Improving Red Flag - N

[brickhistory]

What would you change regarding Red Flag-Nellis?

 

Asking for a friend...

[mp5g]

Give a 4 ship more than a 1,000' altitude block. If you can't, then don't ask us why we died and didn't threat react. 

[Breckey]

Actually care about the entire PR mission set from report to reintegration. There are a bunch of times that the helos are still in the wrong side of the fence and the fighters are popping beers at the bar. If it requires cycling off the tanker more than planned to provide OSC or RESCORT then so be it. This is in the weeds but pick a survivor from a strike package flight and have their Bros on the radio talking to their "wingman" instead of random guy with a CSEL.

[brickhistory]

38 minutes ago, mp5g said:

Give a 4 ship more than a 1,000' altitude block. If you can't, then don't ask us why we died and didn't threat react. 

How would this be applied?

Do they (actually ACC and/or Big Blue/DoD) accept the higher risk of a mid-air and let the boys play?  Is that something you would accept as a player?

Invite fewer players so that the blocks can be bigger?  Does that negate the "L" in LFE?

 

 

[brickhistory]

37 minutes ago, Breckey said:

Actually care about the entire PR mission set from report to reintegration. There are a bunch of times that the helos are still in the wrong side of the fence and the fighters are popping beers at the bar. If it requires cycling off the tanker more than planned to provide OSC or RESCORT then so be it. This is in the weeds but pick a survivor from a strike package flight and have their Bros on the radio talking to their "wingman" instead of random guy with a CSEL.

Should PR be a part of the scenario at all? 

If so, what about the all too regular no tanker available condition?

 

[ClearedHot]

The setups are far to canned...Move the Red Air Tanker...nothing like a fist fight all the way west just to have Red literally roll inverted off the boom and call a kill on you 30 seconds later.

 

[brickhistory]

And just so I'm not just asking for answers/recommendations without having thought of some of my own:

- Renovate/expand the current POS building.  Too small, not nearly enough vault space, and well past its expiration date.  If Big Blue wants learning to occur, there has to be an adequate classroom for all involved and at the appropriate classification levels.

- Provide realistic and enough adversaries to replicate something past the 1990s threats.  The current "Red Air" tax is negative learning for both the affected players and the vul's Blue Forces.  Not a fan of the barely third generation rental adversaries idea.  Not the guys, but the equipment itself.  Not to mention the dearth of ground emulators.

Obviously, my thoughts run more along the resources line rather than tactical, but all of it needs to be looked at.

 

[matmacwc]

Go to Europe, attend TLP, copy lots.  I think they have 1 or 2 hours from frag drop to launch.  End the mission planning pain.

[brickhistory]

Just now, matmacwc said:

Go to Europe, attend TLP, copy lots.  I think they have 1 or 2 hours from frag drop to launch.  End the mission planning pain.

Does the forced fun of planning actually accomplish the desired goal of making different MWS learn from each other at the bro level?

Since TLP is much smaller, is that a good thing or a bad thing if you put it into the NTTR LFE environment? 

[magnetfreezer]

3 hours ago, brickhistory said:

How would this be applied?

Do they (actually ACC and/or Big Blue/DoD) accept the higher risk of a mid-air and let the boys play?  Is that something you would accept as a player?

Invite fewer players so that the blocks can be bigger?  Does that negate the "L" in LFE?

1. Follow 11-214 (i.e, don't add on to it) (e.g, dynamic weapon deconfliction and block adjustment for unexpected weather not allowed even though IAW 11-214)
2. More training for white force. If you don't "have" some information and you are withholding it to drive a DLO, recognize when to end the tailspin of planners/intel trying to dig into it and tell them "I can't give you target composition for the airport at Hiway since we have escort DLOs for there", etc.
3. Expand airspace access as much as DoE allows.
4. No changes post - final coord unless necessary for safety of flight (don't change the deconfliction plan just to satisfy a VMC international player)
5. Make the security paperwork more efficient - kills learning when 50% of your squadron can't go to some meetings and briefs

[brickhistory]

How would you handle the not quite full up international players?

Their attendance is decided far above RF-N, so not having them is not an option.

edited to add:  I'm not quibbling with your point which is valid.

But if they're gonna be there, what would you do with them?

Edited October 8, 2016 by brickhistory

[Warrior]

Is there a way to get MAF involved? Beyond tankers?

Not trying to smash a square peg into a round hole STS, but I know herks have gone to RF-Alaska. Any reason they can't/shouldn't participate at Nellis?


