Service pondering future roles.

Articulating the role of air power has been a high priority for Air Force leaders during the past several years. But exactly what assignments the Air Force will be required to carry out and what systems will be needed to execute the missions of the future is a matter of debate, experts said.

Frederick Kagan, American Enterprise Institute resident scholar, said the "shock and awe," as portrayed in spectacular video footage from the Iraq and Serbia bombing campaigns will not be enough to win future conflicts. Shock wears off, he said at an AEI forum. "What do we do once we've shocked the enemy?"

David Ochmanek, senior defense analyst at the RAND Corporation, warned of an erosion of the aerial dominance the United States has enjoyed over its enemies for decades. The Air Force remains adept at destroying targets, but enemies are becoming savvier about concealing them.

"Finding, not shooting, becomes the determinant of success," Ochmanek said. "It's getting harder and harder to find things on the battlefield." Iran and North Korea, for example, have learned to move potential targets underground, he added.

Ochmanek and Kagan both warned that future conflicts may not be the cakewalks the Air Force enjoyed in the past. Recent adversaries have relied on 1960s-era, Soviet-designed air defense systems. Ochmanek described them as "slow softballs down the middle of the plate" for the Air Force, adding that the Chinese, for example, have been working hard to upgrade and modernize their air defense capabilities.

Furthermore, potential opponents have been upgrading their ballistic missile systems. It's a 1940s-era technology that continues to proliferate, Ochmanek warned. "The Air Force has got to be in the business of theater missile defense," he added.

China, North Korea and Iran scenarios are speculative, large-scale conflicts. As for the present-day war on terrorism, Air Force officials are keen to point out that the service has an important role to play in lower-intensity conflicts such as the ongoing Iraq insurgency.

"Air power is a viable, critical, very necessary contributor to the counter-terrorism fight, today and certainly into the future," said Maj. Gen. Norman Seip, assistant deputy chief of staff for air and space operations. Air Force Chief of Staff Michael T. Moseley said the global war on terrorism will last as long as a generation. The Air Force's capability of striking targets, projecting and delivering forces, and gathering and disseminating intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance will be a vital part of the fight, he said.

Ochmanek said the Air Force will face growing demands to operate in areas where they are not comfortable. "We have to care about any place where people are developing strategies to kill Americans."

The contributions of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) and their operators are among the most significant made by the Air Force, said Seip. It's not uncommon for the Predator UAV to catch insurgents planting improvised explosive devices (IEDs). They also can tag an lED location so demolition teams can disarm it later, Seip said. UAVs also have patrolled Iraqi oil pipelines and watched backdoors in support of ground forces during night raids, he said. They can light up insurgents in infrared and follow them so "we can scarf up the folks who think they've got a free pass out of the fight that they started."

Manned aircraft such as the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System, (JSTARS), initially designed to track large tanks and combat vehicles, have logged more than 10,000 hours in Southwest Asia since July 2003, Seip added. In one case, a JSTARS recorded a large explosion at an oil pipeline. The crew was able to go through tapes and track a vehicle leaving the explosion. Ground forces later swarmed over a building where the vehicle was parked and caught the bomb makers "with dirt on their hands, so to speak," Seip said.

Moseley said JSTARS tracked Iraqi Republican Guard units in a sandstorm. "We could see them, and they could not even see themselves. That's a tremendous asymmetric advantage," he said.

There are currently not enough Predators or personnel trained to fly them, Seip said. In development is the Multi-Aircraft Control System, which will allow one operator to guide multiple UAVs at once. It could, for example, keep three UAVs flying on standby to be called in when needed. "I look at that somewhat as a quantum leap in UAV technology that will help us satisfy that appetite that all of us out there have for full-motion video," Seip said.

A remote operations video enhanced receiver will allow UAV operators to circle a target of interest on a ruggedized laptop screen with a light pen, instantly sending a command to the Predator to fly to the highlighted area to either eavesdrop or deliver a Hellfire missile. These innovations will save valuable time, and for troops in combat, time is critical, Seip said.

Moseley said the Global Hawk high-altitude, long-endurance UAV will continue to be relevant. "It will be worth its weight in gold." Humans have limits on how long they can stay in the air, but UAVs can fly up to 24 hours, he noted.

Experts said it is far from clear whether these emerging technologies and anecdotal examples of the Air Force's contribution to counterinsurgency operations will be enough to put the spotlight back on the Air Force. Even during the 1990s, when conventional wisdom held that U.S. air power would dominate all future conflicts, it did not necessarily translate to larger budgets, Kagan said.

