DOCSLIB.ORG

GAO-16-864, Accessible Version, Air Force Training

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GAO-16-864, Accessible Version, Air Force Training United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness Accessible Version GAO-16-864 September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness Highlights of GAO-16-864, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Air Force establishes combat aircrew training requirements for the full range For more than a decade, the Air Force of core missions based on an annual process, but these requirements may not focused its training on supporting operations in the Middle East. The Air reflect current and emerging training needs, because the Air Force has not Force has established goals for its comprehensively reassessed the assumptions underlying them. Specifically, combat aircrews to conduct training for assumptions about the total annual live-fly sortie requirements by aircraft, the the full range of core missions. Both criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced, and the mix the Senate and House Reports between live and simulator training have remained the same since 2012. For accompanying bills for the FY 2016 example, Air Combat Command has set the same minimum number of live-fly National Defense Authorization Act sortie requirements across aircraft platforms, but has not conducted the analysis included a provision for GAO to review needed to determine if requirements should differ based on the number of core the Air Force’s training plans. missions for each platform. Reassessing the assumptions underlying annual training requirements would better position the Air Force to meet its stated goals This report discusses the extent to which the Air Force has (1) determined for its forces to achieve a range of missions for current and emerging threats. requirements to train combat aircrews Combat fighter squadrons were generally able to complete mission training for the full range of core missions, requirements for ongoing contingency operations, such as close air support to (2) met annual training requirements ground forces, but were unable to meet annual training requirements across the for combat fighter squadrons across full range of core missions. Further, the Air Force does not systematically the full range of core missions and evaluate the effectiveness of training that has been completed against evaluated the effectiveness of this established expectations. Selected unit commanders that GAO interviewed cited training, and (3) established virtual four common factors that limited their ability to complete training, such as high training plans that include desirable deployment rates, and other factors that affected the training that aircrews were characteristics of a comprehensive strategy. GAO reviewed Air Force able to accomplish. However, Air Force processes used to record and monitor training requirements and plans and annual training do not include a systematic evaluation of training effectiveness interviewed officials with a non- against expectations. Specifically, Air Combat Command has not established the generalizable sample of units based on desired learning objectives or training support elements needed to accomplish the units’ range of core missions. training expectations and does not collect data to assess effectiveness. A more consistent basis for monitoring results is critical in tracking the Air Force’s What GAO Recommends progress in training units for the full range of core missions. GAO recommends that the Air Force Air Force plans for virtual training do not include all desirable characteristics of a (1) reassess assumptions for annual comprehensive strategy, such as a risk-based investment strategy or a time line training requirements, (2) establish and for addressing training needs. A strategy that included these elements would collect data on desired learning help ensure that the Air Force’s plans addressed its capability needs. objectives and training support elements for its training expectations, This is a public version of a sensitive report GAO issued in August 2016. It omits and (3) develop a risk-based sensitive information and data on some of the Air Force’s training priorities, investment strategy for its virtual completion of annual training requirements for active-duty fighter squadrons, and training plans. DOD concurred with the aircraft maintenance generation capabilities. third recommendation and did not concur with the first and second recommendations, stating that existing initiatives and policies address these issues. GAO believes the recommendations remain valid for the reasons discussed in this report. View GAO-16-864. For more information, contact Cary Russell at (202) 512-5431 or [email protected]. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 5 The Air Force’s Process for Developing Combat Aircrew Annual Training Requirements for the Full Range of Core Missions Is Based on Dated Assumptions 10 Combat Fighter Squadrons Are Not Meeting All of Their Annual Training Requirements across the Full Range of Core Missions, and Completed Training Is Not Being Evaluated for Effectiveness 16 Air Force Planning Documents for Virtual Training Do Not Include All Desirable Characteristics of a Comprehensive Strategy 27 Conclusions 33 Recommendations for Executive Action 33 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 34 Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 40 Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Defense 45 Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 49 Table Table 1: Extent to Which the United States Air Force Live Virtual Constructive Operational Training Flight Plan and Combat Air Force Live, Virtual, Constructive Vision Address GAO’s Desirable Characteristics for Comprehensive Strategies 28 Figures Figure 1: Characteristics of Selected Fourth- and Fifth-Generation Combat Aircraft Platforms 7 Figure 2: Air Combat Command’s Process for Developing Annual Training Requirements 11 Figure 3: F-22 Aircraft Conducting a “Hot Pit” Refueling and an F- 15C Aircraft Conducting an Aerial Refueling 22 Page i GAO-16-864 Air Force Training Abbreviations AFI Air Force Instruction DOD Department of Defense FOUO For Official Use Only LVC