Clark Griswold

T-1 back in the crosshairs (sorta)... Full article behind the paywall but the idea that the T-1 (as it is now) is past its prime is back. https://aviationweek.com/defense/opinion-us-air-force-overspending-t-1a-its-forgotten-trainer If the T-1 is too much to upgrade/sustain, get a Cessna Mustang.

Thread bump on a related topic, RAAF looking to automate the boom. https://www.janes.com/article/68425/avalon-2017-raaf-and-airbus-to-develop-automated-refuelling-boom-for-kc-30a https://en.c4defence.com/Archive/airbus-to-develop-automated-refuelling-for-raaf-kc30a/3886/1

Ouch. The proposal was supposed to only need a 25% modification to the A model, I imagine it was whole new pressurized section and the rocket motors in lieu of the jets. That seems a little too good to be true but whatevs, it was an awesome idea from a different time...

Possibly.

2 On the related subject of Building Partnership Capacity, a briefing from NGAUS & Textron making the argument to buy something you can afford and is what you really need. https://www.ngaus.org/sites/default/files/TEXTRON.pdf In the case of the PI, when the US gives you 120 mil+ in 2016 in military aid, we do have an opinion that counts on what you should buy. https://fronteranews.com/news/asia/much-foreign-aid-manila-lose-washington/

Agreed - from the articles/videos, the super flankers stand a chance if enough can survive either the first volley and/or get close enough for the surviving formation to overlap sensors to get SA (still BVR but close enough to find a Lighting) Break, break... Possible Polish F-35s in a few years: https://www.defence24.com/251668,new-fighter-for-the-polish-air-force-f-35-complementing-the-f-16

Sub-orbitial T-38 concept. Talons in Space: Northrop's N-205 Proposal

Can't argue they are wanting. Thank you sir may I have another! Yeah, they are not to referenced in a 3-1 or besides my spurious post but they stir the pot for a discussion on a "4++" vs 5th gen. From his musings, I thought there was one point worthy of discussion, can a 4th gen that is likely one of the best of its class, can it maximize its best qualities (energy potential, combat load, radar/IRST) to overcome an LO opponent?

Trying to get three more partners on the 35 team... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-airshow-australia-lockheed-idUSKBN16A0DW And from the internet so caveat emptor, some F-35 vs. Su-35 analysis... https://www.asian-defence.net/2011/05/usa-f-35-jsf-vs-russian-su-35s.html https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/americas-f-35-stealth-fighter-vs-russias-su-35-who-wins-13855 Two Youtube videos on a hypothetical 4 v 4, defending and attacking setups with Flankers vs Lightings: Part 1 Part 2

Copy all. Since we're having an exchange between the crew and single seat communities I don't want to leave the impression that in the multi-place world that we are incapable or don't occasionally fly for some periods of time with duties normally distributed between the pilots all done by the PF (physio breaks, controlled cockpit rest, mission requirements in some crew aircraft will pull the right seater away for other mission tasks, etc...). Usually the split of flight duties, challenge and response checklists, confirmations, etc... is not because the PF is tasked saturated with just flying of the jet but to enhance SA, communicate to the crew (flight deck and back end if applicable) and utilize all the resources available. It keeps the PNF from getting out of synch with the PF and ready to take the jet, if required. Just one herbivore's take on how we do business...

You have altitude hold in single seaters also, you don't use it when you have to multi-task?

They talked about it but never pursued it, can't meet the sustained turn requirements they want in T-X for BFM instruction. They added 4 degrees of sweep to the wing and and all moving horizontal stab for better high speed control. I thought they had it right with the first aircraft and it's Hershey Bar wing but they modified based on testing inputs so be it. It's still not going to catch an airliner unless it is OEI but a supersonic BVR missile fired from it will catch almost anything.

True, but selling the AIM-120C model should not be a stretch or the Israeli Derby BVR missile. The case for the fixed wing is made for the capabilities (speed, range, endurance, altitude, payload and self-defense) matched with much lower operational costs. Particularly when you have a large geographical area to patrol and secure like the PI, Columbia, Nigeria, etc...

True but it is probably what they could truly afford. Now if we want to just give them second hand 16s then that changes the equation but this idea is that Country X is paying for everything themselves. I was thinking something similar also, County X with limited resources for defense uses a Patriot battery for their first ring of air defense with Super Scorpions forming a second echelon that fires and retrogrades to preserve the asset and the aircrew lives.

Possibly but my comment was mainly meant for FMS customers like the PI's, Columbia, etc... For the cost of one F/A-50 at $30 mil, you could get a hypothetical Super Scorpion at $25 mil (WAG) and 6 AIM-120C + 2 AIM-9X for Air Defense and 20 SDB + 10 AGM-114 + 10 APKWS for Precision Strike. You'd have about 800k left over for training, spare parts, etc... That's just simple math but you get the point, a less expensive platform that still has enough capability to deliver advanced weapons is a more viable COA than blowing all your money in a few fighters that you have no money to arm, train or maintain properly.

