Clark Griswold

Ok he's down... Fearmycessna, don't let all this get to you, merely par for the course given the material first posted. But, the reality is the AF (like all branches of the armed forces) for the past 15+ years have been involved in COIN, low to mod intensity operations in AORs that in almost all respects are permissive, some SAFIREs and hits unfortunately but for the fixed wing world, air to air hasn't been a real concern. This leads to the lived reality that for the most part we will likely be involved in long, slow grinding, intractable conflicts against enemies that have no army, air force, major infrastructure and in large part aided and abetted by civilian populations sympathetic (sometimes) to their causes by either religious, ethnic or racial connections that make doing what we usually do to achieve victory - drop a X-thousands of tons of iron on the right DMPIs destroying the IADS, the enemy's fielded forces and strategic infrastructure paving the way for the land forces to go in unharnessed by the enemy's air force and artillery and seize territory - very difficult or not able to accomplish. We have to be prepared for Major Combat Operations against a peer or near peer adversary but that is unlikely, we are likely to be continued to be harassed by them (ref Russian intercepts of RC-135s and Navy ships) and we have to be able to effectively, efficiently and sustainably fight in conflicts that probably can't be won militarily. Not glorious but challenging to figure out.

My vote

Depending on the persuasion of the writer, reporter, staffer it can vary widely. Wired had a good article on it contrasting some of the various methods of calculation. http://www.wired.com/2011/12/f-22-real-cost/

First flight http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/087f09e8-0837-11e6-b6d3-746f8e9cdd33.html#axzz46bZo6bia

Likewise but you never know, every now and the idea comes back, either like herpes or hope springing eternally. It has percolated to CNN now: http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/21/politics/f22-raptor-congress/index.html We're coming up on a change in leadership at the top, likely other positions when the new CSAF comes in, there is a narrow gap in a slightly open window at that time for a change in major procurement vector(s) if it is ever going to happen it would have to be then. Anyway, some plane porn just because...

True - just my musings on if they really want to do this, what they should do and how to get it funded. On requirement creep, no doubt it (a Raptor 2.0) would invite some over the top ideas and a new Raptor buy is not financially possible with the procurement bow wave developing (35, 46, LSR-B, etc...) but if we make strategic decisions now to re-plan and re-program it could be. That's just a nice way of saying CNX some other program to pay for this one but it's possible, not likely but possible. If you didn't want to add new capabilities baked into a new Raptor you could build a new Raptor with the ability to easily accept new systems, equipment, etc... without screwing up the LO profile. That would still be pricey but probably less than the Christmas list of new capes I listed above. Raptor 2.0 has more room for growth and updated mission software specifically designed to accept / integrate updates or additions for new systems, just another idea... Addition: More on the Congressional effort to study a Raptor restart: http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/defense/air-space/2016/04/21/facing-election-fight-forbes-pushes-f-22-revival/83352746/

RAND estimated it would be 17 billion for 75 more Raptors in 2010 dollars, the article said Congress was interested in studying the cost of 194 new Raptors, just doing simple math and applying inflation I come up with about 48 billion, could be less with the larger purchase driving down the per tail cost but if we were serious about this these new Raptors would / should be "Super Raptors", something to make it worth the inevitably large design-development-testing-production problems. New features, capabilities, etc.. that address issues with the F-22A. Just some suggestions from what has been released in open sources would be: Conformal fuel tanks for range and additional thermal signature suppression. Improved weapons bays for more load out and compatibility with new / more weapons (Meteor, stand off glide weapons, etc...) External station on fuselage for conformal LO mission pods (targeting, jamming, recce, etc..) LO IRST sensor In addition to this, if the AF or interested parties in Congress are really going to push for this, it needs to be pitched as part of family of systems to address specific requirements, threats, scenarios and then put forward as part of a future force. The new Raptor is for Assured Air Superiority in A2AD environments coupled with a new arsenal plane (like the B-1R concept) for mass delivery of PGMs to overwhelm the enemy IADS initially, etc...

Copy that.

True but some X amount is hidden behind the paywall, just a guess but the wingman could have been a US advisor crew. Concur Too bad the window has probably closed on the USAF getting a LAAR system. Always thought the IA-58, modernized with PT-6's, glass, etc... built in the US under license would have been a good plane

Afghan Super-T's perform first confirmed strikes. http://www.janes.com/article/59586/afghan-a-29s-conduct-strikes-in-northeastern-province-of-badakhshan

I think their HUD can count as a PFD This is a RAF crew but I am pretty sure the same goes for USAF.

More buzz around Hyten... http://www.defenseone.com/management/2016/04/air-force-general-space-war-chief/127437/

And there you go..................... You guys willing to work for kibble? BS on the video.......nice editing.........cute for dog lovers. Guilty as charged - dogs rule Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Oh I slipped the surly bonds of Earth... http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/animals/dogs-taught-how-to-fly-a-plane--seriously/news-story/138bfa946b053554a0b7fd5395a79fc6

Second article in the series. http://warontherocks.com/2016/04/rediscovering-low-altitude-getting-past-the-air-forces-overcommitment-to-stealth/

Too bad - looks like they proposed keeping the same wing and I always wondered what they thought the STOL performance of it would have been.

