[Mike Steele]

http://www.popularme...aw/4311433.html

This week, warplanes from the Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing will be flying training missions over the desert outside Nellis Air Force Base, trying desperately to compete during simulated combat over the high Nevada desert. Their foes are F-22 Raptors, stealth airplanes that can identify and destroy foes before their targets even know they are there.

The stakes are high—careers can be made and pilots' lives ended as dozens of warplanes share airspace in faux combat. To add to the pressure, this mission will be the Syracuse, N.Y.–based air wing's last deployment in F-16 fighters. In 2010 the wing will be assigned to fly armed drones by joystick, ending more than 60 years of manned aircraft operations.

"I'm honored to have the privilege of leading this detachment on its last deployment in the F-16," says Lt. Col. D. Scott Brenton, deputy operations group commander with the 174th Fighter Wing. "I can think of no better place to take a fighter wing on its last deployment than to Nellis." The name of the game is training, not victory, in this last mission—after all, they will be facing the most sophisticated airplane in the world.

Brenton (call sign "Gripper") has flown the F-16 for 20 years and has close to 4000 hours, including 750 hours of combat. He is also a former Weapons School instructor pilot at Nellis, the same program in which the 174th today is testing its mettle against the Raptor. He doesn't like to lose, but against the F-22 he has little choice. "Fighter pilots are competitive by nature. When the F-22 first became operational, most F-16 and F-15 pilots relished the challenge of going up against it," he says. "I know I did. That is, until I actually did it and discovered how humbling an experience it really was."

The F-22's manufacturer, Lockheed Martinhttp://images.intellitxt.com/ast/adTypes/mag-glass_10x10.gif, and the Air Force cite a 30:1 kill ratio between Raptors and their prey. That doesn't equate to one F-22 taking on dozens of enemies; the figure means that for every Raptor shot down, 30 opposing airplanes are expected to be killed. "The F-22 was not built to fight a fair fight," Brenton says.

<h3 style="font-size: 14pt;">The Art of Losing</h3> No U.S. airplane—or any other in the world—can match the F-22 in a dogfight during combat training. To get experience in realistic battle conditions, Raptor pilots—always the Blue Team— are training with U.S. pilots who serve as adversaries, or "Red Teams." Last week, Raptor pilots finished training against Navy F-15s and F/A-18 Super Hornets in Japan. From February through April, Nellis hosts F-22s at the 2009 Red Flag wargames, a six-week, multinational training exercise held at Eielson Air Force Base in Alaska and at Nellis.

F-22s dominate at Red Flag as well. Red Teams flying F-16s and F-15s take them on. Those who train to be the adversaries at Red Flag belong to the 64th and 65th Aggressor squadrons. These seasoned Red Team veterans find it frustrating to fight what they can't see. "Aggressor pilots are not typical Air Force line units. They tend to have much more experience," says Mike Estrada, a spokesman at the air base. "And I can tell you that our Aggressor pilots are getting very tired of always getting shot down by the F-22."

The reputation of the Raptor is evident in the pride that some take in downing one in simulated combat. A photo surfaced on an aviation website that recently caused a stir when the unnamed pilot of a surveillance aircraft said the silhouette of a warplane he painted on his fuselage was an F-22 that he helped locate and shoot down during an exercise. "Some Navy pilots like to brag if they even lock on to a Raptor," says one Air Force officer.

<h3 style="font-size: 14pt;">Learning Potential of a One-Sided Fight</h3>In late March, Brenton's pilots faced F-22s at the Weapons Instructor Course (WIC), an intensive six-month training session that qualifies graduates to train other F-22 pilots from their respective units. Unlike Red Flag, WIC is a classroom, with lessons taught in the air as well as behind desks. The students' adversaries come from Air Force active-duty squadrons, National Guard and Reserve units, Navy and Marine tactical aviation units and from the indigenous Adversary Tactics Squadrons stationed at Nellis.

