Clark Griswold

just my opinion, it is something new, not low threat but not expressly medium or above, it's an unpredictable threat level environment, most of the time the SAFIREs are small arms but there are MANPADS, medium level AAA pieces (57mm and up) that show up occassionally and the big wild cards are the remaining air defense capabilities of the failed or failing state and in the case of Syria, the very serious capes their allies (Russians especially) bring to the AOR the air environment for what's being called the "Grey Zone" conflict, a mixture of not equal parts of war, tension, stabilization, chaos, crime, etc... Is the A-10 the best weapon for CAS? Right now absolutely, but the operational environment can and always changes. In the future maybe not and if we keep intervening in these Grey Zone fights we will likely need an A-X that is built for the unpredictable threat environment, unpredictable required effects delivery all while not punching a hole in the budget stretched thin from the weight of 5th gen acquisitions What I would design for in a X-gen attack aircraft: Reduced signature and self escort / air to air (BVR) defensive capability Networked with integrated sensors for self-cueing, PID Designed around delivering PGMs vice direct fire weapons Long combat radius or endurance with AR flexibility, boom or drogue UAV wingman or drone control from a backseater, a UAV tanker and/or ISR platform like the X-47 the Navy is developing All those capes I just listed would likely make this hypothetical A-X unaffordable in this climate and may be more than is needed right now but considering how this first Grey Zone conflict in Syria is going, I think the argument can be legitimately be made for this type of attack aircraft. Not a pointless effort to do CAS in high threat environment like a mission over Moscow but one where conventional military capabilities and threats are being used by competitors to shape the operational environment, either by denial, intimidation or actual use in limited ways. Even though it was an abortion of an acquisition attempt, the A-12 Avenger II (or an updated version of it) is what I am thinking of for an A-X

Which is surprising as he was an A-10 guy, I realize there is only so much money and there are a helluva lot of mission and requirements to be met but I doubt the A-10 or Attack aircraft capability is the appropriate thing to give up. Having to prioritize and I hate to loose anybody from the team but I would have looked at one of the two non-stealth heavy bombers as who was going to get the ax, admitting the F-35 Golden Calf was just too damn expensive would have further irked Congress and have done no good. Or alternatively if we are talking trades, looking at accepting the risk and curtailing both the B-1 and B-52 while bringing back the F-117 (stored in a condition that allows for restoration to duty) could have been a short - medium turn COA to save money right now to preserve the A-10 / Attack mission and light a fire to get LSR-B done and fielded. Break, Break... From Wikipedia on the Requirements and Context on the YA-10 vs. YA-9, Attack aircraft competition from the 70s... In May 1970, the USAF issued a modified, and much more detailed request for proposals (RFP). The threat of Soviet armored forces and all-weather attack operations had become more serious. Now included in the requirements was that the aircraft would be designed specifically for the 30 mm cannon. The RFP also called for an aircraft with a maximum speed of 460 mph (740 km/h), takeoff distance of 4,000 feet (1,200 m), external load of 16,000 pounds (7,300 kg), 285-mile (460 km) mission radius, and a unit cost of US$1.4 million.[6] Simplicity and low cost were also vital requirements, with a maximum flyaway cost of $1.4 million based on a 600 aircraft production run. Performance was to be sacrificed where necessary to keep development and production costs under control.[7][8] During this time, a separate RFP was released for A-X's 30 mm cannon with requirements for a high rate of fire (4,000 round/minute) and a high muzzle velocity.[9] Six companies submitted proposals to the USAF, with Northrop and Fairchild Republic selected on December 18, 1970 to build prototypes: the YA-9A and YA-10A, respectively. Meanwhile, General Electric and Philco-Ford were selected to build and test GAU-8 cannon prototypes.[10] Looking at that, you can see how they specified requirements and performance necessary to accomplish them, from the FlightGlobal article you originally posted, it seemed low risk, and in production now will have to influence to some degree the A-X requirements that are being written now. Can an existing 4+ gen meet requirements and keep risk low enough to be a viable COA? Taking those two ideas and then marrying them up to the original, disciplined approach to requirements that led to the A-10 and the specific requirement to design that aircraft for a primary weapons system, in the case of the A-X program of the 70's, a 30 mm cannon, can we not take an existing design and modify (albeit with some risk of cost escalation) around a primary weapon / mission system to quickly design, test and field before the moment to get this done passes? What would an attack aircraft, capable of operating / surviving in a medium threat environment, be built around? A highly capable radar, capable for air to air awareness and self-protection (jamming) but also very capable at SAR ground imaging, GMTI, etc. or cross-queuing with an EO/IR or other sensors? All of this data fed to any PGM quickly the pilot selects? A successor to the 30 mm cannon but this time with case-less ammunition and improved ballistics? Just thinking...

