On 8/4/03 10:34 AM, in article
, "s.p.i."
wrote:

"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.

Good. Humor. I like it!


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.

And so you reprised it. We agree to disagree.


Let's see... Former VADM + former NASA astronaut trying to make a buck and
The article addressed your second point:
"Regardless of reasons given, someone in the armed services usually
SNIP
thousands of sorties required for adequate domestic and allied
training anymore."


In an attempt to acknowledge their credentials, my point seems to have been
watered down.

Here's what they offer:

--Cat III aircraft.
--Flown by civilians (albeit former military) who--once they leave the
military--have training that is dated and will degrade over time.
--OPFOR capable.

Sidebar: When a pilot checks into an adversary unit, that pilot is
immediately snagged by the Training Officer who sticks him with an adversary
syllabus (straight out of the TOPGUN manual). It is that training that
differentiates adversary from OPFOR. When the quack or the tactics change,
the unit updates their folks (because they have immediate access to NSAWC
and their material) and their syllabus... Stuff that a civilian outfit can
certainly strive for... But ATSI doesn't have yet.

Don't get me wrong... These guys are capable of flying the OPFOR, but unless
they get new jets and complete the training (not an easy feat from a
clearance and administration standpoint, but not impossible), they bring
less to the table than the adversary pilots currently in place.

Here's what the Navy needs:
--Cat IV adversaries.
--Flown by pilots with the current knowledge (right now that means
military).
--Adversary capable

When the FRS student goes out for his first 1v1 dissimilar, it's required
for them to fight a Level II or better qual'ed adversary pilot. It's going
to take some work for ATSI to provide that... Or the Navy/NSAWC can just
change the rules.

As far as people and aircraft wearing out... You betcha. That's because (as
I've been grousing about for the last 10 years on this NG) the people that
get us our money seem to do a poor job of getting us more money. We've lost
VFA-126 and VFA-127. Now we're down to VFC-12 and VFC-13 and the reserve
VFA's--and we've nearly lost one of them (VFA-203) to funding cuts.

But here's the deal. I'm not saying "shut ATSI down." They and outfits
like them have been necessary ever since we started shrinking the military
because what we used to do with squadrons returning home (ship's
services/OPFOR) they're simply not capable of doing. I'm saying ATSI and
outfits like them are (a) not adversary capable and (b) beware of the rising
costs as we become more dependent upon them.


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.

It's an oblique reference to the east coast's attempt to install ATSI as a
permanent adversary provider in Key West starting FY 04.


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.


Yes, he's stated the risks, but he didn't list any of the limitations I
included above... I.e. Cat IV and adversary trained aviators.

--Woody