Privatizing Red Air Gaining Momentum

[s.p.i.]

This week's AW&ST cover story, "Red Air For Hire", discusses the
burgeoning civilian operated adversary services saying, "...the age of
outsourcing advanced tactical training and training support services
may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance".
http://www.aviationnow.com

Acknowledging that such endeavors have,"...died before all the
regulatory and licensing hurdles could be jumped", the article
continues on with some of the structural reasons why they may be more
sucessful now.

The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.

At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

Sid!

Thanks for one of the very few relevant posts in this NG. Good article.
I'll "reward" you by engaging... For now.

On 8/3/03 7:04 PM, in article
, "s.p.i."
> wrote:

> This week's AW&ST cover story, "Red Air For Hire", discusses the
> burgeoning civilian operated adversary services saying, "...the age of
> outsourcing advanced tactical training and training support services
> may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance".
> http://www.aviationnow.com
>
> Acknowledging that such endeavors have,"...died before all the
> regulatory and licensing hurdles could be jumped", the article
> continues on with some of the structural reasons why they may be more
> sucessful now.
>
> The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
> International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
> Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
> commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
> realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
> whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.
>
> At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
> environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
> human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"

Nice quote too. Must have bothered you a lot to read it when I wrote it.

Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
relive the glory days... Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, and I hold
nothing against them for trying. They certainly have the credentials (and
likely the political connections) to carry it out, BUT what they offer
doesn't replace (and will never replace) the capabilities that professional
military adversary types offer now in the form of USNR VFC's and VFA's--not
to mention the surge capability that the U.S. Navy reaps when they need to
activate those VFA's during war time. Sure, they can provide FM training
and OPFOR (in fact, they have been for years).

Funny how there was no mention in the article about their recent attempt to
set up a permanent shop in Key West failed due to some sort of contract
issue.

How 'bout McBride's comment:

"What we're trying to do here is not a trivial task. It's very
capital-intensive, and not that easy to go get some airplanes and start
training people," explained Jon (Orbit) McBride, ATSI's president and chief
operating officer. "The licensing, negotiations and contracting take years.
It took us almost a year to get [State Dept.] licenses to import airplanes
from overseas, and a year to get [the contracts] to start refurbishing
airplanes." McBride is a former NASA shuttle Challenger astronaut, combat
pilot and test pilot. He also worked as a venture capital fund manager for
10 years, and has a good understanding of what it takes to build a
successful company.

They STILL don't have Category IV adversary aircraft, and they are only able
to provide OPFOR and NOT adversary support.

In the current "reserve hater" climate, their business plan/mindset: "If you
build it, they will come" is correct. The active duty Navy would love
nothing more than to cash in their Category IV USNR hardware units (and
their impending need for re-equipping) for Hoss' Category III bunch. Once
they've cornered the market, they'll be able to charge/negotiate whatever
they need to recapitalize/maintain.

....then our pilots can look forward to initially exploring the capabilities
of a multi-group Category IV adversary presentation when they go against
real MiG-29s.

It all boils down to how much money the Navy is willing to save versus how
much they are willing to dumb-down training.

--Woody

[John Carrier]

The Hoss Pearson I knew retired as a Captain. Check out
http://www.atsifightertraining.com/company/learn.html which confirms that
fact.
You should read the article more carefully

QUOTE
THREE YEARS AGO, a U.S. Navy vice admiral told Larry (Hoss) Pearson--a
former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team commander, combat
veteran and test pilot--"You should get into foreign military pilot
training, because the Navy is getting out of it. With the downsizing, we're
not going to be able to continue doing it." Pearson is now chairman and CEO
of Advanced Training Systems International (ATSI) Inc., based here at the
former Williams AFB, now called Williams Gateway Airport.

UNQUOTE

Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and
option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you
just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass as
well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly single-seat
A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch.

