Clark Griswold

Yup - the main thing I can't understand is why the fact that it will not need AR support to do an operationally relevant sortie (ISR, CAS, Surgical Strike, or all of them on one mission) is not breaking thru and getting more traction towards acquisition and this coming from a former tanker bubba. Even way back when I was a tanker co I knew that having a two ship of 16's on station with the huge tanker commitment to pass gas to them (and all the other two ships) did not make sense when you had cheaper options given the threats you actually faced, the amount of times we were going kinetic after major combat ops ended and the cost of keeping x number of tankers on station 24-7-365. This is a perfect plane / mission for Guard / Reserve, but like the C-27J and two brothers, if I can't have one he can't have one.

Yup - our insane arrangement of short terms, campaign finance and the need for patronage to secure the first two lead to this: Average Congressman has to raise about $2300 per day for an average campaign cost of $1.6 million; make that an average of about $14,000 per day for a Senator for an average campaign cost of $14.6 million. Now when are you supposed to think about not only what is good for your district but good for the country when you are panhandling for dollars? http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/how-much-does-it-cost-win-seat-congre It sucks that we can see the problem (or one of many) with our fiscal policies that encourage waste effectively by the expiration of authority per account in a FY but there has got to be a fix that even the Hill would support, it still brings home the bacon to Congressional Districts but encourages the DoD to not waste money just to fully execute.

Another article on the subject of NATO and our membership: http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-skeptics/it-time-america-quit-nato-15615?page=2 The author leaves it at re-examination of whether or not the US should be in the alliance, also found this one on Foxtrot Alpha: http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/u-s-allies-borrowing-munitions-to-drop-on-isis-as-u-s-1767362416 It may be a helluva change from the way things have been for the past 60+ years but putting our foot down maybe the only way to get some traction on change we say we want, the President was deriding this in an interview ("free riders"): http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/the-obama-doctrine/471525/ Consensus seems to be building for some change.

Article on the Iraqi Caravan shootdown http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495947/Horrifying-video-shows-moment-Iraqi-plane-went-shot-sky-ISIS-extremists-anti-aircraft-gun.html It was a 57mm that shot them down, the Caravan could not realistically operate outside the WEZ of it but a Scorpion Jet could even if it was radar guided using open source max ranges, anyway we've used COIN aircraft in non-permissive environments (A-1s in Vietnam for example) - that doesn't mean we put them right in the WEZ of a SAM or only 25 NM from a Red Air threat but they have a role to play even in major combat ops, behind the FEBA but still useful and when the threat is removed, go to work boys... also if we can put an ALQ-188 EW pod on a 38 for a better adversary trainer then I am confident that a pod for a Scorpion Jet could be found for self-protection from radar guided threats if it was used during major combat ops or in a hybrid AOR like Syria from Russian or Syrian conventional forces... No disagreement on the importance of Building Partner Capacity and particularly the AVFID piece but we will need to keep our own capabilities to not only train these missions but to perform them also. What if no government or military exists and we are starting from scratch? Essentially the case with Afghanistan, until whatever fledgling state we are building or nursing back to health can at least stand on wobbly legs, we will be delivering the air power for several years... The cost piece of the has to be considered and I am not for scrimping on base defenses, equipment or manpower for the brave souls that go outside the wire on a routine basis, but if we can't find some efficiencies, better ways of delivering military effects in these fights, etc... then we're screwed for getting the very modern high end forces of the future, current ops will just eat away any money for modernization/acquisition - different color of money argument doesn't matter either as the pols take money from the future to pay for today, that is one of the reasons the F-22 was cut to an only 187 aircraft buy, we keep spending 10-15 million a day in OIR fighting ISIS and after Congress gets that bill the desire to fork out another 80 billion for a new bomber no matter how bad someone says we need it is going to probably get another look... True but the case could be made to Congress in the naive hope of penetrating their shields of ignorance and parochial mindset that the AF has a good strategy with acquiring less expensive planes to fly and fight with in the conflicts we are in now so Congress could / would spend more in the future (or better yet now) on new higher end airplanes / systems for the wars we might have to fight with peer adversaries. I wonder if there was no OCO (there shouldn't be) and it was all (our portion) rolled into the baseline for the AF (as mainly O&M) if this would give a market incentive for the AF to find less expensive ways of putting a JDAM on a mud hut, that is if you could shift O&M you saved to a multi year Acquisition Account to realize your savings, this has been the dream of many a Mr. Smith but I think it could work as it still will spend the money so Congressmen with military contractors or subs in their districts should like it as it feeds their constituents and in reality feeds them earlier and often No hate for the 5th gen just doubt we need as much of it as we are trying to get If we are just talking Fighters then my ideal AF would be 3 parts, a high end based on F-22s & FB-22s; a medium end based on a new 4+ gen fighter like Advanced Capability Superhornet and a successor to the A-10 and lower end based on Scorpion Jets and probably Pred-Cs - just a very rough overview but three levels of ass-kicking at three levels of cost, use as required...