Red Team pilots trying to shoot down Raptors study intelligence reports about foreign countries' air forces and operate their own aircraft, missiles and radar to emulate the emerging threats and give their opponents a tough time. However, the disparity between the Raptor, which can evade enemy radar and shoot from farther away, means that Red Teams usually get the call over their radio that they have been killed before they even know the fight started.

"My F-16 is still a formidable weapons system in its own right. But it is not even in the same league as an F-22," Brenton says. "Technology keeps the F-22 a virtually undetectable and untouchable regime. It is fair to say that unless an F-22 driver makes a mistake, or has a critical system failure, I will always lose a fight against him. That is a good thing. As a nation, we want it this way. We also want him to be able to handle two, six or eight of us completely on his own."


The Weapons Instructor Course is a grueling test of an Air Force pilot's skill and endurance. Those who graduate receive "the patch"—a distinctive gray with red and black crosshairs, worn on the left shoulder. A new patch was designed in 2009 with 22 aircraft and weapons systems included, a reflection of the program's increasing scope. Unmanned aircraft that carry weapons, for example, are now part of the training.

These days only 30 percent of the graduates are fighter jocks, according to the Air Force. Weapons system professionals, air weapons controllers, intelligence officers, special operations troops and other specialties are also schooled here. WIC's graduation exercise, called Mission Employment (ME) brings all the different elements together for a wargame at Nellis. "ME is equivalent in size and scope to a Red Flag mission, but it is far more advanced," Breton says. These are full scenarios that push already exhausted pilots and other officers to their limits.

The fighters are not at WIC only to dogfight. The Raptor pilots have to learn the best ways here to defeat other threats, like advanced surface-to-air missiles, and to conduct close air support and other missions. A typical flying mission begins the day before the flight, Breton says, when students are assigned a high-value target on the ground that they are expected to protect for about thirty minutes. The students are given the mission specifics that are designed to challenge their problem-solving skills, such as the presence of unknown tactical surface-to-air missile sites, unexpectedly restrictive political borders and even the presence of other friendly or defecting aircraft in the scenario. The day prior to the mission the students will all convene in a mission-planning area to review their tasks, assign specific duties, and develop an overall approach to tackling the tasks at hand. The day of the flight will be a 12-hour marathon—at minimum— for the students and instructors. "This is routine here at WIC," Brenton says. "In fact, all aviators have to be out of the building 12 hours prior to showing up the day of a flying mission. Nevertheless, they often continue refining the details of their plans and rehearsing their briefings well into the evening back in their quarters."

<h3 style="font-size: 14pt;">Into the Fight</h3>Following an hour and a half of mission briefings, the pilots suit up and go to their aircraft. At Nellis, the airspace is immense, and the terrain can be extreme. High-desert mountain ranges with jagged peaks several thousand feet in elevation punctuate the desolate landscape between dry lakebeds and smooth salt flats. "There are very few restrictions to airspeeds and altitudes out here, which allows us to train like we intend to fight," Brenton says. "The extreme terrain adds additional tactical problems for students to solve, since radar-equipped aircraft have numerous blind zones behind ridges and surveillance radars cannot always see to the surface."

The faux combat in the air is followed by the Nellis Air Combat Tracking System, which allows real-time tracking of all surface and air participants, including ground threats. On the ground, a telemetry system receives data from small pods that are attached to the aircraft. The data is used by instructors on the ground to conduct safety checks and to coordinate the removal of "killed" airplanes. Brenton says the fights are complex and dangerous. "I equate them to solving a 1000-mph, three-dimensional chess game where the loser dies," he says. "The radio chatter can become so confusing that it's like blaring rock music in your ears at full volume. You have to act fast, think continuously, pull upwards of 9 g's over and over, monitor your fuel state, track your weapons status, make adjustments to the jets' internal systems, avoid the ground, stay in formation with your wingmen, operate your fire-control radar, scan the airspace visually for threats, decipher your blaring radar-warning-receiver signals and ensure that you kill all the bad guys. Then you must dodge the SAMs, engage a ground target with live bombs successfully, turn around and fight your way back out through the regenerated Red Air one more time before heading home."

