the Department's individual programs or 5% haircut with discretion granted to the head of the Dept to shift resources to achieve the 5% savings. For the 2018 budget, it is about 3.654 trillion in revenues vs. 4.094 trillion in appropriations, for about 440 billion in deficit spending or about 9% over budget. Let's dip our toes in the water of fiscal sanity and aim for just 4% over budget and shift just 5% of budget and spending authority to gov officials who don't have a huge need to beg of campaign contributions and face reelection every 2 or 6 years...

Ditto. Saw a video on the Orion spacecraft system and it was designed specifically with plenty of dials, switches, physical buttons, etc. for human factors and with touchscreen capacity for reversion capability. 20 lb. brains working on a multi-billion dollar spacecraft think keeping a conventional control system is a good idea, it probably is.

It was insanely cool. SLS / Orion is gonna be impressive when it comes to be (fingers crossed) in Dec 2019. https://spacenews.com/nasa-sets-december-2019-date-for-first-sls-launch/ I'm hoping this interest and optimism given the successful launch can be sustained. We can get to Mars orbit sooner rather than later (maybe 6 years from now) get a solid win and ask the for the big, big mission(s) - Mars landings with a permanent outpost. https://hom.planetary.org Also, give NASA one penny at least... https://www.penny4nasa.org/mission/

Do it. I can't imagine saying no if I were in your shoes. I can still remember my tweet solo, first flight as the A code, etc... all the bullshit you will have to put up with is worth it.

But they collect the intel to know whom to strike, that’s the primary tactical problem to be solved for the strategy leadership currently prefers. Not saying that strategy is good, bad, effective or wise just what we do and why. Any number of assets can deliver a PGM, very few can deliver a weapon after the exhaustive collection and target discrimination our ROE requires. Make droids primarily an X-CAS platform and what they bring to the fight rapidly diminishes.

Crap - pardon my ignorance

MAJCOM patch Really? Thought Cyber was happy in AFSPC but if y'all are good with it, cool.

AF Global Vigilance Command... sounds right. Sending 24AF to ACC... sounds terrible.

Yeah, it's an interesting situation, my RPA experience is the Global Chicken, very different from the Reaper world so I am thinking from an outsider perspective looking in. A resurrected AF Intelligence Command would really need to be Air ISR Operations Command (or something) and keep the emphasis on the process to gather the intelligence / action on it not the PED of it. Too many functions/missions in ACC, can't legitimately balance them all out under one roof.

Copy that. Another fix that really would be the thing that could actually cause the others is IMO that the RPA community needs a home of its own for its core function/mission of Global Integrated ISR, resurrect AF Intelligence Command and give them the top cover of their own 4 star. It's a large enough core function/mission that it has out grown ACC and is sufficiently different that it needs its own dedicated leadership and MAJCOM.

Yeah I do think that absent a growth in resources and the authority to execute them wisely that a reduction in CAPs to execute the resources allocated now thus allowing for some margin for QoL and development of the community is the best long term COA but I doubt that the AF would either lower its force contribution beyond 60 CAPs or would be allowed to. The get-well plan sounds fine but to narrow in on the 10-1 crew to CAP ratio you have to put an asterisk and notes with that. Not all of those 10 aviators are crew dogs flying the line, just drawing on my experience in an RPA squadron from years past if you took a sample of 10 pilots from the squadron probably 5 were company grade crew dogs and the other 5 were field graders that flew occasionally as they had other duties that sometimes legitimately precluded scheduling them and sometimes RHIP. My point being is the devil is in the details and that if the AF really wants this to not be a morale and retention killing assignment(s) then it must acknowledge and program for it. As for other nations picking up some of the slack I doubt it, the political will / balls to conduct the precision HVI / signature strike mission is just not there. No one in the West wants to publicly admit that we are attempting to kill our way out of these COIN missions just not indiscriminately. Not saying that is a good or bad tactic but it does not have a noble ring to it hence the politicians keeping their distance from it if they can. Don’t mean to be all negative but just my honest opinion. If I were king for a day i would: - program 50k per year bonuses for volunteers - establish a companion trainer aircraft program - establish a sensor / JTAC to warrant officer 18X program - establish 10 new RPA ops centers on bases across US territory for QoL across time zones and I would CLOSE Creech to RPA ops - establish a policy that states any rated officer in an RPA wing holding a qualification in the primary MWS of that Wing must remain maintain within 80% of the average flight hours per pilot per month to receive flight pay or ACIP Fat chance on all of those but advocate wherever you can for what you think is right

