Clark Griswold
-
Posts
3,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
39
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Everything posted by Clark Griswold
-
Partly true but you just can't get jiggly with it when your jet is G limited to 2.0 and 1.5 would get raised eyebrows Follow on - not excusing very basic airmanship skill lapses - heavy drivers should give George a break when appropriate to keep the hands ready Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Ouch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Follow on question for 11Fs: there's all this talk of shitty manning in rated staff jobs that require an 11F - are most/any of these jobs worth doing or "ops staff" type jobs? If they aren't manned now and haven't been for a while are they jobs that actually need to be done? Both an honest and rhetorical question
-
Yep, basically my model for incentivizing the two sides has the conservatives at a disadvantage (typically the Hawks protecting DoD) so non-discretionary spending with their own funding vehicles (SS, Medicare, Medicaid) would have to be in there too, requiring statutory changes to the programs stewardships to keep the Dems feet to the fire, the 1% increases in taxes could / should be from the elimination of tax credits, subsidies, etc... rather than raising income tax rates. Gov worker salaries / benefits would have to be on the table, as there are a shit load of millionaires in Congress this has limited effect but their staffs, military, federal employees would have to be hostages in this scenario or Congress would have to pay them at the expense of operations of departments. How shitty when you can't imagine ways other than pain & punishment to get things done.
-
An excellent answer to continue the deserved praise for the details you provided. I left the GH 8+ years ago and was there when the program was just about to "normalize" and all the old crusty guys there told me very similar but smaller scale anecdotes to why things were the way they were in the program. My line has always been the AF just took the test aircraft and called it good, never developing a real platform. Classic min run but ends up costing a bajillion more than necessary if you did the development & acquisition right in the first place. A good idea, a long endurance unmanned platform to compliment not replace the U-2 and provide a virtual satellite in essence for other missions, BACN being a great example of what it can / should do in addition to doing a certain type ISR. As I didn't actually fly it, the emotional connection is not there but overall my experience was positive and no hate for the RPA. It is definitely not glamorous or particularly exciting usually but important to do well as others may depend or use what you deliver for missions where friendlies are in harm's way. Have pride Global Chicken drivers but don't expect envy or many people to be interested in what you do... ever... not a cutdown, just the truth.
-
2 I would rather modify the intent and make at least Senators be elected members (previously or currently) members of a state wide legislative body. The people can vote on the candidate but the candidate must be a legislative member of the state government to put the perspective of the states truly into the Federal Government so you don't get the ever growing Borg Cube trying to assimilate every part of our government, economy and society, like we have now. Agree in spirit but as a practical matter we probably have to acknowledge the level of consensus the Federal Government requires to function as it was intended (passing budgets, confirming judges, enforcing the laws and borders, you know those mundane things) , as how it is structured now by the Constitution is probably not possible. We are probably too diverse for the levels of consensus required to function with the majorities the Constitution requires. I like the checks the Constitution puts to keep smaller population states like mine at the grown-ups table via the Senate but I see the problem(s) that these features have. If we go to straight majorities and proportional representation, pretty much our Federal Government will be the Congressional delegations of CA, TX, NY, FL, IL with a few other big population states making all the calls. Not acceptable either. Governing for mutual benefit doesn't seem to work anymore so let's try something different, governing for our interest(s) and tie our political opponents to the same fate also. Decide on a 2 year budget by simple majority, from October to June, 3 quarters of an FY, then vote / horse trade in the 4th quarter, with every day in the last month knocking 1% off the budget and adding 1% in tax revenues. No budget pass, the budget submitted minus 30% plus 30% taxes is your shit sandwich, enjoy. Lots of incentive to focus the minds of Congressmen. Liberals scramble like hell to get it passed fast before losing more money for their government programs and conservatives hustle to keep from sending more money to the Federal government. Everyone has an incentive not to lose, not to win and make the other guy lose, just not to lose. Like it or not, just not losing is the best COA sometimes.
