Clark Griswold

Yup The economic exchange factor between belligerents is always relevant, even more so in COIN / LIC. If we plan to keep running these marathons, we need a sustainability plan as much as we need an exit plan as these things will likely run 15-20 years to kill, build and suppress the enemy long enough to "win".

Definitely inspired by There’s 0.69% chance of acquiring that airframe but a successor to the MC-12, U-28, RC-26, RC-12, etc all based on the Emb-120/Saab 340/Beech 1900 platform is the right mix for a 1-2-3 punch to delivering Persistent Stare - ISR/Light Strike. New platform manned ISR + LAAR Couple that with an all Reaper ER fleet and you can whack a mole more effectively

Just to stir the discussion: Sukhoi Su-80 with a proposed (not sure if actually fielded Su-80PT (patrol/transport) ) variant for the Russian/Kazakhstan Border Guards and a few others, looks like it would be ideal with some mods for COIN / LIC: References for the PT variants (caveat emptor) but some data on how the FSU have thought this capability (or one closely related to it): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-80 https://www.sukhoi.org/eng/planes/civil/su-80/ https://testpilot.ru/russia/sukhoi/s/80/pt/s80pt_e.htm https://cosmopark.ru/s80.html

Or just buy the best airplane If the AF can’t figure out that the Scorpion is the best overall system for this mission and going forward into the future with its built on flexibility and growth potential; then it probably should not have the LAAR mission

Stealth hornet

Drop it

That would be something but maybe with this POTUS / SECDEF that are not beholden to convention they could do going to Advanced Capability Hornets / Super Hornets. How do you sell that to Congress though? With perfect hindsight and just my two cents, an A and B model fleet with the Navy (and Royal Navy) along with the USMC all flying the B and a D / G model made from a baseline B sans lift fan for a WW version or two seater for foreign customers desiring those types would have been a better one size fits all (kinda) approach. Some articles from 2015 that maybe this RUMINT coming to pass, maybe... https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/02/22/us-navy-to-lockheed-martins-f-35-stealth-fighter-w.aspx https://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/f-35c-a-wrong-turn-for-navy-cnas/

Getting closer to getting another nation in the F-35 club https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/15896/germany-says-the-f-35-is-the-preferred-choice-to-replace-its-tornados https://aviationweek.com/combat-aircraft/germany-wants-fifth-gen-fighter-replace-tornado Get France & India in the club also and keep distributing the cost overruns, have to come up with an export version specifically for those two but it can be done (probably).

Intercept of Iranian civil registered A310: https://theaviationist.com/2015/04/30/rsaf-intercept-a310-sanaa/

Good article On the subject of NATO & should the US leave it, I think it is more now of reforming it to a European led, America ensures with a reduced European footprint... https://www.usnews.com/opinion/world-report/articles/2016-12-08/the-us-should-redesign-nato-and-let-europe-lead-its-defense From the article: The U.S. should let Europeans know that within a short period of time they will have to assume responsibility for their own defense and for the leadership of NATO. After that, America will continue to be a part of NATO, not as its leader, but as one of NATO's 28 members. At that point, all U.S. troops should leave Europe, and American bases returned to the Europeans. How long a time should the US give the Europeans to make this transition? 2025 sounds like an appropriate date, being the 80th anniversary of the victorious end of World War II. To ensure Europeans understand that America is serious about the transition, the U.S. should, as quickly as possible, turn over the position of NATO's military head or Supreme Allied Commander Europe to a European general, and then systematically replace Americans in key leadership positions in the alliance with Europeans. During this transition, the U.S. must be unambiguous about its commitment to the collective defense clause (Article 5) of the alliance's treaty. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the United States will always meet its commitment to NATO. Overall decent points, I probably would leave some US military presence on the continent and UK (if still wanted) and look to reduce to around 1/5 our current footprint. US Army in Poland, Finland and the Baltics for direct ground deterrence, USAF in bases to support rapid logistical build up if required and MOBs quickly established (Rota, Moron, Aviano, etc..) and US Navy in Greece/Italy for deterrence of Black Sea based Russian Naval fleets. We could demonstrate capability and commitment with biennial rapid deployments with airpower demonstrations, still cheaper than permanent bases and keeps our friends on notice... Start a redeployment with a 5 year timeline, that's enough time for them to rise to the occasion or navel gaze, their choice.

3 year order, no loss of ARC affiliation, 50k per year bonus, no 365 remote / would accept one 179 in the 3 year period, duties / position specifically noted in contract - member may terminate at that point if the AF wants something different, one general right of termination by the member with loss of bonus for that FY (keep the cheese to be out of the trap) If they want pilots, right it up as a pilot for hire contract, not whatever pixel pusher in random staff gig they think is critical to fill

Has the AF considered going in with the Army on their Future Vertical Lift program to get a SOF / CSAR variant V-280 or Raider?

