Real Life Tactics, Training, Mission Planning Documentation List
-
Overall Training Syllabus
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2F-16, VOLUME 1
AIR FORCE INSTRUCTION 11-2F-16, VOLUME 3
IQT/MQT/CT/ST
ACC MULTI-SERVICE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR Air Control Communication ATP 3-52.4 MCRP 3-20F.10 NTTP 6-02.9 AFTTP 3-2.8 SEPTEMBER 2021
The latest A/A, A/G comm standards.MULTI-SERVICE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES, AND PROCEDURES FOR MULTI-SERVICE BREVITY CODES
The latest Brevity ListKOREAN AIR FORCE TACTICS, TECHNIQUES & PROCEDURES 3-3 VOLUME 5: BASIC EMPLOYMENT MANUAL F-16C
IQT Training syllabus and BVR tactics.Cheat Sheet
BVR TimelineCOMBAT AIRCRAFT FUNDAMENTALS F-117 (U)
Includes some part of AFTTP3-1 as an appendix.JTAC/CAS
Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support
LFE/Excercise
Tactical La Fayette Weeks 2013
IFF
AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND MANUAL 11-251, VOLUME 1
EMPLOYMENT FUNDAMENTALS T-38C/INTRODUCTION TO FIGHTER FUNDAMENTALS (IFF)
SUPT
AIR EDUCATION AND TRAINING COMMAND MANUAL 11-248
NAVY
-
you can get somewhat close in our hobby - but given we don’t get paid to do it for a living and we’re flying through a 2D monitor, that has its challenges - but good stuff all the same, and already very well known and digested with the non-arcade VFWs out there
-
That’s an awesome collection, thanks!
-
you can get somewhat close in our hobby - but given we don’t get paid to do it for a living and we’re flying through a 2D monitor, that has its challenges - but good stuff all the same, and already very well known and digested with the non-arcade VFWs out there
Agreed
there’s one thing I have been looking for ages though.
We’re pretty well covered with initial and combat training by the ViperDrivers.One thing I have been missing and so far failed to put in place correctly in my VFW is a 2 ship flight leader program and then a 4 ship flight leader program.
-
@Red:
Agreed
there’s one thing I have been looking for ages though.
We’re pretty well covered with initial and combat training by the ViperDrivers.One thing I have been missing and so far failed to put in place correctly in my VFW is a 2 ship flight leader program and then a 4 ship flight leader program.
We pondered this at length at the 1st and it never materialized given so many variables. With that said, I think a fairly simple way to do this is by you/IP flying Lead’s wing and/or Element Lead’s wing, so #2 & #4……ramp to ramp (I assume your vfw is ramp to ramp) in a tactical/combat engagement. After the flight, ask yourself this:
-
would I be comfortable flying that person’s wing into combat again?
-
or would I not be comfortable and here are the reasons why…xyz feedback for that person.
If (2) Fly it again/rinse and repeat until you feel very comfortable going into a hot zone with that person, or perhaps you never will feel comfortable and that person remains relegated to wingy status (2 &4)
-
-
And that could very well be your fault
-
And that could very well be your fault
disagree barring a silly blunder when you have 4k MP hours F16 only - and someone is just learning the ropes to be a Flight Lead.
-
I think before you even consider evaluating someone as a flight lead, you need to be assessed yourself first especially if you do it for the first time or you introduce it into your unit for the first time. That requires already a very good SOP covering every aspect of the flight so that anyone has the tools to refer to. If there is a failure, if available within the squadron i think it is best to redo the ride with another IP so that what Lorik said can be put aside, and for other reasons also. It is very complicated to actually evaluate someone as a flight lead when yourself you have the same non aviation background as the trainee. There is a grey zone that needs to be lifted on both sides. It has to be fair. I think in our simulated world, a step up training program conducted with different IP’s that demonstrate what is required is the way to go. Different wings/units/squadrons out there flying all sorts of mission. Already knowing which type of missions your squadron or wing flies is already a step in the right direction to know what your flight lead should look like. I think time management and fuel management as well as risk assessment and airmanship are the basics.
Reading documents is good. Knowing how to employ what is written is another issue, most documents make references to other documents you won’t have access to. Picture is incomplete but already pretty good with what we have in the BMS doc section. This is where the balance between hardcore and realities of the sim world needs to be found. You can’t ask a guy to be a fighter pilot when yourself aren’t one or never sat in a jet or aircraft. There are some concepts that you won’t even know that you don’t know and that are not necessarily in the books. Most of them are guidelines, IP fills the gap. Lucky are those who flew with real Drivers.
From what I have seen, most focus on switchology and the kaboom end result. What about the method? What about airmanship ? What about human factors ? What about our realities in the simulation world ? Training in virtual units needs to be adapted to people who don’t have an aviation background and who learn to fly a plane for the first time in something that can pull 9G’s had fly by wire and that outperforms the virtual pilot. Most don’t have the basics, and reading won’t always do the trick. It is simply often forgotten that some people who fly virtually have no military background or simply don’t have what it takes in real life to be a fighter pilot or pilot period. And when some guys in virtual units think they have what it takes and then judge others it becomes really messy. Balance and fairness is very important.
This is also why I think bashing down SP flyers doesn’t help, especially when they are being called arcadish, I get the idea of flying with humans is better but when it is stated over and over that SP flyers are arcadish guys it is not fair. Some people don’t have the time or are shy, and that’s okay.
-
We pondered this at length at the 1st and it never materialized given so many variables. With that said, I think a fairly simple way to do this is by you/IP flying Lead’s wing and/or Element Lead’s wing, so #2 & #4……ramp to ramp (I assume your vfw is ramp to ramp) in a tactical/combat engagement. After the flight, ask yourself this:
-
would I be comfortable flying that person’s wing into combat again?
-
or would I not be comfortable and here are the reasons why…xyz feedback for that person.
If (2) Fly it again/rinse and repeat until you feel very comfortable going into a hot zone with that person, or perhaps you never will feel comfortable and that person remains relegated to wingy status (2 &4)
Well that is obviously easy to decide, but it is not what I am trying to achieve.
The idea is to offer a training program for someone willing to actually learn to lead other ppl.
Obviously, this is done after initial training and combat training done as a wingman. By then the candidate should already have a pretty good idea of what makes a good wingman and hopefully having flown with many different flight leads, has a rather good idea of what makes a good lead.
Now the candidate obviously has quite an experience flying as a wingman in MP.
But leading a flight require a completely different mindset than the “2, visual and shutting up” philosophy and my goal is to offer a training aid for these guys willing to keep progressing after mastering their aircraft; procedures, tactics and now willing to lead other guys.The content and the Hows of such a 2ship flight lead program is what i am after.
I do have a quite a bit of experience so I’m not strating with nothing, but I am interested in a sane debate about other ideas - relevant to the combat sim world and its community -
-
What kind of Info on a FLUG syllabus you are looking for?
#Sorties per area+each mission objective?
For example, Hill AFB FLUG
BFM-1
■ Demonstrate proficiency in briefing,
BFM-1 controlling, debriefing, and drawing lessons
learned in offensive BFM
■ Maintain the offensive advantage
■ Recognize the T.C. and energy state of the
bandit
■ Control overtake, angle off and range to
close to a WEZ
■ Employ valid ordnance to kill
……
and many more
…
(D)ACT-2 4vX
■ Demonstrate proficiency in briefing,
controlling, debriefing, and drawing lessons
learned in Air to Air tactics
■ Detect/Target/Sort all factor groups
■ Effectively execute tactic
■ Proper engagement decisions
■ Clear, Concise 3-1 STD COMM
■ 100% valid IDs, shots, and kills
…
SAT-4 Night
■ Demonstrate proficiency in briefing,
executing, debriefing, and drawing lessons
learned in opposed Night SAT
■ Find and Destroy an assigned Target, 100%
valid attacks, employing PWII munitions
■ Defeat/Negate Air and Surface Threats
■ Maintain/maximize mutual support
■ 3-1 brevity/SA building commIs that what you want?
-
This post is deleted! -
Yes, that’s the kind of stuff I am interested looking at.
The trick for a VFW is to actually find guys willing to lead.
Let’s be honest, most guys will jump into a wingman seat to avoid the burden to screw up And I can understand that as when I am rusty I do the same and I prefer to get back in the cockpit from a wingman rather than straight to a lead position. But often you don’t have a choice.So the idea is to offer VFW candidate a training program to build their confidence in leading so that we increase the pool of available flight leads.
Out of the blue, the main axis would be:
- Ability to brief & debrief
- Ability to execute mission objectives choosing the right tactics depending on assets at your disposal
- Confident with ATC (It’s like when you are a passenger in a car and then asked to drive to a usual place you go to. As a passenger you never paid attention to the road and often you struggle getting there as a driver)
- Able to manage wingman (that’s a rather super large subject and where deviation from reality is the most blatant)
- Care enough to bring everyone from the mission
- Ability to value the HOW rather than the HOW MANY. (We don’t care how many kills you have. We care about HOW you fulfilled your mission)
- Ability to keep lower experienced flyers in check but at the same time keeping them motivated. A lead who’s constantly bashing and never bringing the good points is IMHO not a good VFW lead.
- Due to the remark above, he also need to be able to take the risk of screwing up and be humble enough to recognize his mistakes. the real life “Lead is always right” from reality is bullshit in a VFW.
