Clark Griswold

Can't deny that problem

Legit critiques, there is an element of robbing Peter to pay Paul but I think I could pay Paul back with interest in this case if the program (a 3+ FY ARC IP, MX and MEO personnel surge) runs for at least 3 FYs, grows more IPs first and then in years 2 and beyond to train the newly minted 11Fs from IFF Make it the objective to not only solve the AC 11F shortfall but to grow in your RC the 11F IP cadre, as the program ran, specifically in the first year or so, focus on growing you IP cadre by training first new IPs, the AC and RC F-16 pilots ready to IP qual and in year two and beyond then focus on the FNGs to getting them their B qual (terminology check - is the the first qual for an 11F when hey go thru their FTU?) It will likely cost 100+ million to move the 40 jets and 800 folks from Hill to Holloman, that is about 640 man years of MPA depending on the O to E ratio. Spend about that on an activation (partial unit) of two F-16 wings with the units not inside of 3 years for their AEF rotation. 3 years, two sites, surged training and MX. Sugar it with a bonus and the ARC will have multiple units volunteering. Just a thought.

No - I'll throw my ignorance of that fact right up front as I believed (incorrectly) that Luke was the only FTU for the Viper. My comment was on the idea of transferring the Hill 16s and personnel to what was billed as "interim" squadrons - sounds permanent likely and unnecessary as there are many other 16 bases that could stand up for a temporary surge training, with an IP program pulling from the ARC and leveraging the resources there or from there. Hill for instance where the planes and people are already based

2 I had to say that which is painfully obvious to a Demo-drone who could not grasp the fact that money doesn't actually grow on trees. Every health insurance policy that is government supplied or subsidized is a wealth transference device to some degree, I am not even saying that as a pejorative but just as a simple fact that libs can't / won't admit. If that fact could come honestly into the public conversation (or what's left of it in the civic society wasteland) the other fact, that people who make less money will not have the same approximate lifestyle as someone who makes much more money, this even includes healthcare, regardless if it pisses libs off or not. If you make 30k per year you won't have the same healthcare as someone who makes 300k per year, if we try to totally even out society in this area (and others) because we are uncomfortable with disparities in lifestyle, we'll wreck the place. Ref: USSR, Venezuela, NK, Cuba, etc...

What's really driving this? There's a lot of room at Hill and the airspace/ranges are a plenty (UTTR) and are they moving all the other things you need for an FTU (sims, academics, etc.) or is it a split plan with studs going to Luke first then to Holloman for flight training? Why not just stand up a training program at a Guard / Reserve base(s) for 3 years, surge production as required and not do something that will likely make the 11F problem even worse by probably encouraging the 7-day opt? A spasmodic flinch when a strategic punch was needed...

Not me, I know that flying a 4 engine swing wing 475k+ GW bomber with an adhoc targeting pod added to it that will need to be air refueled at least once during a mission and probably costing around 60k+ per flight hour is the real way to deliver air power in a permissive environment where air to mud effects are sometimes called for but ISR is in really in demand. It's nuts to use an inexpensive turboprop that can do both of those missions at probably less than 3% of the cost per mission.

Logic and reason supported by data to argue for a LAAR therefore this will be ignored... https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/logistical-fratricide-the-cost-of-fast-jet-tacair-measured-in-purple-hearts/

Another fire, B model inflight. Pilot landed safely but plane was a Class A. https://www.businessinsider.com/marine-f-35-fighter-fire-2016-11

Yup https://breakingdefense.com/2015/10/russian-drone-threat-army-seeks-ukraine-lessons/ Counter UAS has got to go to the front of the line for development

Not a bad point. A new tactical / highly mobile / low logistics AAA system: Smaller than a Patriot and air deliverable from a 17. System contained in one vehicle. 15NM+ or so WEZ for its missile and a DE weapon with a 5NM+ WEZ. Basing those ranges as what would keep a MiG or RPA from shooting a Maverick or Hellfire equivalent weapon. Shoot on the go capable, not necessarily as good as stationary but at least capable. No missiles or radar on this CGI but a good approximation. Laser may be on GCVs fairly soon: https://futurism.com/laser-mounted-combat-vehicles-are-set-to-roll-out-in-2017/ Not to be too Machiavellian but we have good laboratories in Syria / Iraq / Ukraine (thru proxies) to begin testing these future out of the container ideas as the battlefields there are hybrid warfare (asymmetric tactics and belligerents mixed with some conventional forces and capabilities), these type of systems need to be rapidly fielded just to see if they work in operational conditions and are worth the effort.

Interesting article. https://warontherocks.com/2016/11/offsetting-air-superiority-with-air-force-special-operations/ Not 100% on board but does beg the question (as a sidebar) whether or not we should develop / acquire new smaller SAM systems, good example being the Israeli SPYDER SAM system: or resurrect the SLAAMRAM?

Code 3 https://theaviationist.com/2016/11/02/u-s-kc-10-aerial-refueler-loses-refueling-boom-that-falls-in-a-hay-field/ No one hurt thankfully.

Good article on what a theoretical A-X could / should be: https://warontherocks.com/2016/05/its-not-about-the-airplane-envisioning-the-a-x2/ It didn't get far in development but the MD 226 concept would be a good place to start from

Probably the later 80's I saw him at a mid-sized airshow in the SE USA.

Time to leave Incirlik? https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/10/get-ready-walk-away-incirlik/132585/ My suggestion for a new location...

Wondering if we will see more of this with the rise of "Grey Zone" warfare: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/23/world/americas/colombia-airline-flights-venezuela.html?_r=0 There was no specific mention of a loss of separation but it was enough to get a "sharp diversion". China seems to be practicing this also: https://www.lawfareblog.com/chinas-harassment-civilian-ships-and-aircraft-south-china-sea-reminds-us-why-we-need-more-us-freedom This article and referenced speech imply they make no distinction or even attempt at distinguishing between civil and military traffic for interception or harassment. Could ICAO as a governing body respond? Suspension or some or all certifications or reciprocity of certifications?

Godspeed Mr. Hoover. Saw his Commander sans functioning engines show many years ago and as a know nothing kid I could tell that was a truly great pilot.

PI is looking for another friend... https://www.yahoo.com/news/south-china-sea-looms-over-duterte-visit-beijing-071920789.html PI is good geography but can we operate / pivot without it?

Only qualified candidate Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No worries.

How so?

On that idea, a good article from National Review: https://www.nationalreview.com/article/419278/why-america-has-lost-the-will-to-win-wars And his response to comments on the article is worth a read also: https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/411333/responding-atlantic-yes-military-has-problems-it-really-losing-wars-david-french Not to steal the author's thunder (Iraq vet with deployment in 2007) - he hits home some major points that are some of the reasons we can't seem to get these conflicts done, but his most important point (IMO) is we set the bar too high. From the second linked article / response: Since Vietnam (perhaps even since Korea), the Left has done a very good job of delegitimizing military efforts (or even diplomatic efforts) that don’t end in a state of quasi-utopia. It wasn’t enough to oppose the Soviet Union. We also had to make sure that our allies were sufficiently virtuous. It wasn’t enough to resist North Vietnamese aggression. South Vietnam had to be a model democracy. It’s not enough to depose Saddam Hussein. His replacement had to usher in the Middle East’s first (non-Israeli) enlightened democracy. While — ideally — we certainly don’t want to replace evil with a separate evil, the objective of the United States military is not to increase earthly virtue but to defend the Constitution by deterring and, if necessary, defeating the enemies of the United States. That last bolded statement is perfect, we have mistakenly taken on too much (the military) into our mission set. Post conflict, it is not or should not be our mission to set up a government / society that we find to be an improvement or morally superior to the one we just defeated, we are not there to "fix" the defeated so that they are better and one day thank us for changing them. Keep it simple: Defeat the enemy. Secure the objective(s). Establish a sustainable, tolerable authority that is allied to our interests. GTFO. These articles count Korea as a draw, I would put it in the win column and I would further use it as a template for how to do things: Kick the shit out of the enemy. - Done. More could have been done but things could have gotten out of hand (nukes, full on war with China, Russia, etc.), they got a bloody nose, commander's intention met. Don't get too ambitious, win what territory, concessions, etc. you need to call it good and secure those. - Korea south of the 38th parallel free and secure? Good enough. Keep your expectations of behavior realistic and minimal when you stand-up your proxy in the newly secured objective. - SK gov. was a not so nice authoritarian gov. for a number of decades, let it be. As time went on, we slowly and smoothly got them to a better place. GTFO - Still working on that, but it is sustainable at least and the SK's do foot some of the bill.

As this is a thread on what is wrong with the AF, I offer a movie on that theme, basically about a GO trying to cover up his crime, using his power and influence and the culture of officers that sometimes fight it and others that enable it. Sole Survivor from 1970. Found on Youtube - worth 1+30 of your time if sitting SOF, faking work, etc...

And it is a valid reason, skills preservation is a valid part of an acquisition strategy.

Possibly. Discussing this it is easy to get focused on systems (yours truly guilty of that) but this could be more of a doctrine question.