nsplayr, did you hear any more details on Scorpion in this testing? Goes without saying, if OPSEC allows... the article says the AF is limiting a fly-off to AT-6B or A-29, the FlightGlobal article said that the AF excluded Scorpion due to still being in development, but that could be changing also... I checked their site and it looks like they have a conforming configuration (guessing that means operational configuration for a notional or as yet undisclosed customer). I have heard the aircraft not having an operational configuration and testing for full integration of sensors and systems was keeping some potential customers from committing, from their timeline, it looks like they will have one in 2016. On AX-2, fielding in under 5 years is aggressive but I think feasible if LO is not required, only signature reduction with robust self defense. Could any of the 4+ gen fighters out there now in production, be modified for better performance as an attack aircraft? Conformal fuel tanks, new engine option (higher bypass ratio) for lower thrust but better mileage, light weight armor & redundant systems for golden bbs, integrated EO sensor to free up a station, etc... A-10 guys, would this be enough for a successor (not a true replacement) for the Hog?

Better late than never. Just give the aircraft/mission to AFSOC (LAAR / COIN), I suspect ACC will make an effort to look interested then sh*t can the idea after a period of time of seeming to look busy at investigating it.

So I read I read your post and (and a few others) that seem to throw heavy guys who tracked T-1 maybe not under the bus but definitely into oncoming traffic, at first I was pissed (not that it matters) but after gonking a bit I realized it is just a reiteration of a theme I have heard before in muted tones, that we are basically inferior as pilots and I will assume that attitude carries over to us as officers as by your anecdotes we're lazy barely trainable retards. I wish to dispel you of that idea. I'm not going to get into a dick measuring contest with you on quals, instructor/evaluator time, chief of shop(s), FTU cadre, air medals (single events or cumulative), times shot at, times actually in danger or all the other shit that goes into a military flying career over multiple operations, AORs and other missions but sufficient to say when I look back at mine and other "fatty" pilots (actually I like that) the idea that we are stupid, lazy ignoramuses is complete bullshit that needs to stop. I realize that the power of that intellectual statement is overwhelming so I will expound... 1- We tracked T-1 because that is how the order of merit at Track Select placed us and some deliberately chose T-1s. Not me, I wanted to 38s but I didn't place high enough so I gratefully took my T-1, worked hard, enjoyed it and look back with pride on what I accomplished. Sometimes when you have a group of really strong, fast runners the difference between first and last is actually not that much, it is just that in that competitive a race, the 0.1 seconds make the difference, it is not that number 3 or 4 are slow or weak it is just that the race was that competitive. 2 - We worked hard in T-1s and accomplished a difficult syllabus that was not spoon fed to us and we were expected to perform, held to high standards and had the motivation to perform well as we all wanted as you said "pick their top choices based off location and lifestyle". If by our T-1 order of merit we were higher ranking, then we got to pick a better assignment, I can only speak for my class and the others I had friends in but no one slowed down because no one wanted to get stuck somewhere they didn't want to be doing something they didn't want to do. That was going to happen to somebody as there are a finite number of the "dream jobs" but everyone I knew worked hard to have the most control over there own fate, we would have greatly have appreciated having a lazy turd in our class to be a target for a less than desirable assignment but alas we all worked hard and hence kept all of our class working hard. They were not allowing T-1s to track bombers when I was going thru (2000 timeframe) but had they been allowing it, I would have worked my ass off for it. I worked hard, didn't get my first choice but not my last either. I look back and realize my job was not glamorous but important to do well, didn't expect a backslapping recognition for doing it as best I could and moved on. If your community (I assume B-1s) didn't get product they were completely happy with don't stereotype us all. It could have been supplied thru a poor selection process, thru a selection process deliberately fed misfit toys to get rid of them or just not taken seriously by the releasing command(s). 3 - We fly aircraft that take airmanship, intelligence and a strong work ethic to learn to operate, manage the missions, lead the crew, support the team and roll with the punches when things go south. This is recognized and why several friends of mine (all T-1 tracked, heavy drivers) have gone on to fly U-2s, attend TPS, flown for the 89th, exchange tours and the like. Yours truly is a mediocre officer and I rate myself average yoke operator but I was cut from the same training cloth as those other heavy guys who have done more than me, the example of what they have done should give people pause before they have someone all figured out.

Maybe but he would probably try something new, see if it worked and if it was worthwhile to pursue further. Experiment and innovate, we have to build better mousetraps not just more expensive ones.

No doubt that there would be some bumps on the way but just because it might be hard doesn't mean it should at least be tried. Maybe just a project and not fielding but think outside the container and do something new and innovative, not just the same old thing. The operational environment is changing, this could be a good place for AMC to start to innovate. Not to be cheesy or naive but this is right in line with what senior leaders have spoken of publicly and I will take them at their word, an AF born in innovation. Maybe and there is likely more operational utility in just having strike aircraft carry more gas than an LO or WEZ penetrating capable taker but we should try to innovate. New technology, tactics and operational concepts will come out of challenging our assumptions. What would Billy do?