- …
-
Ok….will send to you by PM later. USAF is what I main have, but also have some other stuff on other minor AF. Need to dig in my database at home later.
I always wanted to lead in all squadrons I have flown with and people said I did a good job. Malc/Homer is around and he can certanily say something about it… I also have been lead by horrible #1s. Not that they were bad pilots, but they were unable to keep up with the flow of information.IMO, a flight lead should have the following skills ± in order of importance:
1- Perfect SA: He/she needs to know where is everyone, everything, all the time. Without that, it wont work.
2- Be able to come with a plan very fast to use ALL planes under his/her control. Many FL dont think that #2-#4 are actually an extension of his acft. This is more or less what you say in point 2 and 4 in your list.
3- Good comms…without that nothing works.
4- Briefing/debriefing skills are important, but if they are bad, thew wont kill you. If one has good SA during flight, that is because his briefing was good. My experience.I trained one time a guy (average pilot) to be FL (FLUG2) in the now dead 401st TFW. It is a tough job, I must say. The main problem is the SA. Not everyone can keep up with Radar, RWR, AWACS, WPNs, AD, Comms, etc status + where the hell are the wingmen and how can I use them quickly and effectivelly.
@Other guys: please stop saying that SP is bad and MP is good. That is utterly BS! It depends on how you fly and how you simulate your training, etc. The only thing, perahps, you cant do really well about SP is the comms. Although you can still use all comms as in MP for training purposes.
-
@Red:
Yes, that’s the kind of stuff I am interested looking at.
The trick for a VFW is to actually find guys willing to lead.
Let’s be honest, most guys will jump into a wingman seat to avoid the burden to screw up And I can understand that as when I am rusty I do the same and I prefer to get back in the cockpit from a wingman rather than straight to a lead position. But often you don’t have a choice.So the idea is to offer VFW candidate a training program to build their confidence in leading so that we increase the pool of available flight leads.
Out of the blue, the main axis would be:
- Ability to brief & debrief
- Ability to execute mission objectives choosing the right tactics depending on assets at your disposal
- Confident with ATC (It’s like when you are a passenger in a car and then asked to drive to a usual place you go to. As a passenger you never paid attention to the road and often you struggle getting there as a driver)
- Able to manage wingman (that’s a rather super large subject and where deviation from reality is the most blatant)
- Care enough to bring everyone from the mission
- Ability to value the HOW rather than the HOW MANY. (We don’t care how many kills you have. We care about HOW you fulfilled your mission)
- Ability to keep lower experienced flyers in check but at the same time keeping them motivated. A lead who’s constantly bashing and never bringing the good points is IMHO not a good VFW lead.
- Due to the remark above, he also need to be able to take the risk of screwing up and be humble enough to recognize his mistakes. the real life “Lead is always right” from reality is bullshit in a VFW.
- …
Correct me if I’m wrong, but overall, I have the feeling that you’re trying to detach the tasks from their human counterparts. I mean (not to say I state again) that leading is certainly a matter of SOP and has common grounds for a number of situations and scenarii, but there is a still a human factor that is represented by the very person who leads, and the very people who are leaded. I assume your point is to reveal what doesn’t depend on this factor, knowing that there will always be this different matter in the end?
I’m asking, because then, it would appear somehow counter-intuitive to spend a lot of time on this question, given the (I assume this) outstandingly proeminent human factor in a VFW (unless there are 40 people there, but…?)
Or I got your intentions wrong?
PS: and you’re actually not speaking of a specific VFW at all. That’s the doc forum after all.
PSS: a bit too much “philosophical” to remain on-topic, I am aware of that
-
Lol Lorik, Sorry mate, but your PSS is exactly what makes me not understanding your post at all
I’m not trying to detach the task from their human counterpart, whatever that means.
I’m trying to make a 2 ship flight lead training program for my VFW to keep training my guys because my guys particularly like to learn new things.
they don’t like to be put in a seat and told to do something they haven’t been trained for (me neither)
And that responsibility to them falls into the leading party.And yes, I mainly talk based on my own experience flying online in my VFW.
So yes I think you got my intention wrong. -
Hehe, I must have assumed too much (and just did it again to say that! )
-
@Daysan……clear your inbox, please.
-
Ok, try now… Thank you!!!
Enviado desde mi T3 Pro mediante Tapatalk
-
Just one word: impressive.
Thanks a lot, dear chihirobelmo, for your valuable time spent in searching all those, and sharing them after.
With best regards.
-
I would be a great flight lead if I could find the throttle! I still think the most useful brevity is “Blind” and “Tumbleweed!” Stalker had immense patience with me, that is for sure.
Anyways, what a great collection of documents. Its amazing what the real fighter pilots can do.