Strategy Page rounds up information on US Navy efforts to keep their air-to-air combat skills fresh:
The U.S. Navy has refurbished a surplus U.S. Air Force National Guard F-16 flight simulator to help keep its F-16 pilots in shape for using F-16s to train navy pilots (in F-18s) how to best deal with Chinese, and other potential enemy, pilots. The navy uses F-16s because these aircraft are best able to replicate the performance of likely high end enemy fighters. That’s because Russia and China have used the F-16 as the model for most of their latest fighters (the Russian MiG-29 and Chinese J-10). The navy bought 26 of a special model (F-16N) of the aircraft in the late 1980s. But in the 1990s, the navy retired its F-16Ns, because of metal fatigue, and had to wait nearly a decade before it got sixteen more. The refurbished simulator had its cockpit modified to reflect the one the navy F-16s use.
The navy also uses F-5s to simulate lower performance enemy fighters. Two years ago, the navy completed a six year effort to buy and modify 44 F-5E fighters from Switzerland. The U.S. uses F-5s, a 12 ton fighter roughly similar to the MiG-21. The F-5 is normally armed with two 20mm cannon, and three tons of missiles and bombs. The U.S. Navy modified and refurbished the Swiss F-5s so their performance better matched that of Russian or Chinese aircraft.
It may sound odd to have older equipment still in service, but they are very useful for training purposes. Both the air force and the army will perform better if they’ve trained against the kind of equipment and tactics used by likely opponents, and it’s unlikely that you can arrange a “friendly” wargame exercise against a force you may be fighting for real in the near future.
The other thing is that the troops playing the “other side” in wargame exercises tend to have a lot more fun doing so . . .
Stop being childish. Royal does not belong in Canada’s name at all. Go back to the
frilly shirt and sipping bitters with the rest of the royal inbreds.
Comment by Frank — May 6, 2010 @ 14:33
Hmmm. I’m not sure what you’re keying on in this particular post, but I do feel that the renaming of the Royal Canadian Navy was a bad move and should be reversed. As for the rest, well, I’m about as soft-core a royalist as you can be and still feel that the Crown has a place in Canada’s constitution.
Perhaps you meant to add this comment on a more appropriate post?
Comment by Nicholas — May 6, 2010 @ 15:00