Simulated gun and missile shots are tracked by the controllers on the ground. When a target is killed, the deceased pilot receives a radio call telling him that he is dead. The pilot will often be sent to a location that simulates an enemy alert airfield, where he is "regenerated," simulating that the enemy has launched another aircraft. (The trainees go back to the base and land if they are killed.) When it comes to fighting Raptors, regeneration is an expected occurrence for WIC Red Teams. "We do everything we can to try and challenge them: We increase our total numbers, we regenerate, we electronically jam the environment. And we die," Brenton says. "We die wholesale. We are kill-removed repeatedly and then regenerated, and then we are killed again. The process would be demoralizing if we didn't maintain proper perspective. This is our job while we are here. What motivates us is the fact that we are training our brethren—and they are damn good at what they do."

[LeoTanker]

Will be interesting to hear what the Falcons can do. Especially in WVR dogfights. Probbably not mouch at all, but hey who knows..

How mouch flight hours per year do the Nat Guard pilots have on average compared to the regular AF pilots, btw?

This post has been edited by LeoTanker: 02 April 2009 - 0851 AM

[Chris Werb]

I assumed the 'Raptons' were some kind of alien race. :)

[Red Ant]

I just hope the F-22 jocks won't get so accustomed to winning effortlessly that they start becoming complacent.

[beans4]

Rumor has it that an F-22 was bagged by an EF-18 Growler a little while back.

[Ivanhoe]

Chris Werb, on Fri 3 Apr 2009 1208, said:

I assumed the 'Raptons' were some kind of alien race. :)

Where do you think we got the stealth technology?

[Garth]

beans4, on Fri 3 Apr 2009 1400, said:

Rumor has it that an F-22 was bagged by an EF-18 Growler a little while back.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/assets_c/2009/02/ea18g_f22kill-thumb-445x333.jpg

http://www.flightglo...-boasts-f-.html

[TonyE]

Stealth!!!!!!!!

[Jeff]

Ivanhoe, on Fri 3 Apr 2009 1434, said:

Where do you think we got the stealth technology?

Why from the Stargate program, of course. How do you think we got the squadrons of F-302's that are based at Area 51?

http://www.forumsextreme.com/images/Avatars_Stargate_x-302_fleet.jpg

[Luke Y]

http://208.84.116.223/forums/public/style_images/Tanknet_OD4/snapback.png' alt='View Post' />Garth, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 0407, said:

http://www.flightglo...-boasts-f-.html

Wasn't that the example where the F22 crossed his nose so briefly it wouldn't have even had time to spin up the cannon?

[Skorzeny]

Here is two of supposedly enough gun cam stills needed to make it a kill.

http://www.alert5.co...down-f-22a.html

http://www.alert5.co...22a-update.html

The Growler is way to close and it is a training violation. The F22 just want to get out of the way.

[Exel]

LeoTanker, on Thu 2 Apr 2009 1651, said:

Will be interesting to hear what the Falcons can do. Especially in WVR dogfights. Probbably not mouch at all, but hey who knows..

What would the Falcons have on the F-22 that Eagles and Hornets and assorted other aircraft don't?

[Garth]

Exel, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 0944, said:

What would the Falcons have on the F-22 that Eagles and Hornets and assorted other aircraft don't?

Lack of inhibitions due to being the last det of an ANG unit that's about to lose its birds.

There was an article a few years back by a former B-52 driver who had taken part in a Red Flag exercise. The BUFFs were playing Red Force, simulating Bears and were supposed to fly very specific flight patterns, which allowed them to be killed in a very easy manner.

The BUFF det commander got fed up with being a duck in a shooting gallery, and told his folks to start flying mission profiles like they would if they were going into Russia. The "Blue Force" commander and pilots didn't like the results. At all.

--Garth

[pluto77189]

Garth, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 1427, said:

Lack of inhibitions due to being the last det of an ANG unit that's about to lose its birds.

