There also is a 64th Aggressor Squadron with 20 F-16s and a 65th with 19 F-15s; the 57th Air Defense Aggressor Squadron that maintains threat emitters to replicate enemy threats; a space aggressor squadron at Schreiver in Colorado Springs, which has a Reserve partner called the 527th Space Aggressor Squadron; an adversary tactics support squadron, an intelligence squadron that replicates Red, an information aggressor squadron – cyber aggressors – with an ANG [Air National Guard] partner at McConnell Air Force Base, Kan.

It’s one thing to practice fighting yourself, it’s another to practice fighting someone else. Football teams don’t play their offensive and defensive units to prepare for a game, they have players who study and replicate that opponent. We do the same.

 

Wasn’t that a lot easier during the Cold War, when most enemy aircraft were Soviet-built and pilots Soviet-trained, where today some may have American or Chinese aircraft?

It’s a complex problem. Without getting into classified areas, we train to replicate adversary airplanes, weapons, and tactics we know about. On the high end, we also train them to integrate surface-to-air missile sites, doctrinally, the way an enemy would use them. If they have space capability, we practice replicating that. Same with cyber.

True, during the Cold War, the Soviets were our primary adversary, the 800-pound gorilla, and now we have a lot of other 100-pound gorillas in the room.

We have not enlarged the aggressor force in terms of numbers, but in scope. Every member of the aggressors is an expert in some area. So in addition to replicating the enemy, they also can instruct on enemy tactics.

 

The “Commander’s Priorities” listed on the center’s website include certifying equipment for integrated combat ops; what does that involve?

When the Air Force buys a new piece of equipment, a weapon or software, you have developmental testing, done by test pilots, and operational tests – where operational pilots make sure it does what it is supposed to do and other officers can understand and work with it. Most of what we get works pretty well; if we find a little bug, those are fixed as we go. Occasionally, we will release something for limited ops use while bigger bugs are fixed.

 

Do allies or other services send officers to Nellis for training?

The Weapons School is strictly USAF. The Navy has TOPGUN, which is their variant, the Marines have their version, etc. We will have joint units come in to work with us during some training. With Red Flag, for example, you have all sorts of others involved, including two or three foreign units. Foreign participation can require a three- to four-year process, from request to actual involvement.

How would you assess the overall contribution the Warfare Center, in its current configuration, has made to Air Force readiness and capabilities?

I’m obviously very proud of the USAF Warfare Center, so from a somewhat parochial view, I would say we have had a huge impact. And over the decades, dating back to the early 1960s, we have been the center of excellence in terms of tactics development and advanced training. I can’t imagine a squadron going to war without some kind of weapons officer who trained here.

In addition, air component commanders reach back to Nellis for answers to problems they have now or they expect to develop.

 

How does that reflect and address the USAF vision of the current and future threat, in terms of structure and mission?

It very much reflects the Air Force mission – that’s our job – and to lean forward and see things coming. We take our guidance from the major commands [MAJCOMs], but we also have to consider what is next.