65th Aggressor Sq Reactivating With F-35s

[brabus]

F-35 aggressors help train to problems of TODAY, not just 10 years from now. The training gap is even more significant for 5th gen and this move greatly closes that gap. 

[Lawman]

6 hours ago, JeremiahWeed said:

I think you’re starting to cut a pretty wide swath bringing in land and sea assets. Since we started discussing air threat replication, I’ll stick with that. Reaching all the way back to the Vietnam air war for examples of poor threat training and its ramifications conveniently ignores all the things we’ve done well to correct those mistakes in the decades since then.

Again, if those in the know say we should use F-35s for threat replication then who am I to argue. We definitely need to crack that nut before our regular line fighter pilot bros are asked to face it for real. But isn’t development of tactics for use potentially 10 years into the future (the brain trust you mention) usually the job of the 422, not line bubbas possibly on their first trip to RF?

 

Thats because as the military tries to get back to that and out of the COIN mindset you’ve got very senior people at this point who only ever saw what that looked like as a 1LT if at all making decisions on what that training looks like.

I watched a full bird Col tell the OPFOR to change what ADA they had in an exercise because Greyhound presented too many problems. Like day 1-3 we couldn’t support his ground elements because they wouldn’t give us what we needed. Day 4-6 everything’s awesome because these ZSU-23’s are a cake walk.... 

There are way to many senior military leaders who think it’s more important to keep replaying the scrimmages they know they can win and shine in the “look how awesome my guys are.... I made that happen,” game. 

[magnetfreezer]

I think you’re starting to cut a pretty wide swath bringing in land and sea assets. Since we started discussing air threat replication, I’ll stick with that. Reaching all the way back to the Vietnam air war for examples of poor threat training and its ramifications conveniently ignores all the things we’ve done well to correct those mistakes in the decades since then.
Again, if those in the know say we should use F-35s for threat replication then who am I to argue. We definitely need to crack that nut before our regular line fighter pilot bros are asked to face it for real. But isn’t development of tactics for use potentially 10 years into the future (the brain trust you mention) usually the job of the 422, not line bubbas possibly on their first trip to RF?

J-20 is operational already https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chengdu_J-20 - the 5th gen problem is now.

[Majestik Møøse]

It’s not cost effective (or even possible) to build/acquire a supersonic LO drone fleet that will accurately represent what an enemy may have in 10 years. What is possible: mixed in with actual Aggressors are virtual enemies accurately displayed on Blue Air sensors. Mesh networked, executing canned actions or making AI decisions, and represented by whatever intel we have about them. New threat models appear quickly and are updated as required. It would be expensive AF to make it work on all the radars, but a lot cheaper than replicating a 100-ship LO threat using actual air breathers.

AKA LVC.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

It’s not cost effective (or even possible) to build/acquire a supersonic LO drone fleet that will accurately represent what an enemy may have in 10 years. What is possible: mixed in with actual Aggressors are virtual enemies accurately displayed on Blue Air sensors. Mesh networked, executing canned actions or making AI decisions, and represented by whatever intel we have about them. New threat models appear quickly and are updated as required. It would be expensive AF to make it work on all the radars, but a lot cheaper than replicating a 100-ship LO threat using actual air breathers.

AKA LVC.

10 years at minimum until that becomes a reality (at a credible effectiveness level as defined by line pilots, not the bobs). I’m not exaggerating. 

[Lawman]

4 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

It’s not cost effective (or even possible) to build/acquire a supersonic LO drone fleet that will accurately represent what an enemy may have in 10 years. What is possible: mixed in with actual Aggressors are virtual enemies accurately displayed on Blue Air sensors. Mesh networked, executing canned actions or making AI decisions, and represented by whatever intel we have about them. New threat models appear quickly and are updated as required. It would be expensive AF to make it work on all the radars, but a lot cheaper than replicating a 100-ship LO threat using actual air breathers.

AKA LVC.

 

 

Then here is the fact that anything UAS is going to be seen as “why isn’t this my toy!” by combatant commanders who aren’t getting enough assets right now. 

We don’t have enough UAS or operators to support the missions we are running. Where is this surplus of drones going to come from to suddenly generate OPFOR.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

It’s not cost effective (or even possible) to build/acquire a supersonic LO drone fleet that will accurately represent what an enemy may have in 10 years. What is possible: mixed in with actual Aggressors are virtual enemies accurately displayed on Blue Air sensors. Mesh networked, executing canned actions or making AI decisions, and represented by whatever intel we have about them. New threat models appear quickly and are updated as required. It would be expensive AF to make it work on all the radars, but a lot cheaper than replicating a 100-ship LO threat using actual air breathers.

AKA LVC.

Not bad.

Like everything modernization or acquisition these days, it's all coming due at the same time and starting with a virtual UCAS opponent might be the only cost effective way of starting on this now.

The beat never stops, Dark Sword & Sharp Sword (Chinese LO RPA/UCAS) are flying now, Russia will soon be flying its Hunter RPA/UCAS, and this is not just for the AF, the whole Joint Team is going to be defending against these (eventually).

[Majestik Møøse]

21 hours ago, brabus said:

10 years at minimum until that becomes a reality (at a credible effectiveness level as defined by line pilots, not the bobs). I’m not exaggerating. 

Oh no argument there. I’d take the over.