Flight Instruction: Then and Now

[ArtKramr]

When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th" Bomb
Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more than
the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat and as
a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.

In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though he
had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of course.
Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone know?




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[BUFDRVR]

>but it raises the
>question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
>abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
>course.

I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your already
clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply any
of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic. Once
I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
environment.

>Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.

I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>ubject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P

>but it raises the
>>question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
>>abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
>>course.

>.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
>'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
>have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply
>any
>of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
>aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
>crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic.
>Once
>I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
>many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
>taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
>environment.
>

>
>
>BUFDRVR

Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I found that
it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking about and
I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His description of
just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact I have
thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget the
man who taught you how to go to war.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >ubject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 3/6/04 7:52 PM P
>
> >but it raises the
> >>question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
> >> was
> >>abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
> >>course.
>
> >.when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
> >'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These
> >guys did
> >have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or
> >apply
> >any
> >of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+
> >lb.
> >aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any
> >new
> >crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very
> >basic.
> >Once
> >I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there
> >were
> >many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to
> >begin
> >taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
> >environment.
> >
>
> >
> >
> >BUFDRVR
>
> Too bad that the commbat veteran's advice was not useful to you. I
> found that
> it was very useful to me. There were itmes on a a mission when something
> happened and I would f remember that it was just what he was talking
> about and
> I would relive those training moments with that instructor, His
> description of
> just how fighters attacked bomber formations was dead accurate. In fact
> I have
> thought of him many times over all these years. I guess you never forget
> the
> man who taught you how to go to war.
>

Art, there are also some people never to be forgotten. They are the
conspiracy that keeps 50% of the people inferior to the other. They are
called statisticians.

OF COURSE you had combat-qualified instructors available during WWII. In
later years, combat was not as frequent, the force size had dropped, and
many aircraft had smaller crews. People age. Eventually, it is a
practical reality, in a more modern training environment, that there
wouldn't be combat experienced people that were of an appropriate rank
to be instructors, and also qualified in type.

Was it even possible there would have been a type-qualified S2F,
combat-experienced instructor? Yes, some were shot down on surveillance
missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
located targets for shooters recently.

B-58. F-102. A5 Vigilante (non-recon). F-106. B-36. B-47. Combat
aircraft all, but I suspect none of them ever fired a round or dropped a
bomb in combat. Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
someone with much more experience in type?

[Jim Baker]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >but it raises the
> >question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
> >abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
> >course.
>
> I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your
already
> clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the
summer of
> '95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys
did
> have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply
any
> of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+
lb.
> aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any
new
> crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic.
Once
> I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there
were
> many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
> taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
> environment.
>
> >Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.
>
> I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.
>
>
> BUFDRVR

Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major
challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to B-52
FTU.

JB

[Jim Baker]

"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
> When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
> veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
> instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th"
Bomb
> Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
> cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more
than
> the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat
and as
> a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.
>
> In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though
he
> had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
> question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
was
> abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
course.
> Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone
know?
>
>
>
>
> Arthur Kramer

About your problem with Instructos who haven't been to war; in the USAF of
the mid '70s on,
there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
the standards in the syllabus so their studs could pass their checkride,
and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments and hopefully
some judgment.

The IPs that had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many
of them were,
where combat aircraft (or whatever it was called, I forget now) training was
being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
real world. But, c'est la guerre! (sp?)