With tight budgets projected, Moseley said trade-offs in the Air Force's three portfolios, strike, mobility and intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance, will be inevitable. "We're not opposed to making hard decisions. If we have programs that have had exponential [cost] growth and we need to roll that money back, it's time to be killing some things."

Aging aircraft cannot be replaced on a one-to-one basis, Moseley said. "The trade in each part of the portfolio will be the art form in this as we look at the right number of C-17s, the right number of C-5s, the right number of C-130s." The Air Force will have to find ways to streamline logistics, and reduce costs and manpower, he said.

Funding can be saved by consolidating programs among the joint services. "We are completely, totally inter-dependent. And those who believe that is not quite right either haven't fought lately, or they are hoping something will be different," Moseley said.

"It doesn't bother me at all to spray paint 'U.S. Navy' on one side [of a UAV] and 'U.S. Air Force' down the other side," he added. Sensor platforms don't care if they're searching for targets on the land or sea, he said.

Christopher Bowie, director of strategic studies for the Integrated Systems Sector of Northrop Grumman, said speculating on whether the Air Force should put its resources into preparing for higher or lower intensity conflicts is tough business. "Predicting what you're going to need is very difficult and our predictions are almost always wrong," he said. If one capability is cut back in order to boost another, it's difficult to turn the clock back and restore what has been lost, he warned.

If the war is going to continue and the budgets are going to get tight, Moseley said, it makes sense to increase joint programs with land, maritime and special operations forces.

Possibilities include a joint program with the Army on a new light transport plane--one designed to carry one or two pallets and a small number of troops,--which can take off or land with only 2,500 to 3,000 feet of runway. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts, as well as the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita relief efforts, pointed to the need for a more flexible lift capability, he said.

The future doesn't only lie in hi-tech hardware. Intelligence gathering systems will require more knowledgeable personnel, Moseley said. The Air Force needs to boost its human intelligence resources to keep pace with the hi-tech hardware and software it's employing. "I don't believe we have enough intel players ... We can do better in regional skills, operations and languages." The Air Force needs to train intelligence officers who are more flexible and adaptable, Moseley said.

Base security also goes hand-in-hand with human intelligence, Moseley added. With about 50 expeditionary bases alone in the Middie East, Central and Southwest Asia, base security personnel need to partner with intelligence officers to detect such threats as sniper, mortar and sapper attacks.

"The security force business takes on a whole new light. This is not checking IDs at a gate," Moseley said. Security personnel need to "begin to think outside the fence."

RELATED ARTICLE: Air Force revisiting requirements for pilot training.

Senior U.S. Air Force officials are debating whether a planned draw-down of the service's aircraft fleet should be matched by cutbacks to the number of pilots that are recruited and trained.

At a gathering of three-star and four-star Air Force generals scheduled for December, one of the topics of discussion will be the possibility of slowing down the entry of new aviators into the force.

The Air Force currently trains about 1,100 pilots each year. That is more than double the number of pilots the Air Force had in its ranks in the early 1990s.

At the December meeting, known as a "rated summit," Air Force leaders will discuss, among other topics, the service's long-term requirements for combat aviators, said Gen. William R. Looney III, who heads the Air Education and Training Command. "The number of required trained pilots may change," he said in an interview. "Now we produce 1,100 pilots a year. The question is, 'Is it the right number?'"

Inventory reductions of potentially more than 700 aircraft planned for the next five years could lead to a reduction of the pilot force, although no firm decisions have been made, he said.

"We'll look at the future, the amount of aircraft we expect to have, the number of pilots we need, how many we need to train," Looney said.

Regardless of the outcome of these deliberations, no sweeping reductions are expected right away, he cautioned. The draconian cuts seen immediately after the end of the Cold War, when the force dropped precipitously, were too disruptive and led to low morale in the ranks, Looney explained. "We don't want to go through that same major drastic cut, because of the unintended consequences it has on the force."

Pilot training is one of several areas that the Air Force is reevaluating. Aviators, said Looney, can expect to see gradual changes to their training regime. More of their training, for example, will shift from real airplanes to simulators.

"Simulation is a huge multiplier, and enhances our training capability," Looney said.

C-17 and C-130J cargo aircraft operators, much like commercial airline pilots, will do almost their entire training on simulators. The first time they will board a real cockpit will be for their "check ride," a pilot proficiency sortie.

Pilots complete their initial qualification in simulators known as "weapon system trainers."

