On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:32:30 GMT, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 04:42:27 GMT, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
.. .

And then what happens when they face someone who actually knows how to
use an air force? People die and you get your ass handed to you.
Great plan. But hey it saved a few bucks. And yeah it *is* the
training. It may be Clinton's fault that there was no money for Top
Gun (Red Flag still exists AFAIK) and that the Aggressors got the axe
but in the end when we lose are they going to say it was Clinton's
fault? Nope. In fact you'll notice Clinton's name didn't come up in
the article but inadequate training did. If we expect people to put
their lives on the line for this country we owe it to them to give
them the best training we can come up with. The reason we've done so
well in the past is *because* we trained so hard. How many times have
you heard soldiers say "the training was harder"? Well you don't hear
it that much these days.

it comes down to money.

if you have a force of x size and the training budget is reduced, but
the
tasks require that the force remain x sized, the amount of training will
decrease.


Yes, but there is a difference between training to fight good
adversaries and crappy ones. It doesn't cost any more to fly against
two F-16Ns simulating Israeli pilots than it does to simulate two
pilots from Gabon.

But either the amount of sorties a pilot flies against those F-16Ns
declines, or the amount of pilots flying those sorties declines.



They said they simulate against what they're likely to face. Which
these days means they simulate crappy air forces. Like I said, it
doesn't cost anymore to simulate against well-flown aircraft than it
does against poorly flown aircraft. It's not more or less training
flights but good or bad. You're working with a fixed number.