JB

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <hcb-145BCF.1833340703200

> Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
>flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
>someone with much more experience in type?
>

We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the experience
we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line. It
didn't take too much to get washed out.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: "Jim Baker"
>Date: 3/7/04 4:25 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>
>"ArtKramr" > wrote in message
...
>> When I went to flight school in WW II every instructor we had was a combat
>> veteran who returned after a full combat tour of duty was completed to
>> instruct. My Bomb instructor was a bombardier with the "Bloody 100th"
>Bomb
>> Group. He flew 25 missions, most of them England to Berlin with no fighter
>> cover and suffered terrible losses. As an instructor he taught us more
>than
>> the basic job of bombing. He made us aware of what it was like in combat
>and as
>> a result we were well prepared for the missions we flew.
>>
>> In a recent post it was pointed out that Rumsfeld instructed even though
>he
>> had flown no missions. That is no reflection on him, but it raises the
>> question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors
>was
>> abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
>course.
>> Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule. Anyone
>know?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Arthur Kramer
>
>About your problem with Instructos who haven't been to war; in the USAF of
>the mid '70s on,
>there were a ton of First Assignment IPs. I mean most of them were FAIPs.
>These FAIPs, and all the other flying instructors, weren't teaching mission
>flying, they were teaching get-your-wings-flying. There were a few in the
>squadron that had been in SEA, and I flew with most of them. Guess what,
>they didn't fly any better than the FAIPs (after some time, of course). The
>skill and savy they'd picked up in combat wasn't what was being taught in
>UPT. They had good stories to tell, but everyone as an IP had to teach to
>the standards in the syllabus so their studs could pass their checkride,
>and none of that involved air-air combat or IP to target flying. It
>involved learning to fly precise formation and instruments and hopefully
>some judgment.
>
>The IPs that had SEA experience were better off being sent to FTUs, as many
>of them were,
>where combat aircraft (or whatever it was called, I forget now) training was
>being conducted. But, as I said, it didn't
>matter a wit in UPT and I'm sure most non-FAIP, UPT IPs would generally
>agree. Of course, we all hated being FAIPs, we wanted to get out into the
>real world. But, c'est la guerre! (sp?)
>
>JB
>
>
I undersyand. I still remember my instructor describing how a German fighter
set up a fighter approach. He said, " The ******* will drop his inside wing
and start to point his nose at you. Once you see the nose coming around pick
him up in your sights and follow his constant bearing approach. Watch for
whether he plans on flying over you or under you and be ready to track him as
long as you can." And when we got over there that is exactly the way it
happened to the letter. Good instructor, Prepared us for what we needed to
know.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[BUFDRVR]

>Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major
>challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to B-52
>FTU.
>
>JB

What has been a concern since 2001 is that the FTU is doing mission
qualification training. When you graduate from the FTU, you are a "full up
round" and ready to go to war.......except our young EWs, Navs and Co-pilots
are stuggling with the basics and have no buisness being deployed. I flew with
a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual training
began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about B-52
capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he wanted to
do with the jet on a bomb run.....but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear. He
had good ideas about what to do on the bomb run, but couldn't pull any of them
off. His pattern work was horrible and I left that night to go home wondering
how in God's name he passed his checkride. A few sorties later I flew with
another "newbie"...same story. Finally, one Friday afternoon, all the
instructors from my squadron (IPs, IRs & IEs) got togather, cracked open a few
beers and compared notes. Bottom line; due to the expansion of the FTU syllabus
to include mission qual training, with a non-linear expansion in number of
syllabus sorties (only added 2 sorties), crews were not getting a solid enough
foundation in the basics. 9/11 happened shortly after, and I was quite busy
until my PCS, but I still heard complaints, on nearly a daily basis.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 3/7/04 5:54 PM Pacific Standard Time

>a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual training
>began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about B-52
>capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he wanted
>to
>do with the jet on a bomb run.....

>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear. He
>had good ideas about what to do o

So what is new about that? Our co-pilot couldn't fly a B-26 to save his ass
when he came on board. Paul taught him on every flight. And pretty soon he
was quite good. When we switched from B-26's to A- 26's Bob got his own plane
and did fine from then on. I Guess on the job training is nothing new.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/7/04 3:33 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: <hcb-145BCF.1833340703200
>
> > Who would make the better instructor, someone that had
> >flown a different platform that did have a backlog of combat pilots, or
> >someone with much more experience in type?
> >
>
> We never had to make that choice. Our instructors had exactly the
> experience
> we needed, And in spades. But they were tough and made us toe the line.
> It
> didn't take too much to get washed out.
>

Fine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
experience. If the choice was as I have described, you insult them.