-
Agreed - the crazies from both sides would come out of the woodwork with the probability of unforeseen forays into lunacy high I would like to see reform but without the Constitution put at risk, for all its quirks and problems it is still the best house of cards to keep a large and diverse nation together.
-
We haven't brought it up yet but is there any interest from the CAS community for a tilt rotor based CAS / Attack focused platform? Saw this article, http://www.dodbuzz.com/2016/07/12/bell-pitches-naval-variant-of-new-tiltrotor-attack-chopper/ , and have seen a few proposed concepts that don't seem too out there but wondering if it is still fixed wing only for this mission?
-
I wish I could believe there was enough citizenship left in the Republic to support that kind of involvement of the citizenry and lower echelons of government, all coordinating & deliberating to have national effect instead of the default solution now to just wait for the Federal Government, and really the Executive Branch, to by edict and unelected policy makers issue some decree, their echo chambers begin the repetition of talking points on legacy media and propaganda websites and the sheep follow, giving up freedom for a fairy tale that a bit more of the risk of life will be taken away and Big Brother will provide a little bit more, at no charge of course... When you see things like Constitutional law professors basically saying, "a republican democracy is hard when it is based on rational rules codified in formal documentation so let's just make it up as we go along", then you know we have crossed the Rubicon... http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/31/opinion/lets-give-up-on-the-constitution.html?ref=opinion&_r=2&
-
Yup. Two cliches apply, might makes right & history is written by the victors. The scenario is not to far fetched and I could see a constitutional / insurrection crisis coming from the Federal government's selective enforcement of laws of late, most notably immigration laws. If a Red State chose to press-to-test and began mass immigration law enforcement with arrest/incarceration/deportment (at least out of state) of known illegal immigrants, particularly when discovered via contact with LE, we could find ourselves living in interesting times. The state could argue self-defense via the presence of illegal aliens (legitimately when said illegal alien is arrested from the commission of another crime). The Federal Government would argue immigration is a Federal issue (rightly) but the state(s) could argue (rightly) to do your job with a subjective argument made that the manner in which the Federal government is currently performing it is in inadequate. To the Supreme Court for resolution or to a gunfight for resolution? My preference the former but America has a tendency every oh 75 years or so to have some major internal fights / family feuds, a show down may be inevitable or even necessary to decide it conclusively by one side of the argument literally vanquished.
-
Copy that and good details - I have heard it was well thought of and I found one of the sub-contractors mentioned in the article referenced, looks like they have 2 D models for hire. http://www.mohawk-tech.com/mohawktech.htm There was a proposed tandem cockpit version offered to the USMC for their LARA (Light Attack Reconnaissance Aircraft) competition they had in the 60's The OV-10 was selected and the rest is history but not a bad prop job concept.
-
Another concept CAS / COIN / LAAR aircraft that seems viable but have not heard anything about it for number of years, the ATK OV-1D... has anyone here seen it or knows if ATK got any takers for this plane? http://www.defensetech.org/2010/10/28/old-school-coin-planes-keep-coming-back/
-
Valid critiques but the aircraft is not in it's operational configuration (or one that will be offered to a launch customer) and those might be too much to keep the price right and they might be too much or not needed for the mission. To address your points and my meager two bits to the debate: 1 - probably not a big deal as the majority of its operational employment will be at 1G and as the probability of rolling in on a target with high G turnout after delivering unguided ordinance low, a better thrust to weight is not needed, would be nice but not necessary. 2 - Two cockpits are a plus for this mission, the missions are long, often boring but then become busy as hell and a good crew to manage the stack, radios and inevitable chaos (while not tripping over each other is a plus). Running longer missions (likely to be 6 hours) with a crew will likely be a plus. 3 - WX radar only is probably ok but I could see a radar like the Raytheon RACR being installed as an option for an anti-RPA role or to give it some self-defense against a fighter if you gave it a AMRAAM or two on a wing station. In truth the Thales iMaster radar in one of the available sensor turret mounts is the real mission radar and has already been used in demonstrations for organic cross queuing. 4 - AR, nice but not necessary probably as many customers would have no tanker aircraft to refuel it anyway. Could be added like the simple fixed AR probe the OA-37 had but probably overkill for the intention of the platform, appropriately capable and value priced in acquisition and operational cost with low risk proven systems. 5 - Gun, nice but for the light strike mission, probably not necessary and may put the aircraft into the WEZ of a system down low better dealt with X NM and X thousands of feet away after being acquired and dealt with via Hellfire rather than getting up close and personal. 6 - Threat warning to be added in operational configuration. As you said about price and the features I mentioned may take it above 20 mil a copy, likely if you really start to add capes like the AA capable radar, so an AT-6 or A-29 might be a better fit considering what resources our AF and other price sensitive Allies might be willing to spend on a LAAR. A modernized IA-58 would also be a contender, just my humble opinion also.
