Question about Aggressor Squadrons

[dmk0210]

The dedicated "Red Team" Aggressor squadrons, the ones flying the Tigers, Vipers and Eagles in the cool "bad guy" camo.

Do they ever fly simulated air-to-ground sorties against the "Blue Team", or do they strictly fly air-to-air missions?

[Jennings]

They're there to train pilots in air-to-air combat. The ground pounders don't care what kind of markings a simulated threat has on it. Anybody can simulate an air-to-ground threat (and they do).

[ccrqw]

After discussing this question with a former AGS squadron member, the Aggressors do fly air-to -ground profiles during selected "FLAG" exercises. So the RED Air components can do air-to-air , and air-to-ground profiles.

Edited February 10, 2012 by ccrqw602002

[dmk0210]

Thanks ccrqw602002

They're there to train pilots in air-to-air combat. The ground pounders don't care what kind of markings a simulated threat has on it. Anybody can simulate an air-to-ground threat (and they do).

I wasn't saying to train ground pounders, I meant to train the CAP and intercept guys.

Edited February 11, 2012 by dmk0210

[Macbain]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but what about operating from a carrier? Would an aggressor chained down on a carrier deck look out of place?

[dmk0210]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but what about operating from a carrier? Would an aggressor chained down on a carrier deck look out of place?

Technically, Aggressors are Air Force. The Navy guys are Adversaries. I don't think they ever operate from carriers. Definitely not the F-16s and F-5s (they aren't capable of carrier landings). Edited February 11, 2012 by dmk0210

[A6BSTARM]

In the Navy the Adversaries would only recover on the ship if there was an emergancy of the "Need to land right now!" type. However, most of the Advesaries that are in USN/USMC inventory when operating against fleet units usually operate close enough to shore that realistically they would go back to thier home base to land. Also the USN/USMC contracts with a few companies (such as ATAC) also operate Lears or Gulfstreams to simulate larger bomber/F-111 style aircraft to train against for fleet air defense missions, and they wouldn't be capable of landing on the Carrier or the LHD's of the fleet.

[Rank11]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but what about operating from a carrier? Would an aggressor chained down on a carrier deck look out of place?

VFA-97 had a F-18A that was previously owned by NSAWC at one point and operated it on the ship still in its adversary camouflage. The FRS's also have aircraft painted in adversary schemes that can be sent out to the boat during carqual training.

[Macbain]

I (clearly) had no idea about the Navy-adversary Air Force-aggressor thing.

All makes sense now.

Thanks

[Harv]

From a Navy adversary perspective:

1. Yes, adversaries often perform as a strike package in some scenario-driven exercises, althought I've never seen them actually carry A2G weapons of any kind, they just flew a 'striker profile' WRT speed and altitude. Blue air might be responsible to 'disrupt/delay' or 'influence' the strike package away from the apparent target before allowing losses (i.e. not get so tangled-up in performing ACM with the defensive fighters that their ground counterparts take hits).

2. I've never heard of a dedicated Adversary asset landing aboard a carrier for a number of reasons: first off, in the case of the F-5 and F-16, as mentioned, they are not carrier-capable; next, even if they were carrier-capable aircraft (say, F/A-18s or F-14s in the day), just because you are flying a tailhook jet, does NOT mean you go landing on a near-by carrier. NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedurs Standardization- the Navy's flying bible) has strict time periods for pilot carrier qualification, and a qualified bogey driver would be out-of-quals for a boat landing. It just doesn't happen that way, guys...if would be WAY more dangerous to try a carrier arrested landing in a jet with an issue requiring a landing SO immediate that a return to the nearest land base was not possible. Adversaries working over the water (warning areas off the coast) would most likely be closer to an NAS than a steaming carrier, anyhow.