Perhaps someone knows what the expected survival was of SAC crews flying
a SIOP Major Attack Option strike. They probably did...but many of them
never "flew combat" or were taught by someone with combat experience in
their particular aircraft -- because NOBODY had combat experience in
certain of those aircraft.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time

>ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
>country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
>people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
>somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
>experience. If the choice was as

>have described, you insult them.
>

Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting less
by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less if
our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
instructor? Combat experience or none?


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Jim Baker]

"BUFDRVR" > wrote in message
...
> >Exactly. Hell, just the takeoff, approach and landing were a major
> >challenge and I had several hundred flying hours by the time I got to
B-52
> >FTU.
> >
> >JB
>
> What has been a concern since 2001 is that the FTU is doing mission
> qualification training. When you graduate from the FTU, you are a "full up
> round" and ready to go to war.......except our young EWs, Navs and
Co-pilots
> are stuggling with the basics and have no buisness being deployed. I flew
with
> a brand new FTU graduated co-pilot soon after the FTU-mission qual
training
> began, the guy had great knowledge about threats, great knowledge about
B-52
> capabilities against those threats, had a pretty good idea of what he
wanted to
> do with the jet on a bomb run.....but couldn't fly the jet to save his
rear. He
> had good ideas about what to do on the bomb run, but couldn't pull any of
them
> off. His pattern work was horrible and I left that night to go home
wondering
> how in God's name he passed his checkride. A few sorties later I flew with
> another "newbie"...same story. Finally, one Friday afternoon, all the
> instructors from my squadron (IPs, IRs & IEs) got togather, cracked open a
few
> beers and compared notes. Bottom line; due to the expansion of the FTU
syllabus
> to include mission qual training, with a non-linear expansion in number of
> syllabus sorties (only added 2 sorties), crews were not getting a solid
enough
> foundation in the basics. 9/11 happened shortly after, and I was quite
busy
> until my PCS, but I still heard complaints, on nearly a daily basis.
>
>
> BUFDRVR

Well, I can understand that in a Buff. It is a very difficult plane to
learn to fly well, especially in the pattern. I assume the same training is
going on in the Bone FTU. The idea was kicked around when I was the
28BS/DO, but we let it die. It takes time to train a guy to be fully
mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in
the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous. It's probably easier in the Bone
because it isn't hard to learn how to fly, but it still is not a good
utilization of those two sorties. You can't do it properly with two
sorties. That was always a problem for me with the AF. To make a mark, get
something unique on your OER, something has to change on your watch. Often
the change is for change sake with no appreciable gain. It's just BS. I
enjoyed my time in the USAF, it was personally and professionally rewarding,
but I was glad to leave some of the really stupid things we did behind. I
turned down a slot to NWC before I left...the YGBSMs were deafening, (from
the Wing, to 8th, and up to NDU) but I'd had a good career, and enough of a
career. I haven't regretted the career or the final decision.

Cheers,

JB

[Michael Kelly]

Jim Baker wrote:
> Well, I can understand that in a Buff. It is a very difficult plane to
> learn to fly well, especially in the pattern. I assume the same training is
> going on in the Bone FTU. The idea was kicked around when I was the
> 28BS/DO, but we let it die. It takes time to train a guy to be fully
> mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in
> the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous. It's probably easier in the Bone
> because it isn't hard to learn how to fly, but it still is not a good
> utilization of those two sorties. You can't do it properly with two
> sorties. That was always a problem for me with the AF. To make a mark, get
> something unique on your OER, something has to change on your watch. Often
> the change is for change sake with no appreciable gain. It's just BS. I
> enjoyed my time in the USAF, it was personally and professionally rewarding,
> but I was glad to leave some of the really stupid things we did behind. I
> turned down a slot to NWC before I left...the YGBSMs were deafening, (from
> the Wing, to 8th, and up to NDU) but I'd had a good career, and enough of a
> career. I haven't regretted the career or the final decision.

