On 11/5/03 5:35 PM, in article , "Jim Calpin"
wrote:

You NFO-hating ******* troll!!

Just kidding. I'll grant you the "at the merge" utility as being
marginal, but does the addition of an extra set of eyes/ears/digits
pre-merge significantly reduce the potential for task saturation and
therefore increase overall mission effectiveness? (Especially if the
RIO is minding the store on other aspects of the mission?) My guess is
"probably", but we'll have to wait to see what the F-model experience
base builds.


Certainly does open up a can o' worms.

Never having flown a two-seat FIGHTER (I'm VA to VFA) I'm speaking out of
turn here, but stories relayed from my VF to VFA buddies indicate that it's
much easier (given the automation) to perform the fighter mission (and with
greater success) in the Hornet. All cite the single-seat configuration as
one of the major factors given:

1. All tactical decisions at range (Defend? Skate? Banzai? Shoot?
Crank?) become the responsibility of just one set of brain cells and don't
have to be communicated with another set before execution.

2. Easy to find the beam if defending because you're not depending on some
other guy to tell you where it is.

3. The tendency if you're talking on the radio to NOT miss radio calls as
opposed to if you're simply listening to the radio. This is the phenomenon
I see quite often... Heck, I even do it sometimes in my civilian job.

I think the real crux of the question (and here's the real troll) is how
many merges will we really see in the future? The old "end of
dogfighting?" issue, revisited yet again. Having heard countless CAGs
and NSAWC Overalls carp repeatedly about the need to clean up merges, I
know the need is there and that we train to it continuously - but let's
be realistic about an Adversary's skills needed to *make* it to the
merge, let alone clean it up to their own advantage. At night. In an EA
environment. That calls for some serious varsity-time training and
experience, and who in the world has it but us? End troll

-Jim C.

Great troll. We can plan on not cleaning up merges, but then what happens
if we find ourselves across the circle from a MiG without that training?

If you're DCA against marauding hordes of very simple North Korean airplanes
(for example), seeing a merge would be likely. When winchester
AMRAAM's/Phoeny-bombs/Sparrows, it'd be nice for our guys to know how to pop
the other jet in the can with a heater.

Do we really want to stop training to merge clean-up due to that
"un-likeliness" which is based on the last several third world conflicts
against poor air forces with meager numbers? Don't fight the last war.
Plan for the next one.

CAG's and NSAWC preach merge clean up because it's the current game. (Of
course, CAG wants his CVW to look good for lots of reasons.) It's a tough
skill to master, and thus requires some significant training time and
dollars. Of course, admirals want to stop training to it because it costs
money. I think it's worth the investment.

--Woody