Clark Griswold

F-35 - YF-23 mash up:

Just seems like extending your jaw for a left hook of a contract award protest if Textron is awarded a contract. It's ready made for a company to protest and launch a media campaign against. With our infotainment oriented journalism these days how long before Textron is under the microscope / segment on name your cable commentary show with "Grinds my Gears" diatribe? An opportunistic Congressman who just happens to be from FL could royally f up a legitimate but outwardly suspicious acquisition decision and we end up with no toys and rotten egg (again) on our face.

Possibly (screwed themselves) but the sins of the mother don't follow the son. Scorpion is still the best of the lot. We're buying the jet not the company - even if Skeletor worked there, it would still be the right aircraft. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

4 engines are still cool - like this one: https://m.aviationweek.com/blog/a380-meets-tu-95-regional-widebody Surprised theres been no suggestion of civilian airliner using the A400's Europrops Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just meant the F-35XL Put the AC GE motor in an F-35XL, probably 1000 NM combat radius if the new wing could hold 20% + fuel Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

2 Developing that technology would be ideal but as you said, it may be better to just upgrade to the new hotness rather than wind up with a motley fleet and the cost / logistics of maintaining two engine types. If GE's numbers are realistic for AC engine then it would be worth at least testing IRL on a F-35 test aircraft. 35% increase in range (from GE site), cut in half to 17.5% for an increase in combat radius and that's another 130+ NM for the A model in an air to air config (760 NM to 893 NM just using LM's public numbers) - serious improvement. American needs to get back into the X-plane business and/or at least pushing the envelope again in aircraft performance with existing designs, this would be a good project to develop a 5th gen with extreme combat radius capability if only for investigation/demonstration.

Because... airplanes. Saw this concept... ...and wondered with the advantages of V-tails for speed/drag, why not in airliners (yet)?

Textron hires the former SECAF https://www.defensenews.com/articles/textron-appoints-former-secretary-of-the-air-force-to-board-of-directors Helps or hinders getting a Scorpion or AT-6B? Ready made conflict of interest problem if selected?

Something went terribly wrong in the lab...

Engine upgrade proposal: https://www.defensenews.com/articles/pratt-whitney-pitches-new-f-35-engine-upgrade

X-29 and Su-47 videos. We need a FSW fighter, because.... we need one. Anyway, enjoy:

Kung Fu master uses his penis to pull enormous HELICOPTER in latest bizarre world record Really? Couldn't you just use the Swedish pump?

Your welcome and good points. I don't agree with his idea of shortening SUPT as the pilots tracking to OA-X would (wrongly) be treated as second class aviators I suspect. I don't have a problem with maybe giving them a focused / slightly shorter Advanced Trainer phase if a slightly longer primary phase that is fused with some IQT / MQT for OA-X can be had. They need the same minimum hours / training everyone else gets, it is just they could possible get a bit more done in primary along with some work towards their OA-X Qual. This assumes (as I suspect the author of the article implied that OA-X if it happens is the AT-6B). The more interesting idea would be for studs to do primary in the T-6 and then do their advanced phase in Scorpion (in a trainer configuration) then go to a shorter MQT phase in Scorpion as they now have their wings and IQT in Scorpion also.

Another idea for OA-X https://warontherocks.com/2017/05/field-of-dreams Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe, but as the software develops and is updated, the 35 will get a bit sportier I suspect. The aircraft with the operational software load is not a pig according to the OT&E community, referencing the article from the Norwegian test pilot here. It's just different than a Viper/Hornet/Harrier and will need the TTPs developed to fight accordingly in the WVR arena. Probably not as maneuverable as a Viper with the GE engine but with LO, sensor fusion, good maneuverability and an HMD with high off foresight weapons, it's setup for success. Not that my rantings on BO.net add up to anything but I've come to accept the F-35 as a large part of the future of the USAF and likely the AFs of many of our Allies, hating on it reflexively is pointless, it is done. Embrace it and try to improve because we have bet the farm on it. Break - Break Might get another partner in the program: Germany asks U.S. for classified briefing on Lockheed's F-35 fighter