Live, Virtual, and Constructive RAP Ready Aircrew Program This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page ii GAO-16-864 Air Force Training 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Letter September 19, 2016 Congressional Committees For more than a decade, the Air Force focused the training of its forces on supporting operations in the Middle East, including Iraq and Afghanistan. Commanders established training requirements that they deemed necessary to prepare aircrews to conduct missions in these locations—such as close air support to ground forces—limiting training opportunities in other areas. According to Air Force reports, in the coming years, the Air Force will confront an increasingly complex security environment that will demand a wider range of skill sets and different capabilities than are currently being employed.1 For example, aircrews may be called upon to conduct missions that require freedom of maneuver in highly-contested air spaces. To meet these emerging needs, the Air Force has established goals for its fighter aircrews to conduct training for a full range of core missions.2 Replicating complex threats—such as a highly-contested airspace—in a live training environment is resource intensive and can be constrained by several factors, including airspace restrictions, weather, and range capabilities, among others. The Air Force has stated that by integrating live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) components into training it could overcome some of the limitations of training in a live-only environment but notes that it will take time and dedicated resources to address technological and capacity limitations.3 The Air Force has further stated 1See, for example, Secretary of the Air Force, America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future (July 2014); U.S. Air Force, USAF Strategic Master Plan (May 2015). 2For the purposes of this report, we use the phrase “full range of core missions” to describe the primary and secondary missions as established in each aircraft’s Designed Operational Capability statement, which summarizes specific capabilities that an Air Force unit can be called on to provide. 3According to Air Force documents, the live (L) environment is defined as real people operating real weapons systems, the virtual (V) environment is defined as real people operating simulated systems, and the constructive (C) environment is identified as software models and code that are used to improve training scenarios with computer- generated entities—such as terrain, threats, aircraft, people, and vehicles, among others. For the purposes of this report, we refer to training that includes a simulator as virtual training. Page 1 GAO-16-864 Air Force Training Letter that the integration of these components is particularly important for fifth- generation aircraft, such as the F-35, which will rely more heavily on virtual training because of the limitations of training in the live environment
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Customers 'Left Holding the Bag'
    Life insurance medical exams on life support C1 PANORAMA Appearing at the Sumter Opera House Game show, country music, comedy and more at Main Stage series A5 SERVING SOUTH CAROLINA SINCE OCTOBER 15, 1894 SUNDAY, AUGUST 6, 2017 $1.75 IN SPORTS: Week by week look at the prep football season B1 Customers ‘left holding the bag’ Sen. McElveen calls for special session of Legislature on abandoned nuke plants BY JEFFREY COLLINS actors is impulsive, and there by Senate Major- “There just needs to be a this week to review that law Associated Press isn’t a reason to immediately ity Leader Shane timeout, a pause, whatever and to consider firing the call a special session. Massey of Edge- you want to call it, until the members of the Public Ser- COLUMBIA — Both Demo- Pressure to do something, field and Senate General Assembly has the op- vice Commission, which has cratic and Republican law- whether stopping any new Minority Leader portunity to understand in de- to approve all of SCE&G’s makers in South Carolina, in- rate hikes or firing lawmaker- Nikki Setzler of tail what has happened here,” rate hikes. cluding Sen. Thomas approved regulators, is McELVEEN West Columbia, said Setzler, who was one of Sen. McElveen, a member McElveen, D-Sumter, want mounting in the days after calling for law- 25 Senate sponsors of a 2007 of the caucus, said he would the Legislature to return soon South Carolina Electric & Gas makers to return law that allowed utilities to in- like to halt any further rate to deal with the abandonment and Santee Cooper decided to Columbia and pass a reso- crease rates to pay for the increase requests.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Training: Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness, GAO-16-635SU (Washington, D.C.: Aug
    United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness GAO-16-864 September 2016 AIR FORCE TRAINING Further Analysis and Planning Needed to Improve Effectiveness Highlights of GAO-16-864, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found For more than a decade, the Air Force The Air Force establishes combat aircrew training requirements for the full range focused its training on supporting of core missions based on an annual process, but these requirements may not operations in the Middle East. The Air reflect current and emerging training needs, because the Air Force has not Force has established goals for its comprehensively reassessed the assumptions underlying them. Specifically, combat aircrews to conduct training for assumptions about the total annual live-fly sortie requirements by aircraft, the the full range of core missions. Both criteria for designating aircrews as experienced or inexperienced, and the mix the Senate and House Reports between live and simulator training have remained the same since 2012. For accompanying bills for the FY 2016 example, Air Combat Command has set the same minimum number of live-fly National Defense Authorization Act sortie requirements across aircraft platforms, but has not conducted the analysis included a provision for GAO to review needed to determine if requirements should differ based on the number of core the Air Force’s training plans. missions for each platform. Reassessing the assumptions underlying annual This report discusses the extent to training requirements would better position the Air Force to meet its stated goals which the Air Force has (1) determined for its forces to achieve a range of missions for current and emerging threats.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Command and Control the Need for Increased Adaptability