-
True. The domestic production / Congressional District problem can be solved with any of the on the table options out there now (AT-6B in KS, A-29 built under license in FL and Scorpion in TX) but the larger problem of the cultural change / acceptance in Congress & the Defense Establishment to needing a lower cost Joint Force for fighting 10+ year COIN / Stabilization / Nation Building is going to be the steep hill to climb. The US has only been comfortable with large scale conventional warfare, unconventional or irregular has never been completely accepted, either derided as morally questionable or unwindable, neither absolutely true or false. The historical precedent is not good as to what we did to our fleets of smaller jets / props that provided CAS / Observation & ISR / Light Strike at a much lower cost in Vietnam and to some extent the legacy piston powered fleet that served well in Korea. Like it or not, the Arc of Instability is going to keep producing problems that we can either ignore and hope don't produce trans-national problems (unlikely) or we (the Western nations, International Community, etc...) can intervene to keep the shit to shoe level at least. We should just not spend ourselves into oblivion doing it.
-
Good article, worth the read. http://warontherocks.com/2016/08/oa-x-more-than-just-light-attack/ From the article and his math seems reasonable: These platforms can consolidate the current CAS eco-system, which is tried and true, but extremely tired and growingly geriatric. A pair of F-15Es or F-16s performing air support is supported by a KC-10, receives intelligence or targeting information from an ISR asset (i.e. MQ-1/9, MC-12, or U-28), and controlled by a Joint Terminal Air Controller (JTAC). This construct is simply inefficient and expensive. What’s more it only exists as a result of continually adapting conventional assets instead of investing in an enduring solution. Adaption in the beginning of the conflict with current resources is tolerable a stop-gap, but 16 years later, this expensive stop-gap formula remains. The total cost to operate a single CAS orbit as described above is astonishing: over $64,000 per hour or $1,000 per minute per combat air patrol.* The F-35 will only increase the bottom line, as it actually brings less, not more, capability to the type of air support used the past 15 years — and it will cost exponentially more to operate than the aircraft it is replacing. The F-35 will not have the following for several years (or longer): the small diameter bomb, IR marker, video down-link, and EO/IR sensor fidelity that equals currently deployed fighters. Accepting the published $42,200 cost per flying hour, a formation of two F-35s will grow this price-point by 68 percent, to $107,800 per hour. By comparison, OA-X is projected to operate for under $4,000 per hour, including personnel costs — a 96 percent reduction in operating cost to support a generational war against violent extremism. If the now-operational F-35A deployed to the Middle East and flew a typical 8-hour Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) sortie, it would cost nearly $800,000 per mission as described, not including ordnance expenditures. For every 20 forecasted OIR F-35 missions flown, the Air Force could buy an OA-X platform (assuming $15 million for either the A-29 or AT-6). As another comparison, suspending a single day of current OIR operations ($11.9 million/day) would almost buy an OA-X platform. Not to use hyperbole but I'll just use hyperbole, this decision not the aircraft itself, but the decision to buy or not, an appropriately capable and cost effective solution to this mission may represent an almost existential moment for the AF. Can the institution act when confronted with a shift in the operational environment to a new form, outlook, paradigm, etc... when that is contrary to the direction that the institution has been traveling for the past 35+ years? Can it act in a way on what it needs to do rather than what it wants to do?