Yup - doubt it would be a BFM beast but with that extra gas it could probably keep up the speed to get out of a bad situation

But if you built the 35XL to meet the A-X requirement you get the economy of scale with the already existing F-35 program, while getting a 5th gen LO attack platform capable of self-escort / defense. There was a push for an FB-22 but as the 22 line has sunset and there is no realistic way to restart it without a metric shit ton of money, getting an FB-35XL is in the realm of the possible IMO. With the increased wing / fuel, you probably could get a 1000+ NM combat radius depending on mission profile on internal fuel alone, this is the capability 5th gen strike aircraft have been needing, particularly considering A2AD / Pacific operations.

Just vaporware but an interesting idea ala the never realized F-16XL, an F-35XL. Not sure if the A or C model would be easier for this mod (or any) but a new bigger wing to hold all the gas and give the 35 a new internal weapons bay. and another with the cranked wing Think in lieu of a clean sheet A-X, this XL variant would fill that role.

Concur. There are 3 more planned for the Alien franchise with Scott directing with a loop back to the original 1979 Alien movie, linking Prometheus, Covenant, .... to Alien. Looking forward to that and to pay homage to the original, the trailer for the 1979 Alien...

BAi is Battlefield Aerial Interdiction. It's a term for AI performed in vicinity of friendlies while they are engaged but without the type of detailed deconfliction that CAS requires. It's not part of the Joint terminology now and as I recall there was resistance to the idea of it as it seemed to imply that Air would strike independently in or just behind the FEBA without coordination / direction of a GFC. Crap - well to light a candle and as this is a thread on light support aircraft maybe that could be another mission for it - an inexpensive training platform for the NATO partners to use also to build a cadre of expertise in CAS, SCAR, etc... would also give them some capability to participate efficiently in long term COIN / LIC operations if they wanted to or were willing to... maybe... Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Alien Covenant Good and disturbing as an entry in the Alien series should be. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Copy Pardon my naïveté - I've heard variations on that theme before hence the earnest question Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Is it something (air to mud) they just don't practice and are not that good at or are they really ambivalent / apathetic? Do you mean CAS specifically or BAI also?

Valid points and my argument / point is one of a matter of degrees, I'm not sure if it (the level of personal operational skill determined to be necessary for an AF leader to have to be creditable) can be uniformly captured across all platforms be they manned/unmanned, aircraft, missiles, space, MX, logistics, intel, etc... but it's like the difference between art vs. pornography, you know when you see it. The AF is not structured this way but if I had my druthers we would define the purpose of a tour or billet more explicitly than we do now with a somewhat specific career goal expressed for the member and his / her leadership to work towards. This assignment is to build operational skill and experience, this tour is to develop your operational leadership, etc...

Rhetorical and honest question, what are we using the skill as a military aviator for in determining AF leadership? Is it proof of intelligence, strategic thought, knowledge of modern warfare, understanding of historical lessons, wisdom to apply these as required, etc...? Is it a filter or braking system / requirement to ensure that individuals have enough time and experience and a record to judge and predict future performance at now directing and leading the Air Force in operations? I ask as I agree with the sentiment of disgust that many of the cadre of modern AF leaders have mediocre or little skill, knowledge or even interest in their tactical art but at some level, high tactical personal proficiency may not be required to be a great strategic or enterprise leader. My analogy would be Nick Saban, whether you're an Alabama fan or not, he's a great coach, but he only played two years as defensive back at Kent State before then going on to becoming a great leader in his profession. He demonstrated skill by playing at the college level and then moved to leadership. Credentials established and he was given a chance to prove he could not only perform but lead. Now I am not in anyway arguing for that kind of fast tracking for AF leadership but we have to step back and honestly ask as this person can fly his jet or lead this formation great but are those skills indicative themselves of a good leader of the AF? It is supposed to be a building process, Operational to Tactical to Strategic ability with demonstration of skill leading to the next level but that is not what we have. Unfortunately I think it is a combination of dedication to admin obsession and personal connections that are markers for leadership; there is no truly objective factor(s) as those are manipulated to some degree to give the desired result but I'm not cynical not one bit...