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

[brickhistory]

MAF, of all types and nationalities have participated in Red Flags for decades.  Lots of C-130 photos on the walls from the past Flags.

Last two had USAF C-17s.

In a very much square peg/round hole role, but they were there.

In the compressed vuls, trying to get everybody something during the mission is like everybody gets a trophy, IMO.  Does that mean everyone is getting something from the event?  Is something better than nothing?

Hence part of my reason for asking how to make it better.

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by brickhistory

[magnetfreezer]

1 hour ago, brickhistory said:

How would you handle the not quite full up international players?

Their attendance is decided far above RF-N, so not having them is not an option.

edited to add:  I'm not quibbling with your point which is valid.

But if they're gonna be there, what would you do with them?

Sending country funded spin up course on tactics (crawl walk run approach). For example, academics on comm, training rules, 3.1-General Planning stuff. Then A-A only/SEAD only sorties, followed by small force exercises, etc. Would take longer but if the goal is to produce allies who are good at executing and integrating with us in X future conflict it will produce more reliable partners in the end. 

Similar to the mission/CC academics beforehand to ensure everyone is executing at the same level.

Edited October 8, 2016 by magnetfreezer
Added msn/cc

[F16Deuce]

Update the EW range.

Reduce the number of players.

Make the scenarios more about basic integration with other platforms than trying to solve WW3 with poor assumptions and invalid lessons learned.  In other words, go back to the roots of why RF was started.  Solving WIC level scenarios with a group that typically doesn't even have the deconfliction solved by the final coord isn't the way to go.

Edited October 8, 2016 by F16Deuce

[brabus]

1. Too many players with too many "Red Flag-isms" (i.e. self-inflicted pile-ons to 11-214). I've been to 6 RF-A and 2 RF-N.  The one's at Alaska are far better because they don't try to jam way too many jets in the airspace and they use 11-214/don't arbitrarily add on.  I get it that we want to get everyone a swing at the bat, but the training factor is very watered down when you have a 20 ship SEAD package where 8 will do (as an example).  It is deconfliction flag to an extent - and that is not good tactical training.  Mitigate this by allowing less squadrons (may not be possible, I get it) and/or potentially lengthening vuls to allow multiple pushes....or instead of one long vul, do 2x back to back morning vuls and 2x back to back afternoon vuls.  4 vuls a day, but close enough that it really is 2x goes for MX, just with 45 min in between launch of one 4 ship and the other.  Debrief each separately so the first guys aren't waiting another 1-2 hours for debrief to start.  Run the debrief efficiently - stick to timeline limits, shot val rules, etc...you miss a shot by > 10", fuck off we're not going back. 

2. Brecky hit PR - the CAF sucks ass at PR...probably the thing the CAF should be the most embarrassed about it's lack luster performance in...and I'm looking at every fighter pilot out there, I don't care what you fly, you have a role in supporting PR events, so put some damn work into supporting the PR plan, not being a shitty/useless OSC, etc.  A pre-planned PR vul can speed things along to not drag out a training vul, but real time shoot downs can at least exercise initial OSC/AMC duties, and the pre-plan can be the next day to get that guy (i.e. for range time you can't shoot a guy down 30 min into vul west of the container and have Pedro push from El/Cal, I get it). No tanker - shit happens, wave the "ALR exceeded, I'd abort in real life" card and then go execute for training.  Copy all, it'll be 2x60s and some Sandys against the world...and they'll probably get shot, but there's still training to be had.

3. Focus on basic integration in OCA/DCA/DT vuls. Johnny CAF isn't going to solve the F2T2EA problem for ALRS, in fact, he's going to fuck up the mission planning whole sale and lead an abortion the next day.  That's not his fault - in real world, he'll be handed a plan, and he won't be the guy leading the whole thing anyways.  Leave "next gen" problem solving to WIC advanced integration phase.  Let the CAF figure out how to put a cohesive plan together that defeats the Nellis IADs, destroys appropriate-to-the-scenario targets, and gets everyone back home.  I agree the threat level needs to be increased, but the point is basic integration...it is trying to do too much and has negative effects when we try to force the "WWIII" problems on the line CAF guy.  There's a reason not every CAF dude is read into CW, etc...he doesn't need to be, the right people need to be who will be planning/have a unique understanding of the capabilities and can leverage those with their squadrons come execution day.

