Clark Griswold

Touche I honestly believe Gen Welsh cared and tried but if a CSAF really wanted to improve morale it would not just be new policies and strategies but a purge of leadership at all levels that I doubt legally he could ever actually do, I have hope that the shoe clerks will be purged so for some brief period of time before they regenerate I could see an AF truly mission and not queep focused but over a number of years it has "corprotized" and the ability of an inspirational leader who espouses change is probably aspirational in reality, not that I am cynical or anything...

Yup - my thoughts also, the AF likes turboprops but loves jets. If it is a pick, the Super T would be my choice for the capability afforded for the cost and ease of acquisition (relatively). It has a strong track record with the Columbian AF and I believe only one has been shot down in over 20k operational hours and that is not acknowledged by the Columbians, only claimed by the FARC. Suitable as you said is the key word, we (USAF) sometimes shoot ourselves in the foot by by striving for the perfect plane when pretty good is the right answer.

No argument on the logistics and expense of reinventing the wheel vice buying an airplane already in production, in this case the Super T or alternatively the AT-6B. I left out the Scorpion Jet as I don't think they have finalized the production configuration yet until they get a launch customer. I am biased for the Scorpion Jet as I got to see it at WEPTAC a couple of years ago and I think that it could be an easier sell to the AF even though it is a pricier jet to buy and operate compared to the Super T or AT-6B, but still way cheaper than a 4th gen fighter or attack for COIN / Light CAS. My suggestion would be to re-mission probably 25 Wings, 8 Active & 17 ARC, for these missions: Scorpion Jets for LAAR, C-27Js for Light Air Mobility, Firebirds & MQ-9s for persistent ISR / Precision Strike with the PED, JTACs, TACPs and ALOs to keep the customer up to speed on how and what Air Support can do. I added the Firebird even though it is just a development effort but having an Optionally Manned Vehicle with persistence you need and the ability to go unmanned when warranted (really most missions). All it takes is moving a mountain of institutional inertia and billions of dollars, that's all..

2 If you aren't paying for it you won't appreciate it. On the LAAR, it amazed me how hidebound the leadership of the AF is but perhaps this is reading too much into the background of senior leadership, but as far as I can tell none of them were ever in any low intensity conflicts or COIN actions, their experience and paradigm was Desert Storm, Allied Force, etc... they just couldn't imagine doing things any other way, UAVs slowly took root but even they have a large footprint, considering the reachback and MCE structure. It just wasn't big enough, sts... Always a favorite concept when there was some semi-serious discussion on acquiring a LAAR was the OV-10X

I don't want to ride one in either but I don't think you or any other pilot of a LAAR aircraft would be facing a significantly higher probability of that in a semi-permissive AOR, like Eastern Syria - Western Iraq or Afghanistan. Manned ISR has been operating in AORs like this for years with only one loss I know of, Iraqi Cessna Caravan shot down by 57mm AAA in open source, and that was / is an unpressurized aircraft not capable of operating out of the WEZ of a 57mm or above AAA. A Super T, AT-6B, Scorpion Jet, etc... would still offer more than enough performance to operate quietly, safely and reliably well above 15k and X miles away to avoid most threats / detection while being surveilled prior to going kinetic and if CAS is required for a TIC, it is built for that also. Is it the same an A-10? Nope but for the fight we are in and the modernization efforts we say we want to do, we have to consider costs. Ultimately it is the TOA of the AF and all the different pots of money that add up to that, that determine whether we can get new toys by not spending all our money in current ops. Bar napkin math for hypothetical B-1 deployment to the Died I came up with for a year with 6 jets, crews, support, and tankers was about 1.1 billion and for a Super T deployment replacing the B-1s with 20 Super Ts and flying 3 sorties for each B-1 sortie was 52 million. You could double my estimate for the Super T deployment and cut my estimate for deploying the B-1's in half and sill save in the neighborhood of 500 million per year, serious money. This aircraft/mission/capability would be a good fit for a Guard/Reserve unit with specialized group like the CAS integration group being stood up at Nellis being the lead unit or FTU for it, Call on it as needed and put it back on the shelf if the world somehow becomes more peaceful, not holding breath... Just my two cents again but the AF has a terrible delusion that it believes it is really only going to fight big Desert Storm or Allied Force style campaigns and that these missions in the Arc of Instability are not going to be the norm or at a minimum a large portion of our likely operations. For the past 15 years they have been the norm and a guess but 15 years from now we will still be doing lots of ISR, kinetic action on dynamic HVTs and targets with a high CDE concern and low destructive effect desired. I don't think we should be completely focused on CAS / Low Intensity conflicts but keeping something like 10 - 20 % of our air assets geared towards that seems a balanced approach to having a capability to eliminate 3 terrorists in a Hilux for about 10k per mission vice having a capability that costs probably 600k to 700k per mission to deliver the same effect at not really any greater risk.