Yup If I were king for a day, put them also near established ranges, ideally with GCI and not too far from tankers, off the top of the cranium, LAX-LAS-SLC-DFW-MIA, fit some of those nice to have features. Dreaming probably but all they can say is hell no, propose it and give'em a reason(s) for military aggressors vice contracted red air.

Naval Typhoon concept: https://defense-update.com/20110210_naval_typhoon.html Pitched to India which went with the MiG 29K and Boeing is making a pitch for Super Hornets.

Maybe but either way the time to sh*t or get off the pot is well past. The inability to get an aircraft for this mission is a symptom of the larger problem, the lack of desire/interest/recognition by the DoD/Congress that if the US is going to continue to prosecute COIN/LIC & FID/Stability/Advise & Assist missions then we probably need a new UCC from the parts of the existing ones to plan/advocate/execute these missions. I am thinking that if this is ever going to happen, a Joint Force capable of effectively and sustainably executing these missions, it is going to take a new construct, formal commitments from the existing branches and resources reprogrammed (if required) from existing capabilities.

Not exactly on the topic of air to air but a possible encore career for the 15/18 in the German AF: Germany asks for Boeing fighter data as weighs order options Kinda surprised they haven't come up with a Strike Typhoon version yet in lieu of an RFP from Boeing

Gotcha - I should have clarified my point or idea would be for an ARC unit solely focused on the aggressor mission, owning the iron also. I could see the ARC leery of converting a Wing over to this mission only so I would see it more as a squadron/detachment of an established wing, geo separated. Put this in the not gonna happen column and probably not that much cheaper than flying an aggressor modified F-15s but with the divestment of operational F-4s that would probably not need that much mod, buying F-4s from Greece, Germany, Turkey, Japan, etc... might be useful for an aggressor.

Not to be negative but how much more testing/experimenting do we need to do? It just appears to be the same rope a dope then delay then nada. Imminent Fury, Combat Dragon, Afghani Air Force A-29 ops with the A-29, Columbian AF ops with the A-29, AT-802 use by XE, etc... how much more data do we need?

No doubt but this could be a good mission for the Joint Force, NATO, Aussies/Japan/SK burden sharing arrangement, not holding my breath for something like that, but a robust aggressor capability and training is a universal requirement for all the allies. On the AF keeping an organic aggressor mission... seems like a good fit for the ARC: depth of experience in units focusing on that mission, scalable at will for training cycles / deployments / new threats, etc... was it ever discussed to send that mission in whole or part to the ARC? Put the units at or near domiciles and you would build and retain a high experience aggressor pilot cadre.

Copy that. I thought the F-15 might be the preference (disregarding cost) for the performance, radar capability and size/capability for pods.

Copy all. Continuing on Aggressor Aircraft and just seeing how the other side did it sts, found a bit on the FSU's aggressor aircraft and program: https://thelexicans.wordpress.com/2013/08/12/soviet-aggressor-program/ Unsurprisingly, not much openly available but grist for the mill. Question for 11Fs, if you could save one of the teen series fighters slated to be retired by the 35 as a "standard" aggressor for military provided training (in some specialized training configuration/mod), which do you think could give better training over the range of Air to Air threat simulation? F-15, 16 or 18? Not phishing from Moscow or Beijing, and if OPSEC allows, informed opinions are appreciated.

Gotcha. One other question, are they talking about aggressor simulators for linked sim mission training or is this already happening in Virtual Flag?

Copy that. On the idea of a T-X Aggressor, article from 2015 but as we are approaching FY18, I wonder if the $220 million that was referenced to be spent 2018 is still there for T-X aggressor kit development? Did a quick pass on the SAF/FM page but no joy.

Purpose built aggressor from a 4th gen fighter: SAAB PRESENTS GRIPEN AGGRESSOR https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/gripen-aggressor-targets-uk-us-requirements-441052/ Doubtful it could/will happen but looking at their proposal (just the mock up and the articles linked above), I was wondering why they didn't offer this in a two crew configuration? It would seem for a training aircraft, having a family model would be beneficial for a new dude to sit back and watch the fight, are ADAIR 38's usually flown single seat or do they usually fly with a second pilot or WSO to observe the scenario?

Thread bump. Article is from 2016 but looks like the Scorpion might get an Air to Air capable radar and used in ASDOT (UK aggressor): Scorpion Selected for ASDOT Proposal The article mentions the Thales RDY-3 multi-mode radar, does any know or can say (if OPSEC / Non-Disclosure allows) if the Scorpion in the USAF AFE is military radar equipped? Link to the Thales page on the RDY.