It would be tough - read impossible - for Scorp to intercept anything but a recip or turboprop but that's not its bread and butter. This hypothetical capability would be as a second echelon or compliment to a true fighter. Real fighters cost too much to buy and operate, they carry prestige but often can't be procured in relevant numbers or the fleet is not nearly as available as needed due to MX costs. This is the case for a lot of our budget conscious partners. Providing them an option that lets have some A2A capability but gives them a lot of ISR and Light Strike can fill a niche the F-5 used to. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cool - no offense taken and good points made. As a T-1 grad looking from the outside at the potential change to SUPT, just send everyone thru T-X and at some point in the Phase 3 syllabus make the split between Fighter rec'd and everybody else with the syllabus diverging at that point. Good for the Aviation Community as it encourages common culture and gives everyone a chance up to some point to shine and get to earn a single seat fighter.

By air defense, how do you mean? Air Defense as a fighter capable of BFM - no way. Air Defense as a missile platform for BVR missiles then defending or egressing, maybe if you wanted to invest that kind of money into this platform for this new/added capability. For the US, it could be useful but would likely substantially increase the cost and likely doom the project for us but you could use it to entice a FMS customer. Take a potential customer like the PI, they have a basic Air Defense needs but large FID needs with various insurgencies, TNCO, etc... Have a "super" Scorpion model that has that capability to deliver ISR & kinetic effects inexpensively and with a suitable radar like a Raytheon RACR, to shoot AMRAAMs then egress bravely to avoid a shot from an encroaching J-15. The platform is not a fighter but a missile platform, a slow moving interceptor really. How effective would it be, don't know. But if you are a resource short AF needing some capability to defend against air to air threats and a lot of capability to deliver ISR and light/precision strike, this could be a novel way of doing it.

Excellent - going in with that square filled is the best COA.

Fair enough. I will quibble on your historical analogy though, that was when it was "universal" UPT and all were tracking 38s with their order of merit and Fighter, Bomber, Recce recommendation determining who could go where then. Everyone was a 38 student then so the assignment of non-fighters was not remarkable but routine. I didn't imply and I don't think that T-1s have "dibs" on certain assignments, however, the expectation is that the T-1s will be the primary source for those assignments, I saw some guys who were competitive for 38s choose T-1s, not me just to keep it real, but as Fuzz, said not everyone in T-1s is a unsuccessful T-38 track applicant. Flying T-1s doesn't close doors, its a privilege. I wanted to fly something with an afterburner but that didn't work out, so be it. But getting to fly heavy jets is not a consolation prize. Not sure if you were intending to shit on heavy flying or not but it comes across that way. That's not butt hurt talking ether, just not going to be condescended to. I'm done ranting, no animosity either. How was WWI started? One guy shooting another guy was the little match to light the big fire. Kindling was already in place though...

Maybe not wrong but inconsistent and frankly hypocritical. SUPT is meant to be Specialized not Universal UPT. I understand that needs of the AF drove the policy of 38 studs being universally assignable but that was based on an institutional need not a personal preference that was limited because of a career choice, i.e. the choice of these studs to track 38s and the likely assignments to follow from that personal choice. They ranked their track preferences and made their decisions. Now, when those chickens come home to roost, good or bad, they must live with them.

Guard dude confirming his advice - get it done prior to going to the dark side. 0.0% chance of promotion to Major without it. Since you're almost done with USMC PME course, you'll save yourself the loss of IQ points by doing AF SOS.

A bit older article but a good comparison between the A-29 and AT-6: https://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/light-attack-aircraft-the-super-tucano-the-at-6-and-the-blue-kool-aid/ Taking CSAF's comments from the recent speech and if we really want this we have to strike when the iron is hot, either of these two plus the Scorpion Jet are the lowest risk, ready to fly options. Or could we go with what is behind Curtain 3? A split buy of Scorpions and A-29s? I say A-29s as their is already a training unit established and that is what Allies / Partners are seeming to choose, it is operationally proven and lower risk. Buy 125 Scorpions and establish an FTU to entice potential FMS customers (India for example) and give confidence in purchasing the jet, learning the lesson of the F-20 failure to launch. Buy 25 A-29s and continue the training mission at Moody AFB. Enough USAF capability to support one FOL and encourages participation with the USAF for BPC. Scorps at Seymour, Duke, Maxwell (training with Ft. Benning) Kirtland, Nellis. Look for 5-7 ARC units to change MWS or set up AA units at their locations. A-29s at Moody and Ft Campbell.

Too logical - separate quals with widely separated bases, no crossflow - maximize the self imposed problems. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's in the zeitgeist now. McCain wants 300, that seems a bit high but an order of 100 to 150 seems about right. Now the question to answer is where / how will you crew this aircraft as quickly as you can procure it? Would the pilot need to be an IFF grad or could those relevant syllabus portions (surface attack for example) just be taught in Initial Qual? Just guessing that the delivery of unguided or direct fire munitions is not really how this platform will be employed most of the time so would that really need to be a pre-FTU requirement? Honest question. The Afghan A-29 syllabus (I assume) rolls everything into one syllabus, repeat the same method with a USAF LAAR program (IMO) CSOs - qualify in the same class or separate from the pilots?