R / John

"s.p.i." > wrote in message
om...
> This week's AW&ST cover story, "Red Air For Hire", discusses the
> burgeoning civilian operated adversary services saying, "...the age of
> outsourcing advanced tactical training and training support services
> may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance".
> http://www.aviationnow.com
>
> Acknowledging that such endeavors have,"...died before all the
> regulatory and licensing hurdles could be jumped", the article
> continues on with some of the structural reasons why they may be more
> sucessful now.
>
> The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
> International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
> Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
> commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
> realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
> whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.
>
> At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
> environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
> human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"

[Pechs1]

sid-<< The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
commander, combat veteran and test pilot. >><BR><BR>

Retired as a O-6, as CO of Miramar. Was CO of VX-4( I was his XO), but not a
TPS grad...

Flew the F-8 at Bug Roach's memorial service..from Thunderbird Aviation..great
guy.
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[s.p.i.]

"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...
> Sid!
>
> Thanks for one of the very few relevant posts in this NG. Good article.
> I'll "reward" you by engaging... For now

You're welcome and Thank You, Thank You, Oh Great Sky God Woody, for
such a wonderful reward. This is way better than going to Delphi.
I'll send the video of me genuflecting.

> > The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
> > International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
> > Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
> > commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
> > realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
> > whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.
> >
> > At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
> > environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
> > human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"
>
> Nice quote too. Must have bothered you a lot to read it when I wrote it.

Actually I laughed out loud when I first read it. I thought it was so
patently ridiculous it deserved a reprise.

> Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
> relive the glory days... Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, and I hold
> nothing against them for trying. They certainly have the credentials (and
> likely the political connections) to carry it out, BUT what they offer
> doesn't replace (and will never replace) the capabilities that professional
> military adversary types offer now in the form of USNR VFC's and VFA's--not
> to mention the surge capability that the U.S. Navy reaps when they need to
> activate those VFA's during war time. Sure, they can provide FM training
> and OPFOR (in fact, they have been for years).

Sounds to me like they are a couple of rational guys who are parlaying
their rather esoteric skills into a valid business opportunity.

The article addressed your second point:
"Regardless of reasons given, someone in the armed services usually
decided the best approach was to continue performing most of the "red
air" adversary, target-towing, missile simulation and other training
activities in-house, using their own aircraft and crews. The rationale
was, "this is flying time for our crews, and we've already paid for
them and the aircraft. We might as well use them rather than pay an
outsider to provide the same services."

But the age of outsourcing advanced tactical training and training
support services may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance.
Downsized force structures, ever-leaner budgets and a profusion of
global commitments have squeezed active-duty and reserve military air
components to exhaustion. Aircrews who were deployed to Afghanistan,
Iraq and other hot spots now return to the U.S. in need of rest and
retraining to ensure they are mission-ready for yet another
deployment. None are too enthused about going to Red Flag, Maple Flag
or some other major exercise to fly as simulated enemy adversaries or
"red air." This applies equally to both active-duty and reserve
crews...

In other words, both people and aircraft are wearing out from
real-word commitments the U.S. has assumed. With few exceptions, there
simply aren't enough pilots and aircraft available to deliver the
thousands of sorties required for adequate domestic and allied
training anymore."


> Funny how there was no mention in the article about their recent attempt to
> set up a permanent shop in Key West failed due to some sort of contract
> issue.

Must be that rather oblique reference to those attempts that have
failed.

> How 'bout McBride's comment:
> "What we're trying to do here is not a trivial task.

Sounds to me like he knows the risks involved.

<snip>
> They STILL don't have Category IV adversary aircraft, and they are only able
> to provide OPFOR and NOT adversary support.

This is the part that the article left untouched. I always find it
curious when major points are left untouched in an AvLeak article.
Thats usually where the real juice is.