-
Take the red pill. Just pinned on O-5 after jumping 8+ years ago as an O-3 with lackluster prospects. Surfing orders, doing contract work and enjoying it. Freedom rocks.
-
Valid - just my interpretation of recent events. Respectfully disagree. I don't think the AF is trying to or did try to set the stage for the Army to make a case for getting the fixed wing CAS mission, the AF would and rightly so see that as a threat to its independent existence. Like the C-27J, once the Army gets a major fixed wing platform, there is room now to make an argument for more Army fixed wing, something the AF will never let happen, I don't fault them for that. The Army would never let us get our own SAM systems as that would undercut their Air Defense Artillery mission so we can't allow poaching on our ranch. We just need to acknowledge that a certain portion of our portfolio is dedicated to supporting the ground commander, formally in doctrine and resource/plan from there. Welsh, et al, could have managed the A-10 vs. F-35 argument by proposing an alternative solution rather than full divestment, send almost the entire CAS mission to the ARC, except for the FTU. This would disperse the iron, getting more Congressmen, Senators and Governors interested in keeping the mission (dedicated CAS and its platform). Argue for an "on-demand" model and put more of that baseline in the ARC's appropriation while also shifting more of the operational cost to the Force Requester when it is called on for combat ops.
-
Yup - no vendetta against ACC but if you want to fix some major headaches in the AF I would take away 3 core functions from ACC, pass two of them, Global Integrated ISR and Personnel Recovery, other commands. Respectively, a resurrection of Air Intelligence Command for Global Integrated ISR (and Cyberspace Superiority) and pass Personnel Recovery to AFSOC. Command and Control is still there under them but in my opinion could wind up in AFGSC, with a new C2 platform (ideally AWACS, JSTARS and a new Looking Glass type of mission platform based on B737). ACC is just tasked with things that are better suited elsewhere. 2 The problem with the CAS / Divestment of the A-10 shit show of late is that it is a preoccupation with systems and not a strategic approach on how to accomplish a mission set in a changing military realm, I advocate ad nausea for some airplanes, but I realize that in the big picture, it needs to be a team of systems, tactics and flexible capabilities approach to accomplish a strategy. Vague, but we would do better (IMO) to say CAS-ISR-Light Strike are all missions intertwined strongly now and happen in various environments at different levels of threat, demand for fires, persistence and organic capabilities for the supported unit or customer. A family of systems will be fielded to accomplish all of these with each emphasizing a particular capability while retaining others to be flexible and capable in all environments but specialized for a particular one.
-
Too general for Rule 1 violation but just to quibble even 3-4 AT-6Bs or A-29s would not eclipse the cost of the average 2 ship Viper, Mud Hen, Super Bug, etc... when you factor in AR and other support to that asset. The MC-12 was fine for its tasked mission not for an aspirational mission that we can theorize about but if the USAF is serious about manned, moderate persistence, ISR with precision, low CDE strike capability without the tactical maneuvering capabilities a LAAR would offer then I suggest modifying a small(er) Maritime Patrol Aircraft like the Special Missions Saab 340. Similar mission characteristics as Maritime Patrol, so go get something close to what you need and modify as required... About the right size without being too big, sts... http://saab.com/air/airborne-solutions/airborne-surveillance/saab-340-msa/ Some technical modification required but I doubt a bill that is actually that high relative to the almost hundreds of millions in the first FY of operation the DoD would realize in O&M savings. Google'd it and from an Aviation Week . com airliner cost per hour breakout, it comes to about $1100 for the Saab, triple it for a military version and at $3300 per hour it's still a bargain. 9 hours endurance (with aux tanks), loiter at 140 knots, already flying in a feasibly modifiable configuration for this mission, all it needs now is to not have ACC responsible for the USAF Core Function it performs and it might get funded. ACC bubbas don't take that as a cheap shot but having a command that is primarily concerned with higher end warfare responsible for this Core Function and all the unglamorous duties it sometime (a lot of times) entails is why good ideas on how to do it never come to fruition. This thread is Close Air Support and LAAR / Manned ISR-Strike supports that (kinda) or should this be considered CAS for small maneuver elements / SOF teams? Semantics and somewhat esoteric but if it could get that formally recognized and incorporated into a doctrine document, it would have a leg to stand on for resourcing rather than fervent internet support. WIC guys, take up this charge...