This does not apply, however, to older C130s, which do not have the sophisticated simulators available for the J fleet, explained Air Force spokesman Dave Smith.

The C-130E trainers are "not as good" as the C-17's and C-130J's, Smith said, although the E simulators are receiving some upgrades to allow landing training. Once the enhancements are completed, the Air Force will determine whether pilots can receive their initial qualification checks in the weapon system trainer, said Smith, although he admitted this was an ambitious goal. One major drawback in the C-130E simulator is the poor fidelity of the landing simulations. "The C-130E does not have a heads-up display, and its systems make learning how to land the aircraft more difficult than the C-17 or C-130J."

Simulators are categorized on a scale from A-D, the highest being a level D. In a level D simulator, a pilot can earn a rating without ever having to fly the aircraft. The C-130E has level C simulators, according to the contractor, Lockheed Martin.

The Air Education and Training Command, and the Air Mobility Command are preparing a "request for proposals" from Lockheed Martin to begin the simulator upgrades, and to develop a new syllabus and training program by April 2007.

According to Lockheed spokesman Warren Wright, "there are some discussions being held about further upgrades for the E models, but no RFP or formal proposals have been issued."

The shift to simulator-based training seen in the Air Force mirrors a trend that started in commercial aviation many years ago, experts noted.

"We are seeing a convergence between what the military customers are asking for and the commercial sector," said Hugh Dunkley, vice president of simulation programs for CAE USA.

Current military operations limit the number of aircraft available for training, which translates into a higher demand for simulators, Dunkley said. "What was safety and economics driven in the commercial sector is now seen as an effective means of freeing up aircraft for deployable use."

In commercial aviation, the most advanced simulators are classified as "zero flight time" trainers where literally the commercial pilot will fly the real aircraft for the first time with passengers onboard, Dunkley said. Military transport trainees not only must learn how to operate and fly the airplane, but also must master unique maneuver skills, such as dropping cargo loads, lining up in formations, air-to-air refueling and other tasks. "That requires high fidelity simulations," said Dunkley.

Air Force aviators, meanwhile, will continue to see their career field affected by the expansion of the service's unmanned aircraft fleet.

All UAV operators in the Air Force today must be rated pilots. "They have to understand the rules of the airspace," said Looney.

That policy may be reevaluated some day, he said. "We may develop a program for UAV operators who are not rated pilots." The key question will be whether non-rated UAV operators will be able to operate with the same level of proficiency as a rated pilot. "If we can do that, it would make sense to head down that road," Looney said. The Air Force trains all UAV operators at Creech Air Force Base, Nev.--SANDRA I. ERWIN 

RELATED ARTICLE: Training fleet sees slow but steady progress.

The U.S. Air Force is about four years away from completing a two decade-long process of revamping its fleet of training aircraft, according to service officials.

In 1989, the Pentagon released its Trainer Aircraft Master Plan for improving both the Air Force's and the Navy's pilot training programs. Sixteen years later, two new trainers adapted from commercial aircraft and one older military jet are filling the requirements needed to train the next generation of pilots.

The responsibility for developing, deploying and sustaining the joint Navy-Air Force flight training systems falls upon the Air Force's Training Aircraft Systems Group, part of Aeronautical Systems Center at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio.

The first aircraft that a student pilot encounters is the T-6A Texan II, a single-propeller, two-seater designed to teach trainees basic flying skills.

Col. Michael Carlson, commander of the Training Aircraft Systems Group, said the T-6A has several advantages over its predecessors, the aging 1-37, used by the Air Force, and the Navy's T-34C, both of which are being phased out. It includes two safety features designed for the unique needs of trainees, including a bird-resistant windscreen system, which is necessary because students fly at lower altitudes. The aircraft also has a zero-zero ejection seat system, meaning it's possible, though still not recommended, for pilots to escape the T-6A at zero altitude and at zero speed, basically when it is sitting on the runway, Carlson said.

Dan Shaver, deputy squadron director for the T-6A Joint Primary Aircraft Training System squadron, said another important modification is the ruggedized landing gear. "Student pilots are going to abuse the aircraft a little bit more than a regular pilot would," Shaver said.

While the T-6A uses a single-propeller engine rather than a twin jet engine, featured in the T37, advances in aviation technology have given it jet-like handling. It is fully acrobatic and has a pressurized cabin, unlike the 1-37, Carlson added.