> In the current "reserve hater" climate, their business plan/mindset: "If you
> build it, they will come" is correct. The active duty Navy would love
> nothing more than to cash in their Category IV USNR hardware units (and
> their impending need for re-equipping) for Hoss' Category III bunch. Once
> they've cornered the market, they'll be able to charge/negotiate whatever
> they need to recapitalize/maintain.

You just got back from a combat deployment, is there truly a "reserve
hater" climate out there? Oh is there a realization that this New
Semi-Cold War requires a radically different force structure-active
and reserve?
As to your second point, we are back to your rather fallacious
-flatuous really-make a buck at any cost theory again.

Re the first point, here is a good article:
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Articles03/PROcvrk08.htm

I'm hoping you will reward me again with your comments about it Oh
Great Sky God Woody.

> ...then our pilots can look forward to initially exploring the capabilities
> of a multi-group Category IV adversary presentation when they go against
> real MiG-29s.

According to the Defense Science Board (in '99) real problems already
exist:
'" . . . A key element missing from even the most-demanding training
programs . . . is the notion of a dedicated opposing force that
provides realistic simulation of enemy action," the report concluded.'

> It all boils down to how much money the Navy is willing to save versus how
> much they are willing to dumb-down training.

I'm sure you will stay on top of it Woody. However this outsourcing
train is rolling so the most benefit needs to be eked out of it.

Sid

[Ed Rasimus]

Despite the underlying "s.p.i--v--Woody" snidenesses, there's a lot of
interesting stuff going on here. (Surprisingly, I just read an
excellent fiction book about a month ago that spun a yarn about
exactly this issu--a cashiered Navy Fighter type out of Fallon
collects a group of his buddies and arranges to buy a squadron worth
of former Soviet, late-model MiGs. He also gets a Russian maintenance
guru to help run the operation and he sets up shop at Tonopah. The
plot thickens when a group of Pakistani terrorists get State Dept
approval to buy some training time, then hi-jack the MiGs and run them
into a nuclear power plant in the LA area. -- Amazing how often life
imitates art.)

Here are some of my comments:


(s.p.i.) wrote:

>"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message >...

>
>> > The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
>> > International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
>> > Pearson
>> >
>> > At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
>> > environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
>> > human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"

You've got to expect that any out-sourcing would be subject to a lot
of contract over-sight. I wouldn't expect corner cutting would be
feasible, but there would be some economies in free enterprise
competition and the lack of all those support functions that the
military provides. Probably wouldn't need a commissary, BX, golf
course, base education office, base housing...etc.
>>
>> Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
>> relive the glory days... Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, and I hold
>> nothing against them for trying. They certainly have the credentials (and
>> likely the political connections) to carry it out, BUT what they offer
>> doesn't replace (and will never replace) the capabilities that professional
>> military adversary types offer now in the form of USNR VFC's and VFA's--not
>> to mention the surge capability that the U.S. Navy reaps when they need to
>> activate those VFA's during war time. Sure, they can provide FM training
>> and OPFOR (in fact, they have been for years).

Unfortunately we separate a lot of very capable aviators long before
they are out of utility. (And, there are, of course a lot of guys who
are simply ready to raise a family and keep flying while eliminating
the combat risk and repetitious TDYs.)

A combat ready operational type who leaves active duty at 40 years
old, can certainly still function in a high performance aircraft quite
nicely for another ten or fifteen years. And, the experienced old buck
can show a lot to the aggressive young nugget.
>
>The article addressed your second point:
>"Regardless of reasons given, someone in the armed services usually
>decided the best approach was to continue performing most of the "red
>air" adversary, target-towing, missile simulation and other training
>activities in-house, using their own aircraft and crews. The rationale
>was, "this is flying time for our crews, and we've already paid for
>them and the aircraft. We might as well use them rather than pay an
>outsider to provide the same services."

