"Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ...
Sid!

Thanks for one of the very few relevant posts in this NG. Good article.
I'll "reward" you by engaging... For now

You're welcome and Thank You, Thank You, Oh Great Sky God Woody, for
such a wonderful reward. This is way better than going to Delphi.
I'll send the video of me genuflecting.

The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems
International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss)
Pearson-a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team
commander, combat veteran and test pilot. It appears he has a
realistic expectation about what his company can accomplish-and by
whats left unsaid about the whole CAT IV issue-what it can't.

At any rate I wouldn't think he would be the type to allow an
environment in which,"Corners will be cut because they can be--that's
human nature when you're trying to earn a buck"

Nice quote too. Must have bothered you a lot to read it when I wrote it.

Actually I laughed out loud when I first read it. I thought it was so
patently ridiculous it deserved a reprise.

Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
relive the glory days... Sounds like a pretty good idea to me, and I hold
nothing against them for trying. They certainly have the credentials (and
likely the political connections) to carry it out, BUT what they offer
doesn't replace (and will never replace) the capabilities that professional
military adversary types offer now in the form of USNR VFC's and VFA's--not
to mention the surge capability that the U.S. Navy reaps when they need to
activate those VFA's during war time. Sure, they can provide FM training
and OPFOR (in fact, they have been for years).

Sounds to me like they are a couple of rational guys who are parlaying
their rather esoteric skills into a valid business opportunity.

The article addressed your second point:
"Regardless of reasons given, someone in the armed services usually
decided the best approach was to continue performing most of the "red
air" adversary, target-towing, missile simulation and other training
activities in-house, using their own aircraft and crews. The rationale
was, "this is flying time for our crews, and we've already paid for
them and the aircraft. We might as well use them rather than pay an
outsider to provide the same services."

But the age of outsourcing advanced tactical training and training
support services may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance.
Downsized force structures, ever-leaner budgets and a profusion of
global commitments have squeezed active-duty and reserve military air
components to exhaustion. Aircrews who were deployed to Afghanistan,
Iraq and other hot spots now return to the U.S. in need of rest and
retraining to ensure they are mission-ready for yet another
deployment. None are too enthused about going to Red Flag, Maple Flag
or some other major exercise to fly as simulated enemy adversaries or
"red air." This applies equally to both active-duty and reserve
crews...

In other words, both people and aircraft are wearing out from
real-word commitments the U.S. has assumed. With few exceptions, there
simply aren't enough pilots and aircraft available to deliver the
thousands of sorties required for adequate domestic and allied
training anymore."


Funny how there was no mention in the article about their recent attempt to
set up a permanent shop in Key West failed due to some sort of contract
issue.

Must be that rather oblique reference to those attempts that have
failed.

How 'bout McBride's comment:
"What we're trying to do here is not a trivial task.

Sounds to me like he knows the risks involved.

snip
They STILL don't have Category IV adversary aircraft, and they are only able
to provide OPFOR and NOT adversary support.

This is the part that the article left untouched. I always find it
curious when major points are left untouched in an AvLeak article.
Thats usually where the real juice is.

In the current "reserve hater" climate, their business plan/mindset: "If you
build it, they will come" is correct. The active duty Navy would love
nothing more than to cash in their Category IV USNR hardware units (and
their impending need for re-equipping) for Hoss' Category III bunch. Once
they've cornered the market, they'll be able to charge/negotiate whatever
they need to recapitalize/maintain.

You just got back from a combat deployment, is there truly a "reserve
hater" climate out there? Oh is there a realization that this New
Semi-Cold War requires a radically different force structure-active
and reserve?
As to your second point, we are back to your rather fallacious
-flatuous really-make a buck at any cost theory again.

Re the first point, here is a good article:
http://www.usni.org/proceedings/Arti.../PROcvrk08.htm

I'm hoping you will reward me again with your comments about it Oh
Great Sky God Woody.

...then our pilots can look forward to initially exploring the capabilities
of a multi-group Category IV adversary presentation when they go against
real MiG-29s.

According to the Defense Science Board (in '99) real problems already
exist:
'" . . . A key element missing from even the most-demanding training
programs . . . is the notion of a dedicated opposing force that
provides realistic simulation of enemy action," the report concluded.'

It all boils down to how much money the Navy is willing to save versus how
much they are willing to dumb-down training.

I'm sure you will stay on top of it Woody. However this outsourcing
train is rolling so the most benefit needs to be eked out of it.

Sid