One Nellis aggressor squadron being deactivated

[spazsinbad]

One Nellis aggressor squadron being deactivated
09 Aug 2014 KEITH ROGERS

"...“As you look at the road map for the United States Air Force, the F-35 is the centerpiece of it, not just for the Air Force but the DOD (Department of Defense),” he said. “The F-35 is still in development, so it still has issues. But they’re going to get it right, and that’s going to be the plane for us in the future.

“It brings a lot of capabilities, and I will tell you as an aggressor pilot, stealth works. When we go up and fight against a newer airplane that has stealth, it’s a much different problem than when I fly against a fourth-generation airplane. So stealth is a wonderful thing when it comes to survival of our forces,” Wintill said.

The commander emphasized the international importance of having an adversaries tactics group for U.S. and allied pilots to train against.

“We bring a unique skill set,” he said. “We can integrate a bunch of the functions that’s unique not only to Nellis but unique to the world. That’s why our foreign allies come here to get that training.”

From the paint job on its planes to the pilots’ shoulder patches, the 65th Aggressor Squadron has simulated the enemy since it was reactivated at Nellis in 2006. Covers on the cockpit seat and intakes bore a yellow, hammer-and-sickle insignia inside the outline of a red star — the symbol of the United States’ enemy in the Cold War, the Soviet Union.

In marking the reactivation in January 2006 of the legendary 65th, a unit with roots steeped in success during World War II, the Air Force’s vice chief of staff then, Gen. John D.W. Corley, said today’s fighter pilots need to maintain the edge they have through training against any potential adversary regardless of the United States’ advantage in technology.

“We can’t rely on superior equipment always winning,” he said. “Training will make sure we know the enemy.”..."

Source: http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-v ... eactivated

[XanderCrews]

“We’re having to deal the best we can with the money we have,” Wintill, 40, told the Review-Journal in an interview Wednesday at the squadron’s Lt. Col. Thomas A. Bouley Building. The building is named for a past commander of the 65th who was killed July 30, 2008, when his two-seat, F-15D jet crashed during training at the Nellis range complex, now known as the Nevada Test and Training Range.

“This deactivation, while we as a squadron don’t necessarily want it to happen, it’s what the Air Force needs to have happen for the financial constraints that were being put in,” Wintill said.

It’s unclear of the exact cost savings, but the squadron’s annual budget that will be eliminated is about $35 million, including funding for a staff of 150 airmen who maintain the jets. Some have already left the unit.

Remember when I mentioned in another thread about how keeping A-10s would lead to other stuff being cut?

[popcorn]

The writing is on the wall. All the more reason to accelerate investment in synthetic training tech. The sooner they link diverse aircraft simulators to enable virtual multi-platform interactions that can be regenerated at the click of a mouse, the better.

[Corsair1963]

What they need is New Aggressors not cira 1978 F-15 Eagles...

[popcorn]

From the F-35 Variants and Missions subforum on the increasing reliance on synthetic training.


http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20 ... /308100029
Hostage: Virtual training needed to address limits of Red Flag

...But Gen. Mike Hostage said a shift from live combat training to virtual training would expose pilots to real-life scenarios that can’t be practiced in the Nevada skies.

“The fifth generation brought us capabilities and lethalities that are straining my abilities at Red Flag to produce that same realistic combat environment,” Hostage said last month at an Air Force Association speech in Arlington, Virginia. “I can’t turn on every bell and whistle on my new fifth-generation platforms because, A, they’re too destructive, and B, I don’t want the bad guys to know what I’m able to do.”...

[basher54321]

F-22 pilots have been using Lock Marts ACS for a number of years - which allowed a number of pilots to be networked together.

You don't have to worry about safety restrictions, using fuel/ airframe time and can play out any scenario you like within the limitations of the software.

[popcorn]

F-22 pilots have been using Lock Marts ACS for a number of years - which allowed a number of pilots to be networked together.

You don't have to worry about safety restrictions, using fuel/ airframe time and can play out any scenario you like within the limitations of the software.

Yep, and the and the and the F-35's embedded training capability presents pilots in actual flight with any manner of virtual opponent at the whim of the instructors conducting the training. Other aircraft have their own specific ACS so linking them allows one to envision a virtual Red Flag not too far down the road. Too bad they won‘t be able to create a virtual happy hour at the bar... bummer.

[h-bomb]

The squadron being retired is the F-15's. The USAF was crying crocodile tears a few years ago on the lack of viable F-15 airframes yet the had enough to use them as aggressors!

Seven of the F-15 (6+1 spare) are going to the 64th, the rest to AMARC. They will stay with the F-16's at the 64th till next March. Then they will be redistributed to other F-15 users.

Anyone know how many airframes they had? The lost one in a crash on the ranges a few years back. But I never knew if they were a 12/18/24 PAI squadron to begin with. I suspect they had 12 PIA and pair of spares. Nellis Sq sizes were always odd. My old squadron had 32 BIA, 24 PIA and 2 OT birds, but that was in the early 1990's.

[EOR]

they had 19 airframes at the high point a year ago, down to 10 by last month.
I know Fresno and Klamath Falls ended up with some of those missing planes.

[zero-one]

With the F-35's HMD, I wonder if it will be possible to project a virtual WVR adversary some day?

[Corsair1963]

With the F-35's HMD, I wonder if it will be possible to project a virtual WVR adversary some day?

Interesting idea......

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

dont see why not, it wouldn't be anything fancy though.

[popcorn]

Maybe a redefinition of WVR combat is needed. New tech enables a new way of WVR combat over what was possible using solely the Mk-1 eyeball.

[zero-one]

Maybe a redefinition of WVR combat is needed. New tech enables a new way of WVR combat over what was possible using solely the Mk-1 eyeball.

Well my personal deffinition of WVR is within IR missile range,

however the new generation of IR missiles like the 9Xs have rediculously long ranges, ~20km+ which is approaching the range of the 1st generation Aim-7s.

So I tried to segregate them with the tactics used or performance required.
I.E.

WVR combat requires:
-Sustained turning capability
-Instantanious turning capability
-Acceleration
-Climb rates
-Deceleration rates
-Maintaining energy
-HOBS capability
ETC.
Mostly kinematic stuff

BVR Combat requires:
-Network performance
-Long range sensor performance
-Instantainious Turning capability
-high AOA performance
-High altitude performance
ETC.
a combination of Kinematic and Sensor performance


So I guess the next question is, when does the relevance of my WVR list end and the relevance of my BVR list begin? You can also argue that the list could be interchangable as some attributes on the WVR list can be useful in BVR and vice versa.

Anyway Im still trying to figure this out.

[popcorn]

That F-22 demoed one version of WVR engagement vs. that hapless Iranian F-4 not too long ago. That‘s the smart way to fight WVR.