Jim,

IIRC the Bones still do it the old way with the new copilots coming out
of the FTU with a BMC rating. They still have to upgrade to CMR before
we'll take them to combat. They have actually cut the number of sorties
now that the nuc mission has gone away and so they can reduce the
backlog for the FTU. Of course now you have the bomb squadrons 150%
manned with copilots.

Michael Kelly
Bone Maintainer

> Cheers,
>
> JB

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/7/04 6:49 PM Pacific Standard Time
>
> >ine. Those were the conditions in which you existed and served your
> >country. But you have certainly suggested, as far as I can tell, that
> >people that served in other periods, when the choice was necessary,
> >somehow were less than honorable by being instructors without combat
> >experience. If the choice was as
>
> >have described, you insult them.
> >
>
> Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting
> less
> by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten less
> if
> our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
> instructor? Combat experience or none?
>

First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the
information out from a limited number of people with combat experience.
It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from
single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb
reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach.

Let's try some analogies. There are very good male obstetricians. AFAIK,
no Hall of Fame NFL coach was Hall of Fame player material.

Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed
much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come
from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including
those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their
characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run
simulations against them.

Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most
familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again
that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the
Iraqis had.

One doesn't have to have now COL HR Masterman available to get the sense
of the Battle of 73 Easting. One can go through it seeing what he saw
through the same displays, in a very good simulator. The simulator
people can throw in random variations.

All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct
experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological
change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be
available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft.
Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited
number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace
laboratories.

[John Keeney]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
> a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
> located targets for shooters recently.

Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway.

But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs)
at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter
was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place.
I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets
in the early phases of that campaign.

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >, "John Keeney"
> wrote:

> "Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
> ...
> > missions, but they essentially were never in combat. As far as I know,
> > a P-3 never fired a live round at anyone, although they've certainly
> > located targets for shooters recently.
>
> Well, not a torpedo or depth charge anyway.
>
> But P-3s fired at least 14 Standoff Land Attack Missiles (SLAMs)
> at Serb targets during Operation Allied Force. At least one old freighter
> was destroyed with Maverick missiles around the same time & place.
> I also recall that P-3s fired SLAMERs at Taliban & Al Qaeda targets
> in the early phases of that campaign.
>
>

Good to know. A relevant example to the training thread as well -- an
older instructor, perhaps much better on ASW and aircraft handling,
wouldn't have this firing experience.

[BUFDRVR]

>>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.

>So what is new about that?

Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming out of
Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training consists (for
the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one missed
approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

> I assume the same training is
>going on in the Bone FTU.

The Bone FTU caved in before the BUFF FTU. Once one bomber caved in to ACC, the
other one (in this case the BUFF) didn't have a leg to stand on.

>It takes time to train a guy to be fully
>mission qual, even with several sorties in the squadron. To try to do it in
>the FTU with 2 sorties is ludicrous.

Well, its not like they crunch everything in to 2 sorties, your mission
qualification training takes place throughout the entire syllabus. 2 sorties
were added because the mission qualification training events required basically
couldn't be done with the old 12 ride syllabus.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[BUFDRVR]

>Jim,
>
>IIRC the Bones still do it the old way with the new copilots coming out
>of the FTU with a BMC rating. They still have to upgrade to CMR before
>we'll take them to combat.

