There are so many different aircraft you can face in the world today, so we basically put them in categories based on capability and do the same with the weapons they carry, then develop tactics to fly against a specific category of aircraft with a specific category of weapons. That allows us to train against a standard and everybody knows what falls into what categories, in terms of airframes and weapons. So we don’t really care what kind of airplane it is, we just care about the capabilities.

 

The United States has not faced an air-to-air challenge since Vietnam – how has that affected your training?

We don’t train as if there will never be another air-to-air encounter; it’s still part of our syllabus. Whether you plan to do so or not, there are [enemy] aircraft that will force you into a visual environment. So that is still an integrated part of our training.

As technologies and requirements evolve, how will NSAWC adapt to unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) pilot training – if not directly, then in the manned aircraft program on how to fly in the same airspace, possibly commanding UAVs on a unified mission?

We don’t train UAV pilots here; most of ours right now are rotary wing or small. Our helicopter pilots will fly the Fire Scouts, which are part of the air detachment.

UCAVs [unmanned combat air vehicles] on carriers are still being developed; when they come to the carrier deck, they will become an integral part of what we do here. But that is four or five years in the future and a lot of CONOPs need to be developed on how to integrate manned and unmanned in these squadrons.

There are a lot of thoughts on how we will do that, but right now they are just thoughts. There is tremendous opportunity in how we use these things, but we haven’t even picked a fixed-wing variant going to a carrier. So we’re too early in the developmental stage to really understand what we’re going to do with them, how to man, train, and equip them. But we stay in touch with the developers so, as that evolves, we will develop a syllabus for them and integrate them here.

 

What about specific capabilities involving the use of other air, space, and cyberspace assets?

The biggest part of our task is educating the aircrew on what’s available and how to ask for it. We do that routinely. To actually have an opportunity to practice with those things is more challenging because they are all being used in real-world actions. So we simulate a lot of that into our tactical systems and datalinks. But the big thing is that the crews understand what is available to our air wings and their platforms and how to ask for it.

 

As integrated combat operations with other services and allies have become the norm, how is that being reflected at NSAWC?

I think the F-35 will solve much of that because a lot of our coalition partners will be flying that aircraft as well. And the capabilities across models is so close, inherently you will understand how the other services and allies are going to use them. In which case, integrated warfare becomes a lot easier.

From a real perspective, even though our allies don’t all fly the same types of aircraft we do, many employ many of the same weapons, which simplifies things. If you look across the broad spectrum of aircraft and weapons, it’s not as diverse and confusing as it might look at first. You really integrate that at the AOC, where everybody has representatives to sit down and do this kind of integration for coalition ops, because we normally don’t have a chance to train with them due to the ops tempo and logistics at this time.

 

What is NSAWC’s role in the development of single-source, joint, integrated, and definitive combat employment tactics for all naval aviation?

That is exactly who we are, referring to NSAWC as the crown of naval aviation. All platforms at some point come there to train and get integrated and our tactical experts all come from here. So this is one-stop shopping for tactical development, training, and execution for Navy tactical aircraft.

 

What additional changes are anticipated as the center continues to evolve to meet changing technologies and threats – especially in light of the coming downsizing and realignment of the Navy and Marine Corps?

That’s a complex question. First, from a requirements perspective, how we provide inputs for naval aviation is in a prioritized format: If you have one extra dollar, here’s how we think you should spend it.

Our airplanes are more advanced and reliable than any in the world and our pilots are the best trained; if you combine those, I don’t think we have a peer in the world today. That’s not to say they’re not trying to catch up fast – and there are a lot of things we don’t know. Things are changing much more rapidly than before, with evolving technologies and more actors than when we were just worried about the Russians.

All the services are determined not to be a hollow force; we can’t afford untrained squadrons or aircraft on the ramp without parts. Naval aviation may get smaller, but we have to do so in a holistic fashion and not hold on to infrastructure and aircraft we can’t afford to maintain. So we are being very careful in how we do those budget cuts.

Regardless of how large or small we are, the model we use to train is the right model, set up to make sure whoever goes off the pointy end of a carrier is fully trained and capable of executing mission sets. We won’t take shortcuts in naval aviation training. We’ve done that before – which is why we were born. And the goal of NSAWC is we don’t do that again.

 

What do you see as the primary goal or employment of naval aviation in the coming decade?

Going back to the two different things we train to, contingency-type operations in Afghanistan and the skill sets required to protect our forces on the ground will continue because we don’t think that conflict will go away soon. And what’s happening in Africa right now is just another piece of that. At the same time, we have to be sure our guys are ready for full-on major peer combat operations.

When we got heavy in Afghanistan and Iraq, we turned up doing the TAC and FAC [forward air controller] and CAS side of our business. As we come out of Afghanistan, those things start to decrease and we can turn the rheostat back to major combat ops or warfare against a near-peer competitor. Our real strength is the capability and talent to bring to both, and the ability to change the emphasis as our world changes around us.

 

How do you believe U.S. naval aviation stands – today and in the near future – in terms of combat capabilities?

Our airplanes are more advanced and reliable than any in the world and our pilots are the best trained; if you combine those, I don’t think we have a peer in the world today. That’s not to say they’re not trying to catch up fast – and there are a lot of things we don’t know. Things are changing much more rapidly than before, with evolving technologies and more actors than when we were just worried about the Russians.

And that rapid change is happening on both sides. Cyber has gotten a tremendous amount of interest, both protecting our own networks and what can be done offensively. That piece of warfare is early on and there is a lot of opportunity there, along with unique challenges. As warfighters, our biggest challenge is knowing what level of [security] access our aircrews can get into so they can know what to ask for.

This article was first published in Defense: Spring 2013 Edition.