YGSM! Is there any truth to this. . .

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.

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.

On Sat, 03 Jul 2004 12:38:42 -0400, Air Force Jayhawk
wrote:

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.



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.

"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.

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.

"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.

You forgot the B. It's YGBSM.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

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.

On Thu, 8 Jul 2004 06:43:20 -0700, "Jim Baker"
wrote:

You forgot the B. It's YGBSM.


:-)