If they got more training that sounds like an ideal environment to learn the ropes, if it was Gen Clark Griswold calling the shots, they would get at least 100 hours in light GA planes with an emphasis in cross country for airmanship and a solid 6+ months of FTU-MQT. My RPA is experience is from the Global Chicken so different animal and type of ISR mission but I went there with about 5 years flying experience, the training program was good, could have been better but was adequate to make this driver of the family truckster safe to operate the GH and eventually something slightly better than mediocre, slightly... If the AF really takes this seriously and it obviously is a significant part of the future AF, give the 18Xer's more time in the air before planting their a$$ in the shelter. Use the 11's that go to RPA as IPs, 18Xs gets more airtime 11Xs gets to fly, win win. Thinking something like an SR20 for economy and a bit of range.

Hopefully not and very interesting concept Jet Herc. Not too much seems to be out there about the Fat Herc XL proposal from a few years ago: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-lockheed-martin-unveils-wider-larger-c-130xl-to-fight-a400m-316314/ Did ever go beyond a few scant details or was a formal pitch made to the AF or a foreign customer?

Little too fast on the send for my own good. Didn't realize Cannon was the FTU for the 1/9, that was where I was thinking of.

Gotcha - that sucks they (18Xs) aren't getting more training, I was wondering if the AF was phoning it in with that new AFSC and it looks like my hunch was true, no great sage here but I doubted they would take it seriously. Not sure how much ass pain it would be but establishing a permanent, semi-permanent or recurring TFR for an out of the way base to have a practical phase for URT but it would be worthwhile. From my days in the GH, local training out of Beale was short & relatively simple, but the actual act of doing all the things you need to be able to do as a mission commander, plan-brief-ground ops-flight to an area-rtb-debrief crew-instructor led debrief, was invaluable. Actually controlling the aircraft, dealing with dynamic conditions, herding the cats to get the flight done, handling problems and the experience of actually doing what you will be doing when others will depend on you to do it right is worthwhile, giving the RPA community a base, ideally with some manned traffic in the vicinity to work with or around, terrain to account for, local procedures to comply, multiple ATC agencies and all the x factors of real training would be worth it.

Copy - Is there a significant (5% or more) attrition rate from URT and/or the FTU? I heard there were some problems with dudes straight from UPT to the Reaper but is the same problem occurring with URT? My question is based on informal discussions with other IPs and this was about 7 years ago so a helluva lot has changed but just wondering.

Ditto, on it not really helping the RPA manning situation and I just don't see it working very well, just my opinion but for these missions a multi-crew aircraft works best. Can't speak to the talent level as I have never been in a MQ-9 squadron but that is UFB on the level of training 18X'ers, you said dudes were getting 10 hours in MQT then on their own, has that improved? Yikes, 70 CAPs coinciding with the first group's ADSC expiring? Fire meet gasoline...

Probably so. Continuing the discussion of Herc variants or derivatives, found the L400 on Codeone's website. http://www.codeonemagazine.com/gallery_slideshow.html?item_id=4686 About 20% bigger than the C-27J so it may have been a smidge too big for the JCA requirements or at that size with two engines not able to meet the short field requirements but would have been interesting to see LM enter a J model version of this for the JCA program.

Might be a case for reducing the PED tail, we provide the RPA and the data, the customer does his own PED work to save manpower there to pay for more manpower in ops. Not familiar with Space so I can't speak to whether or not they have too many O's but if every Wing had to loose 1 or 2 O billets to pay for growth in the RPA enterprise that's probably feasible, assuming conversion to GS or E for said billet, or just eliminating the function altogether. Shifting an equal number of E billets elsewhere in the AF to grow the SO cadre along with this hypothetical 240 RPA Pilots (120 Wings having to give up 2 O and 2 E billet to pay the RPA manning monster) Break Break: Question for RPA guys, if 240 crews (Pilot/SO) were added to the mix with the 60 supported CAPs, would 4 extra crews per CAP significantly improve QOL? Or is that a drop in the ocean? You could also start to cut long term orders for Guard / Reserve RPA wings, right at 1095 for end strength reporting considerations if the Total Force would be looking at statutory limits on numbers and composition. 3 years would get takers, that's 15% to the goal of 7305 and a lot of dudes would interrupt other gigs to get that. On the subject of reducing RPA manning, proposal to make an RPA cockpit single-seat: http://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/how-to-cut-predator-reaper-uav-crew-in-half-lt-gen-otto/ Word. Few years old but relevant as ever: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2013/07/24/the-pentagon-has-too-many-troops

Nice. Found this from LM on the winglets and other structural projects, 1-3% for J models in fuel savings, older Hercs would probably benefit more. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/aero/documents/global-sustainment/product-support/2012HOC-Presentations/Wednesday/Wed%201600%20Fuel%20Efficiency%20Initiatives-Kyle%20Smith.pdf Another article on 130 winglets and ones for the 5. http://aviationweek.com/awin/lockheed-developing-winglets-c-130-c-5 C-27J got them also last year. http://www.janes.com/article/53325/alenia-completes-trials-of-winglet-fitted-c-27j