Good Lord that's low... Good article but beyond allocating more resources and using them logically rather than politically (people, perks and bases in desirable locales with timezone distribution versus some wasteland of a congressional district) what else could fix this?

Fair enough and I am not for using conscription willy nilly just for keeping it legal and ready if required Referring to your idea that if the people will not willingly fight in numbers sufficient to ensure their sovereignty then their nation is not worth fighting for perhaps but if they are not willing to fight I am thinking that it is more accurate that they are not worthy of liberty

Then I enslave my children on a daily basis. Just being a cheeky bastard but the libertarians in this discussion are taking things too an extreme. Liberty and Personal Freedom / Choice are not infinite and the price to realize them at any level is that as individuals we sacrifice a small amount of our own allotment to allow the group to experience it as a whole. Like paying taxes, we each pay some so that we all have something(s) we all need. I think @Vertigo mentioned earlier that your freedom ends when it intrudes on the freedom of another, I would caveat that with unreasonably intrudes on the freedom of another. The greater point to take away from that astute statement (Vertigo's not mine) is that all principles, values and other human concepts are subject to limitations of realization in the real world, that is they can never be fully realized only approximated to a reasonable extent. To have a place on this Earth where your God given rights can be realized requires people who organize together as a tribe / nation willing to use force and violence to keep other groups of humans from imposing their will, stealing your resources and/or killing / displacing your group. Paradoxically, in order to do this, the individuals of that group will have to subordinate some of their freedoms / personal choices in order for the group to realize the maximum amount of liberty / personal choice, not fully but as close to fully as conditions / resources will allow.

Gotta keep that per unit cost down, strategic concerns be damned... I don't know what the data architecture is but why would the Russians want to let some of their best A2AD stuff talk to ours potentially compromising theirs? This is all in the rearview mirror but a non-ALIS based JSF would have been the ideal export variant.

I’m not for conscription as I said in my first post I just wouldn’t take it off the table. There would be problems definitely in security, quality of effort, morale and discipline no doubt but IF a surge in manpower was required by military necessity and conscription was the only means to meet it so be it. Conscription may be antithetical to Liberty but the Constitution is not a suicide pact and it provides sanctioned prescriptions to preserve it and the nation should the need arise that in other situations would violate the rights of her citizens.

So you’re saying if something is not specifically mentioned / allowed or prohibited by the Constitution that is its basis for policy/law? That’s not a strict constructionist interpretation but an inflexible one Liberty is great but it only exists because of security & vigilance which are fires that must be constantly tended

Duty to your country. It's not demeaning or dehumanizing, it is service your country is calling upon from its citizenry. This is a two way street, nations serve their citizens and citizens serve their nation, voluntarily or when called on. We've lost that in recent decades and have been draining the fuel tank of national cultural virtue without putting anything back in, it's time to top off the tank. I know that it (mandatory service) has never been perfect, the wealthy and connected sometimes got deferments or preferential postings thru unscrupulous actions but that doesn't mean that concept of mandatory service, specifically military service, was not overall beneficial to the country, directly in acquired military manpower required or indirectly in other ways (character development, intermixing of normally disparate groups, a unifying experience shared by generations, etc...). I see your point but mandatory military service is not forcing someone to perform economic activity from which someone else will profit (that's slavery) this is service to the nation. Honestly, I don't think we (the military) really need it and it may not have the effect some of us would hope it would have on the youth impressed into service but I would not dismiss it out of hand.