4. Airdrop guys - If they're not getting enough LFE training (are you guys really being left out of RF-N that much?), get them in there.  It's not difficult to add an air assault, SOF resupply, etc. into a couple OCA vuls per week.  I'm not saying it needs to be a full on JFE vul, but at least get a couple MAF/AFSOC assets doing a resupply on the west side of Belted or something along those lines. It'll be great training for them, but also for the SEAD and ESC guys who have to keep SA on a C-130 at 300 ft, protect him, and have a gas/TOS plan to not lose coverage.  And at worst, the C-130 does its mission, there is zero interference with the rest of the war raging overhead and if he gets shots, well there's going to be some good lessons learned for the CAF guys who probably didn't have a good plan to begin with.  To minimize the "everyone gets a trophy" thing, don't do MAF and PR in the same vul.  Watch out for that dick head Roland guy.

5. Three weeks is long - but if you keep doing three weeks, consider making the third week dissimilar BFM/ACM week.  When that square peg doesn't fit the round hole of airspace scheduling, etc. for every jet out there, make some CT-ish DCA vuls, i.e. smaller vuls where nobody is doing a MC upgrade, you can have a North and South vul, etc.  Northern Edge in AK does a lot of this...i.e. first vul of the day is the WWIII problem, second vul is all CT.  Some squadron gets tagged for MC, they're given the assets and range space/time, go from there to plan/execute whatever you want within some constraints (for safety, etc.) Airboss can make sure it doesn't get out of hand/go down some road it shouldn't.  There will still be a lot of learning, but with less of the "RF bullshit" attached, and everyone is less "burned out" at the end.

 

Edited October 8, 2016 by brabus

[lazlo]

Fight the white!  Good things brought up so far.

Edited October 8, 2016 by lazlo

[SocialD]

3 weeks is WAY too long.  Brabus, has a great idea and would be perfect.   Ok, you won't shorten it back to two weeks?  Then don't get all pissed off and push back when we say we're going to need a swap out.  Many of us still have an alert mission to man, this eats up a lot of manpower.  No swaps = same full timers flying RF year after year.  Good luck getting part timers to drop a whole month of mil leave for a RF, especially when many are losing big $$$$ to do so.

Edited October 8, 2016 by SocialD

[brickhistory]

There was one brief (no pun intended) line about the debrief above.

Any changes there?

Sitting through them after the end of a long day seems to lose a lot of the intent of everyone learning from the mistakes made.  If it's the end of a 12-16 hour day with another go and crew rest looming, then the hurried LLs and DLPs seems a poor way to capitalize on the investment made in time and resources.

Especially for the night gos.

One bit of rumint is that the cycle might go to a three day event - plan on day 1, fly day 2, debrief day 3.

 

[matmacwc]

32 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

 

One bit of rumint is that the cycle might go to a three day event - plan on day 1, fly day 2, debrief day 3.

 

Great idea but....

Mission plan till crew rest, fly, get debrief ready until 4 hours until debrief, debrief for 8 hours.  We know how this game works.

[Smokin]

Get rid of half the white force, especially the "wing commander".  He generates a bunch of useless PIA queep like the day before MSN/CC brief.  Also, he has way too much power.  How is it that some random O-6 can sit a squadron because they didn't show up for a practice brief when the MSN/CC cleared them off?  100% true story.  Stop letting a dozen guys speak at the end of the brief and debrief.  I got it, you have birds on your shoulders or you went to WIC when I was in elementary school, good for you, now sit down and stop talking.  Info-aggressors - complete waste of manpower.  If the bad guys are attending our briefings, the war is over anyway.  Stop with the absurd scenarios.  I get that if we train to harder missions than we'll execute in wartime, we stand a better chance of everyone coming home.  But launching F-16 blk 40 units to do DCA against the hordes of Su's with better ECM pods than we have is absurd.  In combat, we'd have FR busted like a big dog, retrograde as fast as possible, and let the patriots target them.   

[jice]

If we are going to have IPOE DLOs for recce/PED players then we should provide reasonable time for IPOE. 1/2 hour prior to the vul for collect that we call IPOE is insufficient. Happy to work/fly  a full day on the Saturday/Sunday prior to each week for pattern of life development (yes this requires $), and to get collect that (should) have been conducted years in advance.  The "all the information required has been provided" game renders ISR contributions largely OBE when the sensors on our tac assets push. Good for demonstrating that ISR has a long way to go WRT integration? Yes, absolutely. Good for the warfighter's understanding of what ISR provides prior to night 1? Not at all. Good for exercising ISR processes and skills? Not under the current construct. A small investment here would pay huge dividends if we're serious about replacing the white card with real recce capes. 