The T-6A is derived from Raytheon Corp.'s Beech/Pilatus PC-9 Mk II and is powered by a Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68 turbo prop engine capable of delivering 1,100 horsepower and flying at 320 miles per hour. It can perform an initial climb of 3,100 feet per minute and reach 18,000 feet in six minutes, according to an Air Force fact sheet.

"Instead of the U.S. government having to go out and prove a new engine, they were able to piggyback onto something that had already been commercially developed," Carlson said. The newer aircraft's single engine is more fuel efficient and easier to maintain than the aging T-37, he added.

Another important characteristic is a larger anthropomorphic seating system to allow for a greater range of body types. While this means larger trainees can fit into the cockpit, these changes mostly benefit smaller pilots, especially women. It's the difference between sitting in a sports car as opposed to sitting in a luxury sedan, Carlson said. "There's a little more room," he added. Instructors and trainees also have the option of sitting in the front or back positions.

While the single-engine system in a trainer could be a concern, none has been lost as a result of engine failure, Carlson said. It is a light aircraft, at 2,995 kilograms, and has good glide capabilities, he added. Two T-6As have been lost, though, but neither due to engine problems. Both aircraft were lost due to pilot errors. A 2000 crash resulted in both pilots ejecting safely. However, a 2004 accident ended with both pilots losing their lives.

As of the end of September, Raytheon had delivered 269 aircraft, 220 for the Air Force and 49 for the Navy. The contract calls for a total of 782 T-6As, including 454 for the Air Force and 328 for the Navy. Raytheon's plant, in Wichita, Kan., has been delivering 60 aircraft per year with production slated to end in 2010, Carlson said. Each aircraft costs $4.3 million.

The Raytheon contract also includes the ground-based training system, simulators, electronic classrooms, computer-aided instruction labs, and a training integrated management system.

When candidates successfully complete the T-6A coursework, they graduate to other training aircraft. Pilots are put on one of five tracks depending on how they performed. The tracks include: the Air Force bomber-fighter or the Navy strike; the Air Force airlift-tanker or Navy maritime; Air Force or Navy turbo-prop; Air Force-Navy helicopter track, or flight instruction.

If the students move on to a fighter track, they will fly the T-38 Talon, a twin-engine, high-altitude, supersonic jet trainer first deployed in the early 1960s and built by Northrop Corp. It reaches Mach 1.08 at sea level and can fly at 55,000 feet.

The Air Force is in the process of making several upgrades to the aircraft, according to Jeffrey Braun, T-38 systems squadron director. The Air Force wanted to upgrade the avionics to help student get familiarized with real-world cockpits.

The new system features heads-up, multifunctional and electronic engine displays, similar to those found in warplanes, such as the F-15 Strike Eagle, F-16C Eagle, B-1B Lancer or A10 Warthog.

"It better prepares the pilots to make that big step into these modern fighters," Shaver said.

Efforts are underway to upgrade the escape system with seats adapted from the T-6A's new zero-zero system and an inter-seat sequencing system, which allows for the two pilots to choose who ejects first.

As is the case with the T6-A, there is more flexibility in the size of the cockpit to accommodate smaller pilots. This has allowed for 20 percent more of the pilot population to graduate to fighter aircraft, Shaver said.

There are currently 509 T-38s in the inventory, with 453 designated for pilot training. The Air Force Material Command also uses T-38s for testing new systems. All training aircraft will receive the advanced avionics system and 199 will receive the escape upgrade. If funding allows in the future, the center hopes to outfit the remainder with the advanced ejection seats, Shaver said. Current plans call for the T-38 to remain the Air Force and Navy's advanced jet fighter trainer until 2020.

For those moving on to airlift- or tanker-pilot schools, the T-1A Jayhawk serves as a medium range, twin-engine jet trainer. Like the T-6A, it is a civilian aircraft--the Beech 400A--adapted for military use. Its modifications include reinforced windshield protection to protect against bird strikes and added fuel capacity to increase its range to 2,222 nautical miles. It reaches speeds of 538 miles per hour and flies at 41,000 feet.

Raytheon delivered the last of the 180 T-1As in 1997 at accost of $4.1 million per aircraft, said Carlson. While the much smaller T-1A does not resemble such lumbering aircraft as the C-130, the cockpit has a similar side-by-side configuration for a pilot and co-pilot, as well as a third seat for an instructor. T-1As also are used for naval navigation training at Pensacola, Fla.

Carlson said the three aircraft have suited the Pentagon's master plan well. "Our customers, the Navy and the Air Force, are pretty well satisfied with what we've provided them ... The responses we've been getting back are quite positive."--STEW MAGNUSON