Turkish F-35 linked to Russian systems? https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17687/turkey-wants-to-link-its-f-35-computer-brains-to-networks-that-will-include-russian-systems

Not surprised just noting it. Will respectfully disagree, I didn't get that idea from his article (MC-12 experience automatically meant you were highly qualified in the attack mission set) but I agree with him that it gives a level of experience and background that could be useful to become a qualified, proficient OA-X pilot. Ditto for a baller from another platform transitioning to a cso seat in an OA-X (if it even happens). Both of those ideas caveated that not everyone from an MC-12 background (or any platform for that mater) is right for a potential OA-X, same for a baller from another platform. All aircrew should be (IMO) eligible to apply, judged on their record of performance and then selected accordingly. Previous experience in air to ground would not be a discriminator, IMO. A potential OA-X training program would have a syllabus that would train dudes new to the attack mission set appropriately, dudes with previous fighter / attack experience would like PA over these rides / sims & academics. Given the affordability of the per flight hour cost of the offerings for OA-X ($1,500 to $3,000 per flight hour), bringing up to speed in the attack mission set would not be cost prohibitive and a worthy strategic investment in the Line of the Air Force. If OA-X is procured, as a policy, open it to your entire rated crew force, 30% CAF 30% MAF 30% UPT (even split T-1/T-38) 10% ARC (3 year MPA tours). Those numbers are not hard and fast quotas but broad guidelines to shape the crew force, standards would have to be met to be selected and to qualify. If the AF bought 100 tails and crewed at 2.5, that's 250 pilots / 250 csos, a serious bill to be sure but one that is not insurmountable, aircrew will volunteer or stay in the force to be part of the mission not TCN monitors or Power Point warriors at the Died. I advocate for inclusion of non-CAF dudes in this potential community as I believe it is in the best interest of the AF and meets an operational need. I've had the opportunity to work with guys from fighter / attack / bomber backgrounds and I have discussed with them their sometimes frustrations with dudes from other backgrounds, that they don't have a "tactical" mindset. Well, if you want them to have a "tactical" mindset, include those that can hack it in the mission. OA-X is a good place to have that cross-flow, seeding a more operational mindset vice shoe clerkism by having a greater percentage of your line officer cadre involved in the mission.

Yup. The MC-12 alumni may not be the deep well on AD the author believes but there are some likely still on AD who would volunteer and do well in an OA-X program, some in the ARC now who would take an MPA tour (3 yrs or so) and other pilots / navs / csos who would volunteer. It's an all of the above COA to man this quickly if the AF procures OA-X. OA-X meets a valid operational need, builds a strategic pool of officers and aircrew with direct experience in tactical / kinetic operations and is but one of several things to do for the AF to re-blue itself to an operationally focused force.

Copy No argument that not every platform should be treated as a persistent FMV stare platform, mostly I was thinking that as they have one station to carry a pod, if the OSO and DSO could each have an FMV sensor it would improve the Bone as an on demand ISR / CAS asset. Ton of money likely required to get to that capability probably so not holding breath.

Alright let's stir the pot once more... So only at the moments of track select and assignment night are we deeming guys qualified to operate aircraft that employ weapons? At no other points in their careers are they to be considered / selected for a new track that could involve that? There are some exceptions to those above rhetorical questions but as a rule the AF does that, I would say that needs to change. I can see some issues with the idea that the author proposed but the overall idea, looking to a community with experience in supporting ground forces to help populate a new weapons system oriented to that is not that far fetched. Not saying there would not be standards to be met as dudes from a non-fighter/attack/bomber background would have to meet but they should not be by policy shut out (effectively) from ever having opportunities for cross-flowing into these missions / systems.