Thats a good rationale, but it doesn't track in the current fiscal
environment of "more combat bang per buck." Maintaining realistic
adversary operations detracts from operational crew and aircraft
numbers. Support functions like target tow and missile profiles are
certainly obvious candidates, but "red air" adversaries, dedicated
DACM opponents, etc can definitely be out-sourced (as long as
realistic standards are kept.)
>
>But the age of outsourcing advanced tactical training and training
>support services may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance.
>Downsized force structures, ever-leaner budgets and a profusion of
>global commitments have squeezed active-duty and reserve military air
>components to exhaustion. Aircrews who were deployed to Afghanistan,
>Iraq and other hot spots now return to the U.S. in need of rest and
>retraining to ensure they are mission-ready for yet another
>deployment. None are too enthused about going to Red Flag, Maple Flag
>or some other major exercise to fly as simulated enemy adversaries or
>"red air." This applies equally to both active-duty and reserve
>crews...

Couldn't have said that better my self!
>
>> They STILL don't have Category IV adversary aircraft, and they are only able
>> to provide OPFOR and NOT adversary support.

Seems like great opportunity to exists for a venture capital
arrangement led by someone with good operational credentials (like the
guys in the article) to buy a fleet of former soviet iron and have
very realistic training at a cost-effective rate.
>
>> In the current "reserve hater" climate, their business plan/mindset: "If you
>> build it, they will come" is correct. The active duty Navy would love
>> nothing more than to cash in their Category IV USNR hardware units (and
>> their impending need for re-equipping) for Hoss' Category III bunch. Once
>> they've cornered the market, they'll be able to charge/negotiate whatever
>> they need to recapitalize/maintain.

I don't think this steps on the toes of Reserve ops (whether "hated"
or not). Reserves are supplements to operational forces, not training
assets.
>
>> ...then our pilots can look forward to initially exploring the capabilities
>> of a multi-group Category IV adversary presentation when they go against
>> real MiG-29s.

Seems like exactly what a creative contractor could offer.
>
>According to the Defense Science Board (in '99) real problems already
>exist:
>'" . . . A key element missing from even the most-demanding training
>programs . . . is the notion of a dedicated opposing force that
>provides realistic simulation of enemy action," the report concluded.'

This is exactly what the USAF Aggressor operation was modeled on. The
idea of a MiG-similar aircraft, flown with Soviet tactics and weapons
simulation by a cadre of folks who supplemented the flight ops with
Soviet intel analysis to really add the final dimension to dissimilar
training.

The potential is incredible for a contractor with creativity to do
this again and at considerable economy to the government.
>
>> It all boils down to how much money the Navy is willing to save versus how
>> much they are willing to dumb-down training.

Actually, it's a "win-win"--the cost to the operational force is
reduced and the training can get a hell of a lot better.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (ret)
***"When Thunder Rolled:
*** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam"
*** from Smithsonian Books
ISBN: 1588341038

[John R Weiss]

"John Carrier" > wrote...
>
> Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and
> option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you
> just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass as
> well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly single-seat
> A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch.

Somebody has already "los[t] their ass," and it wasn't Pearson or McBride or the
investors... A few weeks ago one of the ATSI pilots punched out of an A-4 over
the Great Salt Lake. He was too low when he went out.

A good buddy of mine works at ATSI; he did a lot of the repair work on the
Israeli A-4s and flew a couple of them back to the US. He's 60 and has nothing
better to do, but it's a risky business...

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/4/03 10:34 AM, in article
, "s.p.i."
> wrote:

> "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Sid!
>>
>> Thanks for one of the very few relevant posts in this NG. Good article.
>> I'll "reward" you by engaging... For now
>
> You're welcome and Thank You, Thank You, Oh Great Sky God Woody, for
> such a wonderful reward. This is way better than going to Delphi.
> I'll send the video of me genuflecting.

Good. Humor. I like it!

>
>>> The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
>>> International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
>>> Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
>>> commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
>>> realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
>>> whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.
>>>
>>> At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
>>> environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
>>> human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"
>>
>> Nice quote too. Must have bothered you a lot to read it when I wrote it.
>
> Actually I laughed out loud when I first read it. I thought it was so
> patently ridiculous it deserved a reprise.

And so you reprised it. We agree to disagree.

>
>> Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
> The article addressed your second point:
> "Regardless of reasons given, someone in the armed services usually
<SNIP>
> thousands of sorties required for adequate domestic and allied
> training anymore."
>

In an attempt to acknowledge their credentials, my point seems to have been
watered down.

Here's what they offer:

--Cat III aircraft.
--Flown by civilians (albeit former military) who--once they leave the
military--have training that is dated and will degrade over time.
--OPFOR capable.

Sidebar: When a pilot checks into an adversary unit, that pilot is
immediately snagged by the Training Officer who sticks him with an adversary
syllabus (straight out of the TOPGUN manual). It is that training that
differentiates adversary from OPFOR. When the quack or the tactics change,
the unit updates their folks (because they have immediate access to NSAWC
and their material) and their syllabus... Stuff that a civilian outfit can
certainly strive for... But ATSI doesn't have yet.

Don't get me wrong... These guys are capable of flying the OPFOR, but unless
they get new jets and complete the training (not an easy feat from a
clearance and administration standpoint, but not impossible), they bring
less to the table than the adversary pilots currently in place.

Here's what the Navy needs:
--Cat IV adversaries.
--Flown by pilots with the current knowledge (right now that means
military).
--Adversary capable

When the FRS student goes out for his first 1v1 dissimilar, it's required
for them to fight a Level II or better qual'ed adversary pilot. It's going
to take some work for ATSI to provide that... Or the Navy/NSAWC can just
change the rules.

As far as people and aircraft wearing out... You betcha. That's because (as
I've been grousing about for the last 10 years on this NG) the people that
get us our money seem to do a poor job of getting us more money. We've lost
VFA-126 and VFA-127. Now we're down to VFC-12 and VFC-13 and the reserve
VFA's--and we've nearly lost one of them (VFA-203) to funding cuts.

But here's the deal. I'm not saying "shut ATSI down." They and outfits
like them have been necessary ever since we started shrinking the military
because what we used to do with squadrons returning home (ship's
services/OPFOR) they're simply not capable of doing. I'm saying ATSI and
outfits like them are (a) not adversary capable and (b) beware of the rising
costs as we become more dependent upon them.

>
>> Funny how there was no mention in the article about their recent attempt to
>> set up a permanent shop in Key West failed due to some sort of contract
>> issue.
>
> Must be that rather oblique reference to those attempts that have
> failed.

It's an oblique reference to the east coast's attempt to install ATSI as a
permanent adversary provider in Key West starting FY 04.

>
>> How 'bout McBride's comment:
>> "What we're trying to do here is not a trivial task.
>
> Sounds to me like he knows the risks involved.
>

Yes, he's stated the risks, but he didn't list any of the limitations I
included above... I.e. Cat IV and adversary trained aviators.

--Woody

[Walt BJ]

Just before I retired I spent about 3 years as a reserve Forces
Advisor in the 31TFW working with the Baltimore, Syracuse, WashDC and
Puerto ZRico ANG plus the Reserve unit at Homestead AFB. I was
extremely impressed with what selective retention and stable
assignments did in raising the level of performance. I was curious as
to whether a privately contracted 'Blue Force' Fighter Wing would be
viable. I didn't do a lot more than 'back of the envelope' but it
convinced me that with the exception of procuring aircraft AGE weapons
and fuel the idea was feasible, since a large savings in manpower and
training FNGs and non-necessity of 'tail' manning and facilities would
eventuate.
Ed mentioned the TDYs nowadays as people return from overseas. This
was a huge factor in the loss of TAC pilots back in the 60s. Six
months in Europe, Far East or Turkey and as soon as they got back home
it was off to exercises, etc. Lots of Mommas said "It's the USAF or
me, baby, make your choice." A lot of good guys voted with their feet
.. . . . And after a year, remote, I can affirm that home is where they
want to be. Been there, done that.
Walt BJ