I don't think so. ACC demanded that both bomber FTUs produce FMC initial qual
and upgrade crewmembers. We fought them off for over a year, but when the 28th
BS decided they could do it, the 11th BS (B-52 FTU) was forced to follow.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: (BUFDRVR)
>Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>>>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.
>
>>So what is new about that?
>
>Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming out of
>Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training consists
>(for
>the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one missed
>approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.
>
>

Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The hotter the
war the faster you go into action. (sigh)


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >>>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.
> >
> >>So what is new about that?
> >
> >Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming out
> >of
> >Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training
> >consists
> >(for
> >the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one missed
> >approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.
> >
> >
>
> Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The hotter
> the
> war the faster you go into action. (sigh)
>
>

I'm not sure how you mean "better". One of the reasons that casualties
have been lower in recent US combat is the immense attention given to
training. That includes all levels, such as the Army BCTP program that
gives a reasonable idea how a general officer will perform under combat
conditions--perhaps there will be a few less McClellans, Fredendalls,
Lucases, Ghormleys, etc.

Combat will always be dangerous. But yes, there is much more training
now -- and a real belief that sweat shed in training is better than
blood shed in the real thing.Serious training spills blood as well.

Training and technology get more done with less people at the sharp end.
Art, I have no doubt in the valor of your squadron going after a bridge.
Consider what one modern aircraft with precision-guided penetrating
munitions could do today -- preferably by the dark of the moon, at an
altitude above light flak. That sort of things isn't going to provide
as many combat-experienced instructors.

Or consider how many combat crewmen actually flew over Baghdad in the
start of Desert Storm. Yes, the F-117 drivers, with EF-111's in support
a safer distance away. But were the Tomahawk shooters "combat crew" by
your definition? The drone operators tickling the air defense radars
into radiating, or the HARM shooters waiting some tens of miles away?
The AWACS crew?

[Michael Kelly]

BUFDRVR wrote:
> I don't think so. ACC demanded that both bomber FTUs produce FMC initial qual
> and upgrade crewmembers. We fought them off for over a year, but when the 28th
> BS decided they could do it, the 11th BS (B-52 FTU) was forced to follow.

BUFDRVR,

Not trying to be argumentative, but just finished talking to my next
door neighbor who completed his check ride today. He finished only his
BMC and still has another 2-3 months of training with the 34th before
they will consider him CMR. I lived this problem for a year as one of
the maintenance officers for the 9th. It was an absolute fight to
provide enough sorties to keep the overmanned copilots from regressing.
Throw in upgrades it was tough. Even when we had the highest ever FMC
rate for the Bone.

Big of the problem was that our FTU got so backed up that we had to cut
down the syllabus and fly weekends to get caught up. All this did was
to push the problem on to the combat squadrons.

Cheers,
Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer


> BUFDRVR
>
> "Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
> everyone on Bear Creek"

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/8/04 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: >
>
>In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:
>
>> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>> >From: (BUFDRVR)
>> >Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
>> >Message-id: >
>> >
>> >>>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.
>> >
>> >>So what is new about that?
>> >
>> >Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming out
>> >of
>> >Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training
>> >consists
>> >(for
>> >the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one missed
>> >approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The hotter
>> the
>> war the faster you go into action. (sigh)
>>
>>
>
>I'm not sure how you mean "better". One of the reasons that casualties
>have been lower in recent US combat is the immense attention given to
>training. That includes all levels, such as the Army BCTP program that
>gives a reasonable idea how a general officer will perform under combat
>conditions--perhaps there will be a few less McClellans, Fredendalls,
>Lucases, Ghormleys, etc.
>
>Combat will always be dangerous. But yes, there is much more training
>now -- and a real belief that sweat shed in training is better than
>blood shed in the real thing.Serious training spills blood as well.
>
>Training and technology get more done with less people at the sharp end.
>Art, I have no doubt in the valor of your squadron going after a bridge.
>Consider what one modern aircraft with precision-guided penetrating
>munitions could do today -- preferably by the dark of the moon, at an
>altitude above light flak. That sort of things isn't going to provide
>as many combat-experienced instructors.
>
>Or consider how many combat crewmen actually flew over Baghdad in the
>start of Desert Storm. Yes, the F-117 drivers, with EF-111's in support
>a safer distance away. But were the Tomahawk shooters "combat crew" by
>your definition? The drone operators tickling the air defense radars
>into radiating, or the HARM shooters waiting some tens of miles away?
>The AWACS crew?