Decent chance of that but I am all for wasting money on science projects rather letting it get it spent on some non-mission related bullshit, screw new office furniture and flat screens piled up all over the bases, let's see what we can figure out... Another article quoting the same conversation from this year's AFA on a stealth tanker or tactical tanker: https://www.defensenews.com/articles/air-force-could-pursue-stealthy-penetrating-kc-z-tanker?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Military EBB 9-21-16&utm_term=Editorial - Military - Early Bird Brief It's probably about 690 times more practical (not necessarily less expensive) to add humpback conformal fuel tanks to the 5th gen fighters we have now and probably not screw up their LO profile like the ones on the Advanced Capability Super Hornet but... Rather than build an LO tanker for the capability of LO AR maybe the goal should be a tanker that could operate towards the end or just inside of the WEZ of a long range SAM with high probability of survival if we actually think we will need that capability... from the article: A KC-Z will likely need to accompany fighter jets and other assets into anti-access, area-denial battlespaces, which means it could incorporate low-observable features. Everhart said he had challenged industry to create a “cloaking device” that would disguise the aircraft’s radar signature and make the tanker appear like a much smaller object. I'm not thinking a cloaking device but a robust set of EW pods on the tanker(s) and data links with other tankers and players to work together to degrade an enemy's EM sensors along possibly with wingman UAVs that could provide more tempting false targets / jamming in the vicinity of the AR track and moving with AR formation as required for ingress, on-station and egress. MALD has an open source endurance listed as 45 minutes, for AR protection it might need to be more than that but if you could put 3 on added hard points on a KC-46 you could conceivably protect a modest AR on station time.

Unfortunately true Just my cynical opinion but leadership uses certain unloved children as bargaining chips Still sucks and not in the good way Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have them but I have no idea if they maintain them (booms & the smooth operators) - the extent of my research is NIPR based and open source. France is getting the the ARBS for theirs but the RAF is not as of yet. https://www.janes.com/article/59242/uk-raf-shows-interest-in-voyager-boom https://airbusdefenceandspace.com/newsroom/news-and-features/france-announces-order-for-airbus-a330-mrtt-air-to-air-refuelling-aircraft/ From the second article: In French service the A330 MRTT will be powered by Rolls-Royce Trent 700 engines, be equipped with a combination of the Airbus Refuelling Boom System and underwing hose- and-drogue refuelling pods, and can be configured in a variety of layouts carrying up to 271 passengers as well as medevac arrangements including the French MORPHEE intensive care module carrying up to ten patients as well as 88 passengers.

Just using the rules as they are written for maximum benefit - basically 4 hours of duty equals one pay day so you can legally make 2 days pay for 8 hours duty. Technicians can also work a day for pay as a GS then do an IDT (Inactive Duty Training) to get one day of pay by the Military system. Hate the game not the player. Yup - the more podunk the location of the Guard / Reserve unit the harder to attract / retain TRs. If the AF was really interested in fixing this problem (RPA locations and the enterprise in general) they'd put new Active Association units or convert Reserve units in airline domiciles or in major cities distributed across the time zones to attract TRs with airline or civilian jobs based there for an easier unit to attract / retain TRs. Station AD there for the continuity with an appropriate cadre of AGRs and Techs, let the TRs come in to maintain and fly the line as desired or needed. TRs get Guard / Reserve unit located with their domicile or in an easy to commute to location via CASS privileges. Active Duty RPA get better locations that Clovistan or Creechnam and the spread across time zones improves QOL. Anderson (domicile for United), Hickam, McChord, Beale (close enough to SFO), Nellis, Peterson, Robins (close enough to ATL), Hansom - that's an easy and quick march West to East across that have AD bases. Again AF, this is not that hard to figure out. Shoe clerks. Good locations across time zones - GA companion aircraft program - Good follow on assignments for volunteers to the RPA - Commissioning opportunities for qualified applicants for a modest ADSC / RPA service AF, please see the comment above..

Yup - would be an easy unit to support. Close to an airline hub, high density of military facilities for mutual support and desirable location - all things the AF would not compute. Consider it strategically, how do I get people to volunteer / not feel too bitter about driving a droid? Desirable locations, distribution across time zones, reasonable GA flying program for professional aviator development, base of choice or MDS crossflow for volunteers for 4 year assignments. This is not that hard AF.

Wiki says 560 at altitude, seems reasonable. The Wiki on the T-X program also said NG was originally going with the BAE Hawk (with NG as the prime contractor and partnering with BAE Systems) but after wind tunnel testing went with a clean sheet design as the Hawk didn't fare as well and they were concerned with affordability. No elaboration on the fear of costs creeping up as the T-45 program would likely offer some economy of scale savings but whatever.