Edited February 16, 2012 by Harv

[dmk0210]

Yes' date=' adversaries often perform as a strike package in some scenario-driven exercises, althought I've never seen them actually carry A2G weapons of any kind, they just flew a 'striker profile' WRT speed and altitude. Blue air might be responsible to 'disrupt/delay' or 'influence' the strike package away from the apparent target before allowing losses (i.e. not get so tangled-up in performing ACM with the defensive fighters that their ground counterparts take hits).[/quote'] That's exactly what I was thinking. Thanks!

I hadn't even considered A2G weapons, but thanks for making that clear as well. It makes sense that weapons would be simulated as they are in A2A scenarios.

[dedalus]

I (clearly) had no idea about the Navy-adversary Air Force-aggressor thing.

All makes sense now.

Thanks

I've heard this before. Sounds way too potayto-potahto for me. Me three degrees in English leave me scratching my head to figure out the difference between the words aggressor and adversary.

[Rank11]

Same difference between FS and VF. Just a difference in names chosen by different bureacracies.

[dmk0210]

I've heard this before. Sounds way too potayto-potahto for me. Me three degrees in English leave me scratching my head to figure out the difference between the words aggressor and adversary.

Yes, two ways of saying the same thing.

Navy aviators and Air Force aviators like to clearly differentiate themselves from each other.

[BU_Terrier]

Back in the early 2000s, I worked at National Training Center (NTC) Fort Irwin, CA. This was when we were only training large force on force in the desert. We had Red Air fly out of Nellis and would do simulated ground pounding. Likewise, we would have blue Air flying from Nellis doing CAS, FAC, interdiction, etc out of Nellis and out of China Lake.

It was always pretty cool when the A-10s were flying a few 100ft above the main road to get to Fort Irwin.

Hope this helps.

[dmk0210]

... Likewise, we would have blue Air flying from Nellis doing CAS, FAC, interdiction, etc out of Nellis and out of China Lake. ..

Now when you say " blue Air flying from Nellis", you mean the Weapons School?

[boom175]

Now when you say " blue Air flying from Nellis", you mean the Weapons School?

No,that would be "Air Warrior" used to be out of George AFB now out of Nellis. Whereas FWS may participate in a AW sortie it is not there for Air Warrior. Our unit did several AW's both at George (great times!!) and Nellis (Great times x2!!)

[Andre]

From a Navy adversary perspective:

1. Yes, adversaries often perform as a strike package in some scenario-driven exercises, althought I've never seen them actually carry A2G weapons of any kind

It may be stretching the definition of "Adversary" a bit, but Air Forces Monthly March 1999 issue features a pic of a NSAWC F/A-18A in threetone blue / grey camo carrying two Walleye II's.

Cheers,

Andre

[Camus272]

I've heard this before. Sounds way too potayto-potahto for me. Me three degrees in English leave me scratching my head to figure out the difference between the words aggressor and adversary.

I spoke to a pilot from VFC-12 last summer about this. He said they use the terms adversary and aggressor interchangeably and there really wasn't a difference between services.

Brian

Edited February 17, 2012 by Camus272

[Karl Sander]

It may be stretching the definition of "Adversary" a bit, but Air Forces Monthly March 1999 issue features a pic of a NSAWC F/A-18A in threetone blue / grey camo carrying two Walleye II's.

Cheers,

Andre

I'd say that's stretching it a bit. The original question was about DEDICATED adversary/agressor units, and although NSAWC makes Navy adversary pilots and NFOs, it's not a dedicated unit. Both STRIKE and TOPGUN have a significant tactics development role in their assigned mission (ie tactics) for the good guys and, provided the airplane they're using is sufficiently 'fleet representative' it matters not a bit how it's painted. Likewise, at STRIKE when we would introduce a 'new' event for the CVW training syllabus, we would often fly it in-house first, with all manner of planes and paint schemes pitted against each other.

I'm reasonably certain, knowing quite a few VFC-13 pilots, that they never do air-to-ground. There's no need for them to, and considering most of them are reservists it would be kind of a waste of very finite flight hours...