Training takes time. Time was what we had very little of. I'd say anyone who
goes into harms way had gone into combat regardless of the function of the
operation. But I know nothing about modern day operations and missions, so I
can't comment.. My war ended in 1945. And I'm still trying to figure it all
out but I doubt that I ever will




Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >From: Howard Berkowitz
> >Date: 3/8/04 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >Message-id: >
> >
> >In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
> >
> >> >Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
> >> >From: (BUFDRVR)
> >> >Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
> >> >Message-id: >
> >> >
> >> >>>..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.
> >> >
> >> >>So what is new about that?
> >> >
> >> >Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming
> >> >out
> >> >of
> >> >Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training
> >> >consists
> >> >(for
> >> >the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one
> >> >missed
> >> >approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The
> >> hotter
> >> the
> >> war the faster you go into action. (sigh)
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I'm not sure how you mean "better". One of the reasons that casualties
> >have been lower in recent US combat is the immense attention given to
> >training. That includes all levels, such as the Army BCTP program that
> >gives a reasonable idea how a general officer will perform under combat
> >conditions--perhaps there will be a few less McClellans, Fredendalls,
> >Lucases, Ghormleys, etc.
> >
> >Combat will always be dangerous. But yes, there is much more training
> >now -- and a real belief that sweat shed in training is better than
> >blood shed in the real thing.Serious training spills blood as well.
> >
> >Training and technology get more done with less people at the sharp end.
> >Art, I have no doubt in the valor of your squadron going after a bridge.
> >Consider what one modern aircraft with precision-guided penetrating
> >munitions could do today -- preferably by the dark of the moon, at an
> >altitude above light flak. That sort of things isn't going to provide
> >as many combat-experienced instructors.
> >
> >Or consider how many combat crewmen actually flew over Baghdad in the
> >start of Desert Storm. Yes, the F-117 drivers, with EF-111's in support
> >a safer distance away. But were the Tomahawk shooters "combat crew" by
> >your definition? The drone operators tickling the air defense radars
> >into radiating, or the HARM shooters waiting some tens of miles away?
> >The AWACS crew?
>
>
> Training takes time. Time was what we had very little of. I'd say anyone
> who
> goes into harms way had gone into combat regardless of the function of
> the
> operation. But I know nothing about modern day operations and missions,
> so I
> can't comment.. My war ended in 1945. And I'm still trying to figure it
> all
> out but I doubt that I ever will
>

In fairness to you, Art, modern operations really blur, even in
aircraft, the line between "combat" and "noncombat". A good example is
a High Value Asset like an AWACS, JSTAR, Rivet Joint or other SIGINT
bird. Individually, they are completely defenseless -- but are
essential to carrying out a combat operation involving real-time C3I.
An enemy of any sophistication knows that, and, if more competent and
less overmatched than the Iraqis, go after them with everything they've
got. Above all, they will use long-range AAMs (e.g., fUSSR AA-9) to hit
them at long range.

Tankers are another essential asset that the enemy will try to get, and
have no business being anywhere near Indian country -- but there are too
many examples where a tanker went, if not downtown, into the suburbs to
bring back damaged, leaking combat aircraft.

It's arguable if soft-kill, non-standoff jammers are combat or not --
they may go in quite close.

The goal is to so overwhelm the enemy, through hard kill, interfering
with his decision-action (Boyd or OODA) loop, and, where possible,
messing with his minds, so that he doesn't get a chance to shoot back.
If you can send in a missile or standoff weapon with a better chance of
hitting the target than a squadron of bravely flown B-26's, that's the
choice these days.

Is it risk that's that makes the line between combat and noncombat?
What about the riskier things nowhere near the battlefield? Now, in
battle and not, skill and equipment reduce risk. I've never been shot at
other than by good old boys who had had so many beers it was amazing
they could pull the trigger, but I have worked in biological "hot labs".
Franciscella tularensis -- the organism that causes tularemia -- isn't
consciously aiming at you the same way a flak gunner might, but if you
break technique, you may be in just as much trouble as getting in the
gunsight. Many of the SARS cases in Toronto were in healthcare workers
that didn't take the extra care to be CERTAIN their respirators sealed
correctly.

Yes, it may be a different world. I certainly respect the contributions
of those who went into combat. But others go into harm's way in means
other than traditonal combat.

You've mentioned that there was a different feeling about watching the
ground crew as you took off on a mission. Offhand, you might think even
less of the people who worked in offices...people like William F.
Friedman, whose mental and physical health was destroyed in the effort
to break Japanese crypto. Mental illness is a fairly common
occupational disorder among cryptanalysts. Are they taking risks?

What about the individual who may not be physically qualified for combat
service, but consciously puts their effort into defense industry or
other means of supporting the people at the sharp end? I wasn't
physically qualified for Viet Nam -- but I was involved in designing
personnel detectors and doing psychological warfare research. Those
efforts just might have saved more grunts than my walking point in the
bush. I'll never know.

[ArtKramr]

>Subject: Re: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
>From: Howard Berkowitz
>Date: 3/8/04 8:47 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id:

>What about the individual who may not be physically qualified for combat
>service, but consciously puts their effort into defense industry or
>other means of supporting the people at the sharp end? I wasn't
>physically qualified for Viet Nam -- but I was involved in designing
>personnel detectors and doing psychological warfare research. Those
>efforts just might have saved more grunts than my walking point in the
>bush. I'll never know.
..

If you know in your heart that what you did counts, there is nothing else you
have to know. You will sleep well knowing that you did what had to be done.,
But not everyone can say that. You are lucky that you can.


Arthur Kramer
344th BG 494th BS
England, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer

[John Keeney]

"Howard Berkowitz" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (ArtKramr) wrote:
>
> > Absolutely not. I just suggested (or asked) if the students were getting
less
> > by not getting a combat experienced instructor. We would have gotten
less
> > if our instructors had no combat experience. What is your feeling for an
> > instructor? Combat experience or none?
> >
>
> First, instructional skill. People with instructional skill can pass the
> information out from a limited number of people with combat experience.
> It's not unreasonable that some combat-pilots, especially from
> single-seat aircraft, may have survived due to aggressiveness and superb
> reflexes -- which aren't necessarily the best tools to teach.

We have vets back from Iraq involved in training. Nothing against them,
just some of them haven't a clue about how to be an instructor.

[snip]
> Second, subject matter knowledge in a technological world that changed
> much faster than WWII. I'd want my electronic warfare training to come
> from someone who has kept up on as many threats as possible, including
> those we haven't directly encountered in combat, but knows about their
> characteristics as understood by the intelligence people, and has run
> simulations against them.

Wars run too fast today to bring combat vets back and have them get up
to speed training and turn out troops before their war is over. Sure there
are a lot of lessons learned that apply to the next war but they have to
be generalized so the military isn't "fighting the last war".

> Third, one has to consider today's training methodology. I'm most
> familiar with Army experience, but the comment was made again and again
> that the National Traininc Center OPFOR was tougher than anything the
> Iraqis had.

While not the NTC, just a small urban site, we got a nice message
back from an NCO in the field. Seems as they were loading back
aboard the Blackhawks he heard one of the squad comment "That
was easier than [the MOUT site]".

> All other things being equal, it helps to have someone with direct
> experience. But with smaller, shorter wars, and rapid technological
> change, you cannot any longer assume that an instructor will be
> available with relevant combat experience in the same aircraft.
> Remember also that there's going to be demand for the same limited
> number of people in the doctrine development centers and the battlespace
> laboratories.

The truth is that the United States military doesn't train like it did
in WWII, the US does it much better today. From Red Flag down
to our little town, the US trains with much more realism. At some
of the larger, better funded MOUT facilities -such as Fort Polk- they
have even hired large numbers of Iraqi expatriates to "live" in their
urban terrain to make it as real as possible. It's approaching the point
that by the time people deploy they have the experience equivalent of
a WWII GI who had been in a combat unit for a while.

Could we do better?
Of course, not every unit gets to work up at Polk. There are only
so many days on the calendar to use any facility and money to
support training and the facilities. But heck, I'm *trying* to learn
enough Arabic to make the right noises.

[Alan Minyard]

On 07 Mar 2004 03:52:15 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

>>but it raises the
>>question as to whether the idea of using combat veterans as intructors was
>>abondoned and combat inexperienced instructors were used as a matter of
>>course.
>
>I know I'm wasting my time here, your political views have clouded your already
>clouded vision...however....when I began B-52 Formal Training in the summer of
>'95, there were but a handful of Desert Storm vets in the FTU. These guys did
>have some good insight, but to be quite honest, I could not grasp or apply any
>of their suggestions. It was all I could do to learn how to fly a 300K+ lb.
>aircraft at 500' AGL through the mountains, I was not able (nor was any new
>crewmember) to perform defensive maneuvering tasks besides the very basic. Once
>I got to my unit and went through *mission qualification training* there were
>many more DS vets and I had become comfortable enough in the jet to begin
>taking advantage of their experience, particularly in the low altitude
>environment.
>
>>Or to put it another way. was Rumsfeld the exception or the rule.
>
>I'd say he's the rule, especially for a Navy S2F.
>
>
>BUFDRVR
>
>"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
>everyone on Bear Creek"

As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of "cold war"
missions, but no "combat"

Al Minyard

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
wrote:

> As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
> "cold war"
> missions, but no "combat"
>

Come to think of it, didn't the Argentinians use S-2's for maritime
surveillance and possibly targeting in the Falklands campaign? ISTR
their carrier had them as well as A-4's.

[Ron]

> As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
>> "cold war"
>> missions, but no "combat

California is using S-2A and rebuilt S-2T (turbine) on fires.


Ron
Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4)

[Howard Berkowitz]

In article >,
(Ron) wrote:

> > As far as I know the S-2 never flew a combat mission. A whole lot of
> >> "cold war"
> >> missions, but no "combat
>
> California is using S-2A and rebuilt S-2T (turbine) on fires.
>

Now THAT is scary...screw up, survive the crash, and face the Terminator.

[BUFDRVR]

>Not trying to be argumentative, but just finished talking to my next
>door neighbor who completed his check ride today. He finished only his
>BMC and still has another 2-3 months of training with the 34th before
>they will consider him CMR. I lived this problem for a year as one of
>the maintenance officers for the 9th. It was an absolute fight to
>provide enough sorties to keep the overmanned copilots from regressing.
> Throw in upgrades it was tough. Even when we had the highest ever FMC
>rate for the Bone.
>
>Big of the problem was that our FTU got so backed up that we had to cut
>down the syllabus and fly weekends to get caught up. All this did was
>to push the problem on to the combat squadrons.
>
>Cheers,
>Michael Kelly, Bone Maintainer

Hmm, I'll take your word for it, but I know that at one point (IIRC around
2000) the Bone FTU was graduating FMC crews, it was the reason why the BUFF FTU
had to begin doing it. Maybe the cut back in syllabus was the reason they
stopped doing it? Wonder if the BUFF FTU could get away with the same excuse?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

[Thomas Schoene]

Howard Berkowitz wrote:

> Come to think of it, didn't the Argentinians use S-2's for maritime
> surveillance and possibly targeting in the Falklands campaign? ISTR
> their carrier had them as well as A-4's.

Yes. They appear to have had a track on the British carriers but lost it
before they could get organized for a strike (possibly compounded by weather
conditions; acounts are very confused and I haven't yet straightened it out
to my satisfaction.)

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872