On Fri, 03 Oct 2003 01:31:56 -0700, Hobo wrote:



This NG often recieves posts concerning inter-country war games
involving competitors who have agreed to not use/test their BVR capacity
against each other and just go for the dogfight. In general, how useful
is it to know that Andorra can beat Lichtenstien in a WVR fight when
trying to judge how well they will do in a *real* fight?

If the outcome is interpreted based on understanding of the ROE, the
games can be meaningful. The underlying question must be "what is the
purpose of the exercise?"

Most "war games" are designed for training, not for comparative
ranking or a determination of world championship. They can be designed
for interoperability, evaluation of training effectiveness, comparison
of dissimilar systems, exercise of major components such as an air
defense network, etc. etc.

If the goal is to train for mutual support, command/control, aircraft
handling, weapons employment, etc., then WVR exercises can have
considerable value. Realistically, if BVR is used in a war under the
ROE, the total number of shots available is remarkably limited for
most countries and the capability for many systems is not necessarily
what is advertised. We still haven't reached the "magic bullet" level
of competence. If you accept that premise, then restricting the
exercise to a WVR scenario isn't unreasonable.

As an exercise planner at USAFE, responsible for NATO Southern Region
exercises for several years, I juggled a lot of objectives for
exercises. Some were military, some were decidedly political and some
were prestigious. We exercised to integrate countries into the NATO
structure, we exercised to train nations in particular under-employed
capabilities, we exercised to showcase potential capabilities, we
exercised to support US force budget requests back home, and we always
exercised for training goals.

It isn't a one-dimensional process.