Yup To fly a mission in OIR with a Scorpion Jet assuming a 6 hour mission, assuming $3K per flight hour, is $18K where that same mission performed by a F-16 (keeping it single ship apples to apples comparison) and assuming a $10K per hour cost (very conservative) and then assuming it would need two ARs for ingress-patrol-recovery and a 5 hour tanker mission to cover that at $15K (again conservative) that comes to $135K to fly that mission in a mostly permissive AOR but both by the capabilities of the aircraft, sensors, weapons and their ROE would deliver a weapon or conduct ISR outside the WEZ of most realistic threats so using the high end system to deliver the same effect is of little operational benefit and significant cost. To quote Gen. Robert H. Barrow, USMC, "Amateurs talk about tactics, but professionals study logistics." It is the logistics & costs of these sustained long term operations consisting of not just kinetic military effects but persistent ISR (and the huge PED tail to make any use of what is collected) that should drive the unimaginative AF to adapt and change when the model of how it did things in the past in operations that were quite different is just too damn expensive for what we actually do now and are likely to do a lot more of in the future. Going back to the bar napkin math I dreamed up, you save $117k per mission, assume you fly 25 missions a day with 2 FOLs and you save daily over $2.9 million. That's not even considering the huge savings in logistical footprint by reduction from flying/supporting fewer types, aircraft not needing AR, etc... $2.9 mil a day at one year comes to $1 billion per year, that pays for 50 Scorpion Jets in a year. Not even figuring in the extra costs of the reduced footprint, service life extended by saving hours on fighters by not using them for these types of operations, etc... You save a billion here and a billion there and eventually you save real money in Pentagon terms... then you can buy nice toys.

Historical video from Grumman of the Iranian F-14 acquisition, training and sustainment program.

Good article on the subject and author is an EP at Cannon. If they don't want WO then his idea of a pipeline of enlisted SO to RLO pilot could be a viable COA, I particularly liked the idea of delegation to Wg/CC the selection of OTS selects http://warontherocks.com/2015/10/stripes-to-stars-enlisted-airmen-deserve-to-become-officers-before-they-become-pilots/

Hmmmm... my honest opinion it just seems a bit complicated and prone to problems. Are you considering flying home every weekend? If so, you will have to be on leave, just assuming a 2.5 hour plane ride is 1000+ miles from your UPT base and it puts a bit of risk on you every weekend. What if your training event (flight or sim) runs late and you can't make your flight? What if your return flight gets cancelled or diverts, low chance but a possibility. This highlights you and screws up your training schedule which is packed and has to keep moving to graduate you on time or close to it and not totally saturate you with training events, believe me it sucks when you have to drink from the fire hose to catch up or just at particularly demanding portions of the syllabus. Also, the bullshit of modern air travel for passengers seems like it would wear you down and I agree with hispeed7721, down time to recharge is necessary. Just a suggestion, if you do choose to accept the UPT slot, don't plan on leaving or going home at the beginning of a new Phase of training until you have gotten the basics and have figured out how to handle it, i.e. when you hit the flight line, wait two to three weeks before you try to bounce to home as you will see how fast you absorb the material, your personal time need to prepare for each training event scheduled and training events you are eligible for and could be scheduled for on the fly if there is an opening on the schedule. I hope it works out for you and you're able to find a good mix if you choose to go.

