If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Privatizing Red Air Gaining Momentum
This week's AW&ST cover story, "Red Air For Hire", discusses the
burgeoning civilian operated adversary services saying, "...the age of outsourcing advanced tactical training and training support services may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance". http://www.aviationnow.com Acknowledging that such endeavors have,"...died before all the regulatory and licensing hurdles could be jumped", the article continues on with some of the structural reasons why they may be more sucessful now. 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" |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Hoss Pearson I knew retired as a Captain. Check out
http://www.atsifightertraining.com/company/learn.html which confirms that fact. You should read the article more carefully QUOTE THREE YEARS AGO, a U.S. Navy vice admiral told Larry (Hoss) Pearson--a former U.S. Navy Blue Angels flight demonstration team commander, combat veteran and test pilot--"You should get into foreign military pilot training, because the Navy is getting out of it. With the downsizing, we're not going to be able to continue doing it." Pearson is now chairman and CEO of Advanced Training Systems International (ATSI) Inc., based here at the former Williams AFB, now called Williams Gateway Airport. UNQUOTE Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass as well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly single-seat A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch. R / John "s.p.i." wrote in message om... This week's AW&ST cover story, "Red Air For Hire", discusses the burgeoning civilian operated adversary services saying, "...the age of outsourcing advanced tactical training and training support services may have finally arrived--and with a vengeance". http://www.aviationnow.com Acknowledging that such endeavors have,"...died before all the regulatory and licensing hurdles could be jumped", the article continues on with some of the structural reasons why they may be more sucessful now. 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" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
sid- 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. BRBR Retired as a O-6, as CO of Miramar. Was CO of VX-4( I was his XO), but not a TPS grad... Flew the F-8 at Bug Roach's memorial service..from Thunderbird Aviation..great guy. P. C. Chisholm CDR, USN(ret.) Old Phart Phormer Phantom, Turkey, Viper, Scooter and Combat Buckeye Phlyer |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Despite the underlying "s.p.i--v--Woody" snidenesses, there's a lot of
interesting stuff going on here. (Surprisingly, I just read an excellent fiction book about a month ago that spun a yarn about exactly this issu--a cashiered Navy Fighter type out of Fallon collects a group of his buddies and arranges to buy a squadron worth of former Soviet, late-model MiGs. He also gets a Russian maintenance guru to help run the operation and he sets up shop at Tonopah. The plot thickens when a group of Pakistani terrorists get State Dept approval to buy some training time, then hi-jack the MiGs and run them into a nuclear power plant in the LA area. -- Amazing how often life imitates art.) Here are some of my comments: (s.p.i.) wrote: "Doug \"Woody\" and Erin Beal" wrote in message ... The article focuses primarily on Advanced Training Systems International (ATSI) Inc, headed by VAdm. (ret.) Larry (Hoss) Pearson 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" You've got to expect that any out-sourcing would be subject to a lot of contract over-sight. I wouldn't expect corner cutting would be feasible, but there would be some economies in free enterprise competition and the lack of all those support functions that the military provides. Probably wouldn't need a commissary, BX, golf course, base education office, base housing...etc. 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). Unfortunately we separate a lot of very capable aviators long before they are out of utility. (And, there are, of course a lot of guys who are simply ready to raise a family and keep flying while eliminating the combat risk and repetitious TDYs.) A combat ready operational type who leaves active duty at 40 years old, can certainly still function in a high performance aircraft quite nicely for another ten or fifteen years. And, the experienced old buck can show a lot to the aggressive young nugget. 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." Thats a good rationale, but it doesn't track in the current fiscal environment of "more combat bang per buck." Maintaining realistic adversary operations detracts from operational crew and aircraft numbers. Support functions like target tow and missile profiles are certainly obvious candidates, but "red air" adversaries, dedicated DACM opponents, etc can definitely be out-sourced (as long as realistic standards are kept.) 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... Couldn't have said that better my self! They STILL don't have Category IV adversary aircraft, and they are only able to provide OPFOR and NOT adversary support. Seems like great opportunity to exists for a venture capital arrangement led by someone with good operational credentials (like the guys in the article) to buy a fleet of former soviet iron and have very realistic training at a cost-effective rate. 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. I don't think this steps on the toes of Reserve ops (whether "hated" or not). Reserves are supplements to operational forces, not training assets. ...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. Seems like exactly what a creative contractor could offer. 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.' This is exactly what the USAF Aggressor operation was modeled on. The idea of a MiG-similar aircraft, flown with Soviet tactics and weapons simulation by a cadre of folks who supplemented the flight ops with Soviet intel analysis to really add the final dimension to dissimilar training. The potential is incredible for a contractor with creativity to do this again and at considerable economy to the government. It all boils down to how much money the Navy is willing to save versus how much they are willing to dumb-down training. Actually, it's a "win-win"--the cost to the operational force is reduced and the training can get a hell of a lot better. Ed Rasimus Fighter Pilot (ret) ***"When Thunder Rolled: *** An F-105 Pilot Over N. Vietnam" *** from Smithsonian Books ISBN: 1588341038 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"John Carrier" wrote...
Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass as well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly single-seat A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch. Somebody has already "los[t] their ass," and it wasn't Pearson or McBride or the investors... A few weeks ago one of the ATSI pilots punched out of an A-4 over the Great Salt Lake. He was too low when he went out. A good buddy of mine works at ATSI; he did a lot of the repair work on the Israeli A-4s and flew a couple of them back to the US. He's 60 and has nothing better to do, but it's a risky business... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Just before I retired I spent about 3 years as a reserve Forces
Advisor in the 31TFW working with the Baltimore, Syracuse, WashDC and Puerto ZRico ANG plus the Reserve unit at Homestead AFB. I was extremely impressed with what selective retention and stable assignments did in raising the level of performance. I was curious as to whether a privately contracted 'Blue Force' Fighter Wing would be viable. I didn't do a lot more than 'back of the envelope' but it convinced me that with the exception of procuring aircraft AGE weapons and fuel the idea was feasible, since a large savings in manpower and training FNGs and non-necessity of 'tail' manning and facilities would eventuate. Ed mentioned the TDYs nowadays as people return from overseas. This was a huge factor in the loss of TAC pilots back in the 60s. Six months in Europe, Far East or Turkey and as soon as they got back home it was off to exercises, etc. Lots of Mommas said "It's the USAF or me, baby, make your choice." A lot of good guys voted with their feet .. . . . And after a year, remote, I can affirm that home is where they want to be. Been there, done that. Walt BJ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Great concept, but given the fickle nature of government contracts and
option years ("Sorry, we're a little behind on the paperwork ... can you just fold up shop for a quarter or two?") somebody could lose their ass as well as their sanity in this line of work. But a chance to fly single-seat A-4's as adversary ... what a briar patch. Somebody has already "los[t] their ass," and it wasn't Pearson or McBride or the investors... A few weeks ago one of the ATSI pilots punched out of an A-4 over the Great Salt Lake. He was too low when he went out. A good buddy of mine works at ATSI; he did a lot of the repair work on the Israeli A-4s and flew a couple of them back to the US. He's 60 and has nothing better to do, but it's a risky business... Actually, I was thinking of it more in a financial and figurative sense. Sorry to hear of the loss. I had a very good friend who became disoriented in a desert engagement and left a long flat ground scar where his A-4 impacted. Adversary work is incredibly rewarding. The single seat A-4 is my favorite ride. But the obstacles to making this a week-in week-out viable program are significant. R / John |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|