There was an article a few years back by a former B-52 driver who had taken part in a Red Flag exercise. The BUFFs were playing Red Force, simulating Bears and were supposed to fly very specific flight patterns, which allowed them to be killed in a very easy manner.

The BUFF det commander got fed up with being a duck in a shooting gallery, and told his folks to start flying mission profiles like they would if they were going into Russia. The "Blue Force" commander and pilots didn't like the results. At all.

--Garth

I understand the reasons of having them simulate Russian tactics... but dot' they feel the need to just let them go at it without such restrictions? I mean, how can being prepared for something like that be bad??? Well, it's government, I know government... I shouldn't even have asked...

[Gregory]

pluto77189, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 0743, said:

I understand the reasons of having them simulate Russian tactics... but dot' they feel the need to just let them go at it without such restrictions? I mean, how can being prepared for something like that be bad??? Well, it's government, I know government... I shouldn't even have asked...

What good does it do for you to prepare against tactics the real enemy is not going to practice? You will be degrading your own operational effectiveness by preparing counter-measures for things which will never happen.

[Jussi Saari]

pluto77189, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 1427, said:

I understand the reasons of having them simulate Russian tactics... but dot' they feel the need to just let them go at it without such restrictions? I mean, how can being prepared for something like that be bad??? Well, it's government, I know government... I shouldn't even have asked...

Gregory, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 1603, said:

What good does it do for you to prepare against tactics the real enemy is not going to practice? You will be degrading your own operational effectiveness by preparing counter-measures for things which will never happen.

Well though we know about the average Russkie that he's short of know how (you just can't expect a bunch of ignorant peons to understand tactics like some of the US boys), but who's to say they won't just start copying them US tactics if they figure it out that theirs aint working?

[Luke Y]

Garth, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 2357, said:

Lack of inhibitions due to being the last det of an ANG unit that's about to lose its birds.

There was an article a few years back by a former B-52 driver who had taken part in a Red Flag exercise. The BUFFs were playing Red Force, simulating Bears and were supposed to fly very specific flight patterns, which allowed them to be killed in a very easy manner.

The BUFF det commander got fed up with being a duck in a shooting gallery, and told his folks to start flying mission profiles like they would if they were going into Russia. The "Blue Force" commander and pilots didn't like the results. At all.

--Garth

I remember one of the big criticisms of the old Naval Fighter Weapons School (Top Gun) before they shut it down and rolled it in with Top Dome and Strike-U was the instructors were increasingly prima-donnas and focused on 'anti-eagle' tactics rather than attempting to operate dissimilar combat training.

I still find it odd that a fighter sqdn is becoming a UAV sqdn. Seems like a very big move...

[m4a1]

Errr.....
Does USAF take for granted that the opponent has inferior tactics, based on strict procedures not neccesary giving the best use of the equipment it has? Isn't it better to train against better skilled enemy?

[Exel]

Gregory, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 1903, said:

What good does it do for you to prepare against tactics the real enemy is not going to practice? You will be degrading your own operational effectiveness by preparing counter-measures for things which will never happen.

What guarantee is there that they never will happen? The enemy is not stupid, they will adapt to the situation if you give them the chance. Whatever happened to 'train hard, fight easy'?

[Apocal]

m4a1, on Sat 4 Apr 2009 1357, said:

Does USAF take for granted that the opponent has inferior tactics, based on strict procedures not neccesary giving the best use of the equipment it has? Isn't it better to train against better skilled enemy?

Different tactics does not mean inferior tactics.

According to Clashes: Air Combat Over North Vietnam 1965-1972 training against ourselves, using our own tactics, techniques and procedures screwed us over during the early part of the air war against North Vietnam. Pilots grew used to flying and fighting against aircraft only they flew and built certain assumptions into their instincts, of which many were false and decidedly fatal. Top Gun was exclusive dissimiliar air combat training just to counter that tendency and look at the result.

Regarding the article though, Navy F-15s?

This post has been edited by Apocal: 04 April 2009 - 1654 PM