Germany may be coming around... https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/germany-embraces-realpolitik-once-more/

WTF? I guess it's one fight two teams and screw putting a critical capability in one of my most important force multiplying / enabling assets... you'll just have to carry the burden yourself but come to my rescue immediately if I need it... The Italians have already bought 4 KC-767s (not full up KC-46s) and I think that it is not a bridge too far to expect them to buy a few more (8-12) for expanded boom capable AR... looking at you Germany, Great Britain... the French have 14 boom equipped tankers, get with the program... of course this is for starters... The full court press on them has to be cutting our permanent basing there in half to prove to them that we are serious about them self-actualizing and having their own capabilities.

Book on the subject (related subject really) - a reboot of NATO to version 2.0 https://www.amazon.com/NATO-2-0-Reboot-Sarwar-Kashmeri/dp/1597976644 and an article from the Wilson Center https://www.wilsoncenter.org/article/nato-20 I had heard there was some buyer's remorse on the Typhoon and I knew it was lacking in some capes but I thought they had fixed that with the LITENING pod and planned upgrade to CAPTOR-E radar (e-scan AESA), all that with the currently fielded PIRATE IRST, seemed like a potent 4+ gen fighter, not so much i gather... https://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/03/eurofighter_nao_analysis/ Well... shit... a 1970's swing wing multi-role fighter strike aircraft (albeit highly upgraded) had to help the Typhoon? That is a freakin' taco for basic capability. On tanker capability, I don't know of any NATO defined requirements for it as a total force but putting the Europeans feet to the fire and developing a requirement has got to happen, unless we want to commit to more KC-46s and ideally a KC-777 - actual numbers are not for this forum - but defining a requirement that they have to meet us half-way, that is they have to provide at least part of the tanker bridge if things go loud in Europe and they need the US to deploy in force there. Thinking sustain 4-5 AR orbits offset the NAT tracks at some point (probably just West of Iceland) for X number of 4 ships / or a T-tailer needing a plug. We have to require them to attain some greater basic expeditionary capabilities and expand their basic doctrinal requirements. They may exist on paper but there's not enough on the ramp or armory to actually meet them.

NG proposal sighted at Mohave in taxi tests. https://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-t-x-breaks-cover-mojave and an article listing pros and cons of all the prospective entrants, written before the Boeing T-X was reveled but enjoy... https://aviationweek.com/defense/who-has-edge-us-air-force-t-x-trainer-competition#slide-8-field_images-1494601 What was your take on it as an advanced trainer?

Copy that - too bad they didn't or couldn't afford to build that into the T-X. Too much common sense and 10 years is kinda quick, 15 maybe if we can get it coord'd in TMT. Follow on: BAE Hawk AJT website. https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/hawk The Hawk AJT with a small-medium sized buy of Hawk 200's for a Light Fighter / ADAIR would not be a terrible COA.

Another close up. Haven't heard it mentioned as a requirement or idea for the T-X program but has it been discussed (informally) to have an "Adversary Model" or options/features baked in for that training mission?

Nah - let's get a Russian mail order ride Fwd swept wing trainer SR 10 https://theaviationist.com/2016/01/02/new-russian-fsw-trainer-makes-first-flight/

Baby Superhornet. Still a good looking jet.

Copy that. The Navy may get into the mix soon with the TERN concept UAV. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2015-12-28 https://aviationweek.com/blog/darpas-new-tern-predator-frigate Googled it and found the US Army Roadmap 2010-2035 - no mention of MCE operations and trying a few other terms related to that (BLOS, split operations, etc...) turned up nada. Scanning it, I think they envision this forward deployed mostly, as an organic part of whatever size force it is supporting or really a part of. https://www.rucker.army.mil/usaace/uas/US Army UAS RoadMap 2010 2035.pdf

You are correct sir. The article I referenced with the 60 was the step down from 65 the SECDEF ordered to get the FIRE light in the T-handle to go out. Found another article with the former CSAF quoted on the subject: That will include a decision by the Pentagon to increase department-wide caps to 90 per day. Defense contractors would fly 10 caps a day using government-owned RPAs and would focus only on intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions. The rest of the flights would be provided by the Army, though Welsh said he did not know the timetable for that service’s increase. https://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/2016/03/07/rpa-flights-increase-70-day-training-and-bases-grow-too-welsh-says/81454190/ So the AF has 60, Contractors 10 leaving USA with picking up the other 20 or are the USN & USMC getting into the Tier II (USAF definition) RPA business also for CAPs in OIR or wherever?

60 https://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/589196/air-force-moves-to-bring-about-rpa-mission-relief.aspx Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk