On Fri, 02 Jul 2004 20:11:58 -0600, Scott Ferrin
wrote:


Is there any truth to this or does the guy being quoted just not know
what he's talking about?

http://www.afa.org/magazine/July2004/0704watch.asp




"In most USAF aerial combat training, the service has “dumbed down”
adversarial equipment and training to simulate what it believed to be
the level of the enemy competence. The Indian Air Force aircrews, on
the other hand, practice at full capability against their best fighter
aircraft and pilots."


That would be like training cops to handle muggers and coke dealers by
having them train against little old ladies. (And then the inevitable
years of investigation to figure out why that didn't work out too
well.) Seriously, how does any body that incompetant get into a
position to make policy? It boggles the mind.


Your analogy proves you didn't get it. You imply training against
opponents inferior to expected targets. A better analogy would be
training against muggers and coke dealers because you expect to face
muggers and coke dealers and instead end up facing a fully trained
army.

You train to improve your likelihood of defeating a likely adversary.
Training against folks simulating Super Bowl champs when you're most
likely going to face Prairie View A&M is much more expensive and time
consuming. The previous administration reduced military funding to
levels that didn't provide training for the Super Bowl, so the
services did the best they could with the $$ provided.

Blame Clinton, not the training.