[John Carrier]

> > Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and
> > option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you
> > just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass
as
> > well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly
single-seat
> > A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch.
>
> Somebody has already "los[t] their ass," and it wasn't Pearson or McBride
or the
> investors... A few weeks ago one of the ATSI pilots punched out of an A-4
over
> the Great Salt Lake. He was too low when he went out.
>
> A good buddy of mine works at ATSI; he did a lot of the repair work on the
> Israeli A-4s and flew a couple of them back to the US. He's 60 and has
nothing
> better to do, but it's a risky business...

Actually, I was thinking of it more in a financial and figurative sense.
Sorry to hear of the loss. I had a very good friend who became disoriented
in a desert engagement and left a long flat ground scar where his A-4
impacted.

Adversary work is incredibly rewarding. The single seat A-4 is my favorite
ride. But the obstacles to making this a week-in week-out viable program
are significant.

R / John

[John Carrier]

One problem with the current state of organic adversary is that it's almost
all similar aircraft. As the Navy transitions to an all F-18 force, it'd be
beneficial to face other airframes in training ... something other than a
VCF F-18.

The A-4 makes a great BFM bogey, but it has its limitations as well. While
current doctrine discourages a merge to engage, it can happen. I'd like to
see an adversary that is a challenge to the effort to DISengage (Kfirs and
F-16s were formidable in that respect ... the A-4 wasn't). The Superbug has
a notable flaw in its inability to accelerate and leave a fight ... training
against other bugs or A-4's will not help the development of good tactical
technique in the most difficult of maneuvers.

My point is that ATSI doesn't seem to offer any fast movers (the Mig-29 ala
the novel would be nice) and the lack of such an aircraft would impact their
effectiveness. And the costs to train to and support such a jet are greater
than the A-4.

R / John

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/5/03 6:24 AM, in article , "John
Carrier" > wrote:

> One problem with the current state of organic adversary is that it's almost
> all similar aircraft. As the Navy transitions to an all F-18 force, it'd be
> beneficial to face other airframes in training ... something other than a
> VCF F-18.

John,

This is a shortcoming I had overlooked. It's especially valid when two
groups of two meet at the merge.

>
> The A-4 makes a great BFM bogey, but it has its limitations as well. While
> current doctrine discourages a merge to engage, it can happen. I'd like to
> see an adversary that is a challenge to the effort to DISengage (Kfirs and
> F-16s were formidable in that respect ... the A-4 wasn't). The Superbug has
> a notable flaw in its inability to accelerate and leave a fight ... training
> against other bugs or A-4's will not help the development of good tactical
> technique in the most difficult of maneuvers.
>
> My point is that ATSI doesn't seem to offer any fast movers (the Mig-29 ala
> the novel would be nice) and the lack of such an aircraft would impact their
> effectiveness. And the costs to train to and support such a jet are greater
> than the A-4.
>

Concur. Good points all.

--Woody

> R / John
>
>

[Pechs1]

John-<< As the Navy transitions to an all F-18 force, it'd be
beneficial to face other airframes in training ... something other than a
VCF F-18.
>><BR><BR>

heard from the last CO of VFC-13 that F-16s are a comin...Failed Pakastani
deal...


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[John Carrier]

> heard from the last CO of VFC-13 that F-16s are a comin...Failed Pakastani
> deal...

EXACTLY what they need. Let's hope it pans out.

R / John

[Pechs1]

dano-<< When were you at VX-4? (I may know some people you flew with.)
>><BR><BR>

Apr '88-Dec '89-


P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Pechs1]

John-<< EXACTLY what they need. Let's hope it pans out. >><BR><BR>

No kiddin'...the 26 F-16N, of which I had 6, was the best A-A training platform
ever devised...MUCH better than the F-5, They can be used for all the Cat 4+
sims even now...