They may have gotten out (or at least had the vote to get the people's opinion on the record) before thing really get all New World Order... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/04/24/european-ministers-lay-out-explicit-plan-to-create-united-states-of-europe/ Could be a tin-foil hat generated rumor but I don't think the machine that is/was the EU would just be satisfied with putting the tip in... sts... Methinks that European Regional Blocks of sovereign nations (political, economic, defense, etc...) coordinating and supporting each other at that level and then the Regional Blocks coordinating and working with each other on the few really big transnational issues that affect them all (defense, terrorism, intelligence sharing, etc...) is more feasible... a North Sea Block of British Isles and Scandinavian countries working with a Polish and Baltic Block on fishing rights; a Central European Block working with a Caucasus Block on refugees and illegal migration, etc... just a two cent opinion from an American looking in..

Good points. Knowledge increased and thanks for your take. But just because as a "bag of meat" you don't like the fact I chat with hot Russians just looking to send me $20 million from a Nigerian prince while simultaneously needing to verify my credit card information on a website with .ru at the end of the URL all on my gov computer, don't think I will fall for some phishing scam...

Sidebar: Question for a Cyber guy, has it been thought about or discussed in the Cyber community to develop proprietary software (OS) and/or hardware for the AF, military or government agencies that is custom built to be the most secure it could possibly be? We build our own aircraft, why not for all or some requirements (Secret, TS, etc..) have a proprietary system only possessed by US government institutions to limit vulnerability by keeping it's details as tightly kept as can be? Just a random question but our computer systems are pretty much constantly under attack by hackers from governments and non-government actors, then why not invest X billions for a system as secure as it can technically be rather than just a computer(s) / OS we get out of a GSA catalog?

So a little extra money in the short term (estimated to cost the average Brit around 3000 pound sterling) is worth your right to control your borders, laws, economic policies i.e. the most basic elements of your national sovereignty? Good thing nobody fought like hell and sometimes gave their life for something like that... The EU like all Globalist dreams is fundamentally flawed as it ignores the damage done to the working & middle classes of the developed world while simultaneously depriving the developing world of its best and brightest that could turn their countries around.

True, that and it is out there on its own naked, vulnerable, and distracting. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup - I have heard that anecdote before and it never ceases to disgust or amaze me, how can that GO say that and not dishonor the memory of WWII pilots flying headlong into fields of FLAK, Sabre pilots flying to MiG Alley in Korea or Thud drivers taking the mighty 105 over Hanoi or Stealth Drivers going into Iraq first, etc, etc. etc, too many examples of courage to list... this is easy for me to say sitting here at 0 knots and 0 feet with 0 threats on me right now but there is inherent risk to what we do, I have seen a tad, not nearly as much as others, but a tad of risk, it is an accepted part of the life we chose, it is their job to lead us responsibly not keep us in a bubble where nothing bad could ever happen...

Freedom, courage and self-determination won... chalk up a win for the good guys, not surprised the British people rose up to the occasion...

Article related to the idea of getting rid of the AF, this guy (retired AF Lt Col William Astore), argues Air Power ain't all that... https://warisboring.com/dominating-the-skies-and-losing-the-wars-713819dcc441#.xph2o2xg5 His bio from the article and his blog (https://bracingviews.com/) says he taught at the Zoo (History) - was he a professor for anyone here on the forum? When you read these type of articles and they are just from random academics, bloggers, writers, raving lunatics, etc... you get what drives them or the illusion / appearance that drives their argument(s), that the AF doesn't give a shit about supporting the Ground Forces. I disagree with that on a basic level but given some of the less than perfect procurement decisions we have or have not done in the past few years: Ditching the JCA when we got control of the program, never procuring a LAAR for on demand tactical ISR (Overwatch, Route Scan, etc...) & CAS, getting chewed out by the then SECDEF and only then surging ISR with MC-12s and now we are stepping on our dick to get rid of the A-10, etc... One can see how it is possible for the poorly informed to think we are not interested in supporting Ground Forces, so for the good of the AF, why not dedicate a portion, an appreciable portion to this highly sensitive and visible mission to defeat the perception that you don't care? I'm sorry but if we can't afford to fly these relatively inexpensive airframes in again relatively small numbers (maybe 75-100 tails) with a $140 Billion dollar budget then we need to get a cranium-rectum extraction

2 I have been an attached flyer and I came back to fly as often as I could (about once a quarter) all broke and non-current, it was usually NBD to get a quick bounce and go but it was still a problem to be solved. I do think letting dudes at the Building fly the RPA maybe in a dedicated status for short periods of time, thinking 2 weeks parole to man the shelter would be good as that recency of experience might by proximity educate the HAF on problems, challenges and the reality of 24-7-365 CAPs even if done in garrison. There's plenty of space at KADW for an ops building, shelter(s) and downlink station...

Dual qual should be no big deal for the Guard / Reserve as a lot of dudes are de facto dual qual'd with an airline/ charter / corporate job. Distributing more of the RPA enterprise into the Guard / Reserve is a good move to keep the bum force gainfully employed / interested in high participation via good prospects for employment. Pushing niche capabilities together at Wings could serve this purpose too, e.g. LAAR & RPA, JCA & RPA, etc...