Good conversation and thanks MD for the backstory on the 117. I can't help but agree somewhat with the author the pursuit of an all LO fighter fleet (and possibly bomber) has not been the best COA as it has probably driven acquisition decisions that have kept other capabilities from fruition. Lower end capabilities probably but are ones that are needed to meet CCDR requirements inexpensively (relatively) and immediately. An LO fleet is needed: fighter, bomber, recce, UAS and LO CSAR/SOF along with LO tanker/airlift capability (just my opinion) but not the entire fleet. An AF not necessarily divided evenly but appropriately between very high end LO assets, conventional 4+ gen systems and COIN / Low Intensity Conflict assets would be a good mixed fleet, tailored capabilities for a diverse set of missions. We kinda sorta have that now just by the sheer cost of some 5th gen / Stealth systems limiting their numbers but we should have made this strategic decision, not just the AF but all branches to build forces for the new reality of some threats of high end conflicts but the most likely ones requiring less expensive less capable systems for more cost effective methods of delivering military effects.

Worth a read http://warontherocks.com/2016/03/stuck-on-denial-part-i-the-u-s-air-force-and-stealth/

Yeah that seems a tad out there, not technically impossible, but would cost between a lot and a freakin' lot of money to develop that for the 17, once again though seaplanes are cool enough that as a taxpayer I am all for it... As to a 130 Amphibian, the float plane (even with retractable floats) just seems impractical compared to a hull in the water design. Not that I would not like to see a J model Herc Amphibian but if we were serious about this, seems like the Aussies and Kiwis are though, article here on NZ expressing some interest in the Chinese AT600, we (US, Australia, NZ, India, etc...) should look at the Japanese US-2 rather than developing an amphibian Herc Seems like most of the heavy lifting has been done and it uses some common systems, principally the AE2100 family of motors and similar Dowty props. I don't know of any specific requirement other than it would be pure awesomeness to fly but that is enough for me.

Retractable Floats Proposed For Lockheed C-130 Amphibian http://aviationweek.com/defense/retractable-floats-proposed-lockheed-c-130-amphibian

God bless that man. Roll at about the 0:59 mark Not related to the roll or Tex but just a wish that I could have seen some of these golden days of aviation...

This is probably what A1 is thinking...

Bingo. A lot of money has already been spent so Creech, et al will remain open but for new MCE sites there are plenty of places where expansion could happen without the time differential to make life better and an RPA assignment way more desirable, just a suggestion (already put out there sts) but putting MCEs and a DCGS in Europe (Poland or Czech Republic) would be way better on the body clock and about 100x desirable than some of the present locales but as you say leadership doesn't care or care enough to do something about it

8:1 is just a publicly available number I was willing to quote, the real one may or may not be classified or just FOUO but was just my reference for that post. I'll respectfully disagree with you on whether dudes will stay, I think a lot of Guard dudes would use those 1000 to 1800 points to get them to or over 7305 then leave but some may not, that is a far rock, the near and close rocks are the ones we have to deal with right now. No disagreement on the fact there is no easy/quick fix, but I really doubt contractors save us money in the long run and the problems of legality, public perception and contracting I don't think are worth it. Long term strategy for the AD is one they are probably not willing to accept: - An RPA assignment is a must for an aviator aspiring to leadership not a fake Master's degree - An RPA assignment is not a pedigree factory, I saw this from my assignment long ago in the RQ-4, lots of people there, just a few who really manned the shelter, lots of fast burners there to have RPA put on there records, get some bullshit job with a fancy title at the Wing or Group, then leave after 2 years for a school slot or staff gig. - An RPA assignment is not where slow swimmers are automatically sent (not a swipe at anybody), the Navy doesn't necessarily allow all the top dudes to go to Hornets (anecdotal but I have heard that multiple times over my career that they will assign top grads to other airframes to ensure all communities have some top performers out UPT); you have to have a reasonable distribution of talent; we should probably have RPA with a T-38 companion program with a fighter follow on; ditto for heavies to allow fast swimmers to go there, benefit the community then go to manned aviation taking with them a good start in RPAs - Establish the long term orders concept I proffered to have an easy to manipulate rheostat (from an HR perspective) for RPA surging / draw down using the Guard/Reserve Just my rantings