[UPT-hopeful]

Pile on to Smokin;

Only let Tower, Departure/Arrival, Link-16, my brother's kids, etc talk in the debrief if there is something to actually talk about. If  >80% success rate for your AOR just go find the flight(s) that were the problem and debrief them individually. 

Ive been in RF debriefs where I've had to leave for crew rest not even knowing if we "won" or not, let alone some form of a tactical lesson learned or how we'll win next time. But I knew that we nailed our taxi time and that we had 96.69% of players on the net. 

If Red has physical access to my MPC printer(s) then debrief SF and the contract security at RF-N building, not the MSN/CC in the mass debrief. 

 

Integration of the "fake-Flag" and the real Flag can't carry over. If I knew we had 69 TLAMs and CALCMs then I wouldn't rage into satan's asshole alone and unafraid so don't bitch when I don't ALR-abort and 4th-gen dies whole-sale. 

 

White force needs more authority/willingness to stop the paintrain of a barely-out-of-4FLUG MPC if it's going completely off track when an A1C doesn't pass a paragraph-long "note" regarding an Intel piece that changes the cluster-F'd vul of putting C-130s, B-52s, and other non-raptor formations well within MRIR of every SAM on the planet. Having the "academic situation" before the execution and debrief to save the entire vul from a complete waste of time to something we can learn from brings it out of Fraud Waste and Abuse land. 

 

Less players is great. Ability to threat react would be awesome  

 

Im 4th gen. I would learn a lot more from just watching the MPC, execution, and debrief than needlessly shoving every MDS the Air Force and our partners have to offer in the NTTR in a 1.5hr range time and losing whole-sale just because somebody thought we absolutely had to have a C-130 air drop on Stonewall at vul start with every 4.5Gen threat and medium range advance SAM on range awake. Dumb. 

 

And stop sending units to the Palace Station. Nobody likes that place. 

Edited October 11, 2016 by UPT-hopeful

[Jaded]

This thread is so legit. 

[brabus]

Quote

 

One bit of rumint is that the cycle might go to a three day event - plan on day 1, fly day 2, debrief day 3

Don't think that will go well in reality.  Guys get 2-3 sorties/wk as it is right now, and that's the min they should get.  Going to a 3 day schedule puts them at 2 best case (and more likely 1).  Additionally, unless it's going to be no shit only 3 fly days/wk for the entire RF exercise, how does a SQ fill SOF, Top 3, VDO, etc. when a single body is now committed for 2.5 days (I'll assume debrief prep/execution is .5 days)? I don't think that will be as easy as some might think.  Lastly, if you go to only 3 fly days/wk for the entire exercise, you've lost 4 vuls at minimum of what could be great training (assuming inputs above are taken into account).  

Other than the last week of AI phase (where the 3 day model exists), WIC does substantially more difficult scenarios with same day debrief/execution.  RF should not reinvent the wheel/add another day for something that is not as complicated.  The debrief problem can simply be solved by decreasing who can talk (mentioned above: link manager, ATC, etc. can shut the fuck up, they have nothing value added for the group at large), adhering to strict timelines, and accepting the fact a few MINOR things may left out in the quest for a timeline, BUT those minor things have zero impact on the overall LLs.  For example, we spend about 3 times longer on a shot val than it should take...stop rewinding, stop standing up front and asking 6-9 repeat data questions trying to nats ass the perfect pairing...if you can't figure it out right away, then fucking pk miss it and move along, there's about a 95% chance that one Pk Miss does not alter the LLs that should come out of the mission.  I think some bullshit pride thing drives a lot of shot val lengthening...don't get butt hurt if you get killed out when you may not have if another 45" was spent by Mig 1 tap dancing around.  Do things like that and shot val gets much shorter, LLs still come out, but most importantly you have more time to develop/discuss those LL...the shot val should not take 85% of the debrief time.

Edit: Provide enough ICADs machines that dudes have access pre-debrief to pre-pair shots.  NE tried to do this the last time I was there, good idea, but they only had 2 computers available.  If RF had about 5 computers to pre-pair, dudes could get their shit squared away prior, and the debrief takes much less time.  Time spent pre-pairing is double time saved in the debrief.

Edited October 12, 2016 by brabus