Had an idea and wanted to see the opinion of current RPA bubbas on the utility / feasibility on it... It seems that there are a few really bad things to RPA assignments right now that greatly detract from the QOL, one of them being the mid shift that drains a person pretty quickly, thinking about this what about a program for 365 day orders for Guard/Reserve RPA aircrew with a 50K bonus for a year of mid shifts? Rough estimation would be for: 60 CAPs x 4 crews on 365 day orders with a 50K bonus comes to about 85 million, a big number but actually feasible and worth the money if you could keep just about 85 pilots from punching out and figuring it costs in total $1 million per pilot (conservative WAG) and just figuring you keep 45 or more SOs from leaving at a WAG of 250K, that is another 9 million added on top. There are a lot of good ideas to improve QOL but without rearranging the basing structure, adding a companion manned aircraft, doing things that would require major coordination & approval, etc.... what could you get done relatively quickly? Throwing a shit ton of money at a problem doesn't always work but most of the time it does, not elegant but it usually gets it done.

France may punch out if the Brits go first. http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/682170/Frexit-France-EU-referendum-Brexit-Marine-Le-Pen-National-Front But why would you want to leave such a great union, oh yeah you can't control your borders & destiny... http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/31/half-million-migrants-end-uk-eu-free-movement-rules/

Not a bad place to start. Cut, clarify and simplify to prevent the Shoe Clerk game of obscure rule making / quoting when they find it convenient to prevent the use of common sense.

I'm glad that someone is interested in change that is sorely needed (pension reform, the end of "up or out", fighting the idea of only one ideal career path, ease of movement between active & reserve status, etc...) but I don't think this (direct lateral entry at O-6 level) could happen except in some limited career fields (some cyber, medical, legal, maybe some intel, etc..) but in terms of operations (kinetic but also direct support to kinetic capability missions) I think that is a disaster waiting to happen. It has an odor of desperation to it, not a strong one but I can smell it. Our institutional culture is sick and therefore we have to call in true outsiders, insert them directly into senior rank structure and hope that somehow their talent is universal and that will fix it, just seems like naive hope and that is not a COA. The real solution is to "fix the glitch" and that glitch is a huge swath of officers and senior NCOs that have little operational experience / perspective / concern but high administrative focus & authority. I realize that there are lots of other parts of the AF that are not operations and they are important, important that they support and not hinder operations. One way they hinder operations is by growing excessive amounts of leadership in their fields which will give them an outsized influence in the policy and strategy of the AF as an institution.

Yup https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/19/texas-secession-movement-brexit-eu-referendum and http://www.thetnm.org/

No worries, no offense taken and no hurt feelings report required. I emailed his .edu account I found and hopefully the e-mail doesn't get just routed as junk. I would really be interested in his participation also as his opinion is based on his academic experience and research and he is well accomplished in that respect. But it runs so contrary to everything I have seen in my experience as an AF officer that I have to check myself. I am fully willing to concede that as an AF officer I am biased against his proposition but I considered his opinion from reading several articles on his book and idea, listening to a few interviews / discussions he has given on it and reflecting on my experience, military science and history education, organizational knowledge and have concluded not just no but hell no. Not the most eloquent response but that's my answer now to get credit you have to show your work... In relation to Airpower, they see it as only a tool to the ground commander, in reality it is both, an independent action and supporting action. Extending their idea, anything that separates the ground commander from control over Airpower is a hindrance to be eliminated. The problem is that it is likely we would not have Airpower that would be relevant at all the levels it is required to win wars, not just battles, if a ground-centric leadership were shaping Airpower. From Army Aviation bubbas I have had the honor to serve with, they even complained that Army Aviation was poorly used / understood by Army ground commanders and they're in the same service. To light a candle and not just curse the darkness, we need to train / exercise together more in not just the same canned LFEs but new scenarios that will force cross service coordination, have exchanges at the squadron / company level at Company grade officer land junior NCO levels and PME at every level should be joint and hosted / taught by a mixture of officers & NCOs from all the branches.

Thread derailment in 3,2,1... Here's your breakfast... Return to course... My opinion is Leave also, if Remain wins Brussels has them by the balls, freedom beats the guided cage every time .

Nuance was the best way I could describe it but it seemed in the interview he was making what seemed to be a "softer" argument(s) for his idea, which I am only about 10000% opposed to. No argument that rearranging the deck chairs from 3 groups to 2 groups would probably not have that much affect or if it did it might have the opposite effect he (I and I suspect others think he has which is to massively expand the size and missions of the US Army). I imagine that most who believe in reviving the Army Air Corps are animated by hindsight and interpreting US military history failures as often involving a disconnected / ambivalent AF, some of it deserved most of it not. Follow on: I emailed Prof Farley and asked him to participate in this thread, I hope he establishes an account and does so, would be interesting. Most of the complaint about the AF even when it was the AAC/AAF was it has always favored Air Interdiction and Strategic Attack at the expense of CAS, the USMC might have the same complaint about the Navy, fix that and our habit of gold plating our procurement and much external critique falls apart.

Just curious to the two cents of the forum on this, should they stay or should they go?

Wasn't it just awesome? Succinct and clear with no hesitation. Got one more badass to nominate for this week: http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/15/student-disarms-school-shooter-orig-vstan-dlewis.cnn