-
No doubt that a LAAR would be restricted to the Irregular Warfare scenario and maybe if it is a higher end LAAR platform (like Scorpion) it could have some role in larger conflicts but the cost savings is half of the operational requirement I am arguing for. It is so much cheaper to operate these systems and deliver the same effects that it is worth investing the time, money and effort to build out a portion of the USAF dedicated to this type of warfare. On the subject of TASS OA-37s, found this video from circa early 80s I guess set to "Eye of the Tiger" - Killer Tweets raging, conducting AR, pretty much awesome...
-
Totally loved it, why? What are you implying? ;-)
-
Valid point(s). Just provided to stir the pot and keep the conversation on CAS going, specifically on new / different systems. An ideal version of a AC-27 gunship, this CGI seems to have all the right junk in all the right places.
-
2 Good article on that idea from FP: http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/01/29/the-u-s-should-admit-it-has-no-middle-east-policy-obama-cold-war-israel-syria/ On that idea and just continuing to discuss CAS and ideas for it, ATK's palletized gun system for the C-27J... a roll on roll off system I am sure has limitations but at least it's something, the AF has got to be more open to ideas out of the normal way of doing business...
-
True, I'm just arguing for a LAAR program for USAF pilots / CSOs. In my model the instructor cadre would have to be 11Fs / 12Fs initially and then after a year or so, graduates from a non-CAF background that wanted to return as instructors could from the basis of their qualification and experience, assuming ability to instruct & supervise of course.
-
Follow on, probably a point for another forum but the article made me think of this. This article struck a chord in me for the difference in the AF of that era to the AF of today in that they took pilots from all different backgrounds and they re-trained and flew a direct combat mission. They weren't concerned did you track T-38 or T-1, you were a rated officer and there is fight, we will train you and you'll hack the mission. The fight is different, the equipment much more sophisticated, but for mission focus & esprit de corps that could provide to the officer corps and the second order effect that could have through out the AF by seeding mission focus in a much greater swath of leadership I wish a program like that could happen again, a LAAR aircraft being the best chance of that. We did that with the MC-12 mission to some degree and now we should do that with a LAAR program. Think about the cultural effect of pulling heavy & OSA pilots, navs & non-rated recruits from the officer cadre,etc... for a program like this. Actually getting them into the direct delivery of weapons or direct support to the fight, after a few years of this and the experience these officers would have, you would see as they progressed in their careers a wave of leadership that understands from their own experiences the mission is to fly, fight and win not MICT, SAPR and PME. You can be told something but if you discover it thru the experiences of you own life, the effect is much more pronounced, it's a part of you. Yours truly is a heavy pilot but got to support the dudes on the ground in the MC-12, it was an awesome experience and made me a better officer for it, I had no where to go but up from there but that is a different point... if that experience was good, just giving them ISR support then delivering ISR and Light Attack must be great and I think my take away would have been better if it had been in a LAAR. My positive take away as an AF officer I don't think was unique and I think that it would be the usual effect if aircrew from other non-CAF airframes were rotated thru a LAAR program, make it a regular assignment to get enough bang for the buck but make it available to the MAF, SOF, OSA communities. Some would argue the MQ-1/9 does this, I don't, but the fact that it is an RPA makes 50% of the target population for this idea less than enamored with it, so not really a solution. It would not be without some growing pains but if we want the AF as an institution to be more mission focused then more of its leadership will have to have some portion of their careers actually doing the mission (that is really for non-winged officer recruits for CSOs for this program) and if we can have that mission actually putting ordinance on a target, it would be that much better. Just a thought.