Easy to fly, maintain, superior cockpit..
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/6/03 8:13 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> John-<< EXACTLY what they need. Let's hope it pans out. >><BR><BR>
>
> No kiddin'...the 26 F-16N, of which I had 6, was the best A-A training
> platform
> ever devised...MUCH better than the F-5, They can be used for all the Cat 4+
> sims even now...
>
> Easy to fly, maintain, superior cockpit..
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

I'm surprised you guys hadn't heard this before. Last time I checked, NSAWC
was sending guys through the RTU's. Although as of last fall, I hadn't seen
any yet.

I agree. This is a GREAT thing for Naval Aviation.

--Woody

[José Herculano]

> I agree. This is a GREAT thing for Naval Aviation.

Not as good as the F-16N, but.... these are basic F-16A/B with the old P&W
engine. Pechs would find them a bit "emasculated".
_____________
José Herculano

[Pechs1]

Jose'-<< Not as good as the F-16N, but.... these are basic F-16A/B with the
old P&W
engine. Pechs would find them a bit "emasculated". >><BR><BR>

As a guy that flew F-4s and A-4s older than the plane captains that cleaned
them...I wouldn't..

Even the F-16A was light years more advanced than the tired block 130 F-14s I
flew....

Loved the F-16N tho...but i think the F-16A/B is a tremendous idea for USN
adversary...and ya know, the more things change, the more they stay the
same...I remember when the F-16Ns went away...and all the BS hoopla by
NAVAIRSYSCOM about cracks and such...cuz these F-16s were accepted w/o somebody
checking with SYSCOM and their rice bowl..they had a axe to grind until they
went away...Never liked 'Duke's folly'...

Any idea if there are contract or USN maintenance??
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/7/03 8:52 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> Jose'-<< Not as good as the F-16N, but.... these are basic F-16A/B with the
> old P&W
> engine. Pechs would find them a bit "emasculated". >><BR><BR>
>
> As a guy that flew F-4s and A-4s older than the plane captains that cleaned
> them...I wouldn't..
>
> Even the F-16A was light years more advanced than the tired block 130 F-14s I
> flew....
>
> Loved the F-16N tho...but i think the F-16A/B is a tremendous idea for USN
> adversary...and ya know, the more things change, the more they stay the
> same...I remember when the F-16Ns went away...and all the BS hoopla by
> NAVAIRSYSCOM about cracks and such...cuz these F-16s were accepted w/o
> somebody
> checking with SYSCOM and their rice bowl..they had a axe to grind until they
> went away...Never liked 'Duke's folly'...
>
> Any idea if there are contract or USN maintenance??
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

Pechs,

My guess is that since they're at TG (NSAWC) they'll be contract. It's all
contract there these days.

--Woody

[Pechs1]

doug-<< My guess is that since they're at TG (NSAWC) they'll be contract. It's
all
contract there these days. >><BR><BR>

Those weenies get all the good deals..Are VFC going to get any(F-16s)...
P. C. Chisholm
CDR, USN(ret.)
Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

[Doug \Woody\ and Erin Beal]

On 8/8/03 8:54 AM, in article ,
"Pechs1" > wrote:

> doug-<< My guess is that since they're at TG (NSAWC) they'll be contract.
> It's
> all
> contract there these days. >><BR><BR>
>
> Those weenies get all the good deals..Are VFC going to get any(F-16s)...
> P. C. Chisholm
> CDR, USN(ret.)
> Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer

In a word, no. Last rumor about the VFC's was that VFC-13 was being split
so that half of their F-5's would go to Key West and the other half would
stay at NFL.

VFA-203 (Atlanta) would be shut down circa April 2004 (?).

VFC-12 would convert to VFA-202 and become a MAU. VFA-204 (New Orleans)
will move to NLC and become a MAU. VFA-201... Status quo.

All of that is nothing more than the latest rumor though.

--Woody