I don't buy that the Americans were flying "Red Air".  I don't see why they'd go all that way to fly as Red Air to help train a foreign military that clearly doesn't need their help.  The article implies that the Red Air info came from an internet message board, an urban legend if you will.

The previously linked article mentions Red Air as well, but only as a training philosophy used out in Nellis, not as something that's done for every major exercise.  There's probably some confusion here as the exercise calls in to question the Red Air technique.  It doesn't however imply that US pilots were flying Red Air in this exercise.  I could see how someone (a journalist, an internet poster) could get confused, especially if they're looking for excuses on why the US came up short.

"Red Air" is how the instructor squadron flies at Red Flag in Nellis.  During Red Flag they fly US equipment using the tactics and abilities they expect a fictional "Red" opponent would fly.  The students fly "Blue Air" and use their systems to their maximum abilities.  The concept is that the "Blue" student is confronted with the same capability "Red" opponent they will expect to find in actual combat: lower abilities, lower capabilities, different tactics, command and control, etc.

When US forces participate with other air forces they can do so as "Red" or "Blue" depending on context.  For example, if Iraq had an Air Force and the USAF were engaged with them in a training role then the US forces would fly "Red Air" in order to simulate enemies Iraq would be likely to face: Iran.  In this role the USAF would fly their planes to mimic the expected capabilities of Iranian aircraft.  Likewise I would suspect the USAF often flies "Red Air" with the South Koreans to help train them to confront the North Koreans.

If the US were flying "Red Air" with the IAF then they were mimicing the Pakastani Air Force.  This would be political suicide considering how much the Pakastanis are supporting the US engagement in Afghanastan.  Essentially the US flying "Red Air" with India would be training the IAF to attack Pakastan.  I think Pakastan would object to that.

[/quote]
You realise this story is two years old? [/quote]
Not only Usaf grow up in two years....

Chris_F wrote on Dec 18^th, 2006 at 3:54pm:

Big long post and I don't see where you prove that USAF pilots aren't trained to deliberately limit themselves in these engagements, as mentioned in the article.  I don't say this to be argumentative, I was just wondering if you could clarify.

And good catch woody-I guess is an old article.  Either way, I don't think they totally threw it, although it's entirely possible they were told not to exert themselves.

beefhole wrote on Dec 18^th, 2006 at 10:01pm:


Re-read the article:

" “Red air” refers to the way the Air Force simulates enemy capability in air combat training. Because the service has assumed for years that its fighters are more capable than enemy aircraft, the U.S. pilots that simulate the enemy, known as “red” forces, in air combat training are required to operate under rules that constrain their combat capability."

It says "US pilots THAT SIMULATE THE ENEMY"  Not "US pilots".  Just the ones that simulate the enemy, i.e. the instructors I mention in my big long post.  The article goes on to explain:

"“We have always believed that our technology was superior to everyone else’s technology, that we would fight a somewhat inferior adversary, so we have had to supply a simulated adversary from our own resources; we call that ‘red air,’” Snodgrass said."

Again, it is only the simulated enemy, the "red", the instructors, that fly "red air".