Bullseye. A long tome but worth the effort on this subject, we've been here before and how people disconnected, indifferent, conniving and self-centered can ensure at best mediocrity and at worst defeat. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Bright_Shining_Lie

Doubtful - the solution to this is actually either opportunities for Guard/Reserve members for long term orders (3-5 years) or as referenced above, resurrect the WO program and apply it in a targeted fashion to the career fields that need augmenting with skilled, selective, and with a focused career path / expectation. Quick math: Hire 300 pilots in blocks of 100 pilots from the Guard/Reserve over 3 years, at Full Burden Cost of $185K per year average (WAG). That comes to $55 million per block, stager them to have a natural off-ramp if you want to draw down from this surge and for $166 million just factoring aircrew, apply another WAG of 25% for additional costs (training, support, etc...) and it comes to $208 million. Minimize other cost (PCS, per diem, etc...) by surging at the Guard & Reserve in addition to AD bases and assuming an 8:1 pilot to CAP ratio, from this public reference here and you have robust growth, easily scalable up/down force size with the flexibility of offering extensions or letting orders expire, and minimized infrastructure cost by expanding only where you have operations and God forbid actually utilizing your Guard/Reserve for what it was meant for: surging for periods of time, short or medium term, to meet an operational need and routinely using your Guard/Reserve forces to keep them viably manned by giving them work, operationally relevant by participation in current ops and optimally utilizing the hardware they have that Big Blue paid for. If you make these orders 3-5 years in length the Guard/Reserve bubbas will be interested as that is inside the scope of USERA (make them Contingency Orders and you can go beyond 5 years) and enough time to be compensatory for interrupting lives, other careers, etc... and if you allow AD dudes who want to leave to PC and steer them to this program (regardless of AFSC - if not an aviator or 18X, then AD could train them before PC to Guard/Reserve) this fixes RPA manning, but it requires out of the typical stovepipe thinking and Big Blue to be bold, not two traits it has demonstrated of late...

Just the right size (that's what she said) Sexy beast...

Yep, it was in "Battle of the X-Planes" by NOVA, good PBS documentary, not sure where in the documentary but I believe it was in the VTOL demonstration phase they had to take off part of the lower intake to achieve weight for vertical takeoff...

What could have been.... Just grist for the mill but some articles on what if the X-32 had been chosen or a split buy had been pursued rather the one for all.... http://gizmodo.com/the-fighter-jet-we-could-have-built-instead-of-the-f-35-1603031982 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/04/18/boeings-joint-strike-fighter-blues/ Found a couple of concepts of what an F-32 vice an X-32 might have looked like, the X-32 had such a high fugly factor on it that I wonder if on just looking at it, it was not going to win...

Not to defend the F-35 but I will just defend the F-35... Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery... http://breakingdefense.com/2014/05/chinese-air-chief-tells-lockheed-i-love-the-f-35/ and there is the Norwegian exchange pilot's defense of the 35 in the WVR fight where a lot of arrows have been cast... https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/update-norwegian-pilot-counters-leaked-f-35-dogfi-422552/ I've been critical here on BO . net (FWIW) against the F-35 but I get the overall sense that we are muddling our way with a shit load of money out of the total clusterf*ck that was the early stages of the program and will end up with a good airplane, albeit one that has sucked the oxygen away from a lot of other programs that we needed to fill the wide range of missions we need to do (LAAR, JCA, more 22's, etc...) but it will come to a realistically acceptable solution: a great airplane (hopefully) but a f'ing awful acquisition program...

Yup The A400 advertises 0.68-0.72 cruise and still operate on a 3500' runway, if a Next Gen Herc gets funded, a little sweep in the wing and advanced props / propfans might be the best mix.

Yep, some old proposals that unfortunately never came to life, as a taxpayer, I'm all about funding science experiments to make cool new toys. On the proposed turbofan Herc, the numbers above the rendering I posted were interesting, it looks like a 380 kts. TAS cruise speed with a 70 kt in the notional mid-mission weight, that is crazy low ref speed, not sure if you would ever need to land it on a postage stamp that would require that but it is impressive they could get a much better TAS for cruise coupled with that kind of STOL performance.