In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: Howard Berkowitz
Date: 3/8/04 5:29 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

In article ,
(ArtKramr) wrote:

Subject: Flight Instruction: Then and Now
From: (BUFDRVR)
Date: 3/8/04 4:16 PM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

..but couldn't fly the jet to save his rear.

So what is new about that?

Because nowadays you're expected to be able to do the basics coming
out
of
Formal Training. You're evaluation at the end of Formal Training
consists
(for
the co-pilot) of both a precision and non-precision approach, one
missed
approach and a landing. This guy struggled with all of these.



Guess you guys had a lot more time for training than we did. The
hotter
the
war the faster you go into action. (sigh)



I'm not sure how you mean "better". One of the reasons that casualties
have been lower in recent US combat is the immense attention given to
training. That includes all levels, such as the Army BCTP program that
gives a reasonable idea how a general officer will perform under combat
conditions--perhaps there will be a few less McClellans, Fredendalls,
Lucases, Ghormleys, etc.

Combat will always be dangerous. But yes, there is much more training
now -- and a real belief that sweat shed in training is better than
blood shed in the real thing.Serious training spills blood as well.

Training and technology get more done with less people at the sharp end.
Art, I have no doubt in the valor of your squadron going after a bridge.
Consider what one modern aircraft with precision-guided penetrating
munitions could do today -- preferably by the dark of the moon, at an
altitude above light flak. That sort of things isn't going to provide
as many combat-experienced instructors.

Or consider how many combat crewmen actually flew over Baghdad in the
start of Desert Storm. Yes, the F-117 drivers, with EF-111's in support
a safer distance away. But were the Tomahawk shooters "combat crew" by
your definition? The drone operators tickling the air defense radars
into radiating, or the HARM shooters waiting some tens of miles away?
The AWACS crew?


Training takes time. Time was what we had very little of. I'd say anyone
who
goes into harms way had gone into combat regardless of the function of
the
operation. But I know nothing about modern day operations and missions,
so I
can't comment.. My war ended in 1945. And I'm still trying to figure it
all
out but I doubt that I ever will


In fairness to you, Art, modern operations really blur, even in
aircraft, the line between "combat" and "noncombat". A good example is
a High Value Asset like an AWACS, JSTAR, Rivet Joint or other SIGINT
bird. Individually, they are completely defenseless -- but are
essential to carrying out a combat operation involving real-time C3I.
An enemy of any sophistication knows that, and, if more competent and
less overmatched than the Iraqis, go after them with everything they've
got. Above all, they will use long-range AAMs (e.g., fUSSR AA-9) to hit
them at long range.

Tankers are another essential asset that the enemy will try to get, and
have no business being anywhere near Indian country -- but there are too
many examples where a tanker went, if not downtown, into the suburbs to
bring back damaged, leaking combat aircraft.

It's arguable if soft-kill, non-standoff jammers are combat or not --
they may go in quite close.

The goal is to so overwhelm the enemy, through hard kill, interfering
with his decision-action (Boyd or OODA) loop, and, where possible,
messing with his minds, so that he doesn't get a chance to shoot back.
If you can send in a missile or standoff weapon with a better chance of
hitting the target than a squadron of bravely flown B-26's, that's the
choice these days.

Is it risk that's that makes the line between combat and noncombat?
What about the riskier things nowhere near the battlefield? Now, in
battle and not, skill and equipment reduce risk. I've never been shot at
other than by good old boys who had had so many beers it was amazing
they could pull the trigger, but I have worked in biological "hot labs".
Franciscella tularensis -- the organism that causes tularemia -- isn't
consciously aiming at you the same way a flak gunner might, but if you
break technique, you may be in just as much trouble as getting in the
gunsight. Many of the SARS cases in Toronto were in healthcare workers
that didn't take the extra care to be CERTAIN their respirators sealed
correctly.

Yes, it may be a different world. I certainly respect the contributions
of those who went into combat. But others go into harm's way in means
other than traditonal combat.

You've mentioned that there was a different feeling about watching the
ground crew as you took off on a mission. Offhand, you might think even
less of the people who worked in offices...people like William F.
Friedman, whose mental and physical health was destroyed in the effort
to break Japanese crypto. Mental illness is a fairly common
occupational disorder among cryptanalysts. Are they taking risks?

What about the individual who may not be physically qualified for combat
service, but consciously puts their effort into defense industry or
other means of supporting the people at the sharp end? I wasn't
physically qualified for Viet Nam -- but I was involved in designing
personnel detectors and doing psychological warfare research. Those
efforts just might have saved more grunts than my walking point in the
bush. I'll never know.