    AIR UNIVERSITY AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE Air Force Command and Control The Need for Increased Adaptability LT COL JEFFREY HUKILL, USAF, RETIRED (TEAM LEADER) COL LARRY CARTER, USAF, RETIRED COL SCOTT JOHNSON, USAF, RETIRED JENNIFER LIZZOL, DAF CIVILIAN COL EDWARD REDMAN, USAF DR. PANAYOTIS YANNAKOGEORGOS, DAF CIVILIAN Research Paper 2012–5 Air Force Research Institute Air University Press Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112–6026 July 2012 Disclaimer Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Air Force Research Institute, Air University, the United States Air Force, the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: distribution unlimited. Air Force Research Institute (AFRI) papers and other scholarly Air University studies provide independent analysis and constructive discussion on issues impor­ tant to Air Force commanders, staffs, and other deci­ sion makers. Each paper can also be a valuable tool for defining further research. These studies are available electronically or in print via the AU Press website at http://aupress.au.af.mil/papers.asp. To make comments about this paper or submit a manu­ script to be considered for publication, please e­mail AFRI at [email protected]. ii Contents List of Illustrations iv CSAF Tasking Letter v About the Authors vii Executive Summary ix Introduction 1 A Framework for Analyzing Command and Control Structures 2 Analytical Model 2 Results
    [Show full text]
  • The F–35 Joint Strike Fighter Lightning Ii Program
    i [H.A.S.C. No. 115–79] THE F–35 JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER LIGHTNING II PROGRAM HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES OF THE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION HEARING HELD MARCH 7, 2018 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 29–417 WASHINGTON : 2019 SUBCOMMITTEE ON TACTICAL AIR AND LAND FORCES MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio, Chairman FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts PAUL COOK, California, Vice Chair JAMES R. LANGEVIN, Rhode Island SAM GRAVES, Missouri JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARTHA MCSALLY, Arizona MARC A. VEASEY, Texas STEPHEN KNIGHT, California RUBEN GALLEGO, Arizona TRENT KELLY, Mississippi JACKY ROSEN, Nevada MATT GAETZ, Florida SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California DON BACON, Nebraska ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JIM BANKS, Indiana TOM O’HALLERAN, Arizona WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York ROB BISHOP, Utah JIMMY PANETTA, California ROBERT J. WITTMAN, Virginia MO BROOKS, Alabama JOHN SULLIVAN, Professional Staff Member DOUG BUSH, Professional Staff Member NEVE SCHADLER, Clerk (II) C O N T E N T S Page STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS Tsongas, Hon. Niki, a Representative from Massachusetts, Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces ................................................ 3 Turner, Hon. Michael R., a Representative from Ohio, Chairman, Subcommit- tee on Tactical Air and Land Forces .................................................................. 1 WITNESSES Conn, RADM Scott D., USN, Director, Air Warfare (OPNAV N98), Office of the Chief of Naval Operations ........................................................................ 11 Harris, Lt Gen Jerry D., USAF, Deputy Chief of Staff for Plans, Programs, and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force .............................................. 12 Rudder, LtGen Steven R., USMC, Deputy Commandant for Aviation, Head- quarters U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • History --- Page Number 
    20th FIGHTER PROUD BIRDS OF THE 20th FIGHTER WING L-R: Wing Commander’s F-16CJ Block 50, 00-0220, 79th FS Commander’s F-16C Block 50D, 91-0379; 55th FS Commander’s F-16C Block 50Q, 93-0554; 77th FS Commander’s F-16C Block 50D, 91-0377. Photo from 20th FW, Shaw AFB, SC Historian 20th Fighter Wing Association April 2018 20th Fighter Wing History --- Page Number . HISTORY OF THE 20th FIGHTER GROUP Early History of the 20th Fighter Group’s Squadrons WW I It was August 1917. It had been only fourteen years since the first powered flight and ten years since the Aeronautical Division of the U.S. Army Signal Corps had been formed. Air power was in its infancy and growing. The possibilities were endless. New innovations were occurring everywhere you looked but the Great War raged in Europe and the U.S. was gearing up for its part in that war. Three squadrons familiar to us all were formed at Kelly Field, Texas - the 55th, 77th and 79th Aero Squadrons. It is believed the first 78th Aero Squadron was also formed there. Only the 55th’s history would survive this initial formation to connect with the current squadrons. The Air Service hadn’t yet figured out what it would look like, so there were many fits and starts as the service grew. By September the three squadrons had their designations changed to Aero Construction Squadrons. On Sept. 17, 1917 the 55th Aero Construction Squadron was on its way to N.Y. for deployment to France.
    [Show full text]
  • FALL 2015 - Volume 62, Number 3
    FALL 2015 - Volume 62, Number 3 WWW.AFHISTORICALFOUNDATION.ORG Fall 2015 -Volume 62, Number 3 WWW.AFHISTORICALFOUNDATION.ORG Features A War Too Long: Part II John S. Schlight 6 New Sandys in Town: A–7s and Rescue Operations in Southeast Asia Darrel Whitcomb 34 Ivory and Ebony: Officer Foes and Friends of the Tuskegee Airmen Daniel L. Haulman 42 Dragons on Bird Wings: The Combat History of the 812th Fighter Air Regiment By Vlad Antipov & Igor Utkin Review by Golda Eldridge 50 Richthofen: The Red Baron in Old Photographs By Louis Archard Review by Daniel Simonsen 50 The Ardennes, 1944-1945: Hitler’s Winter Offensive Book Reviews By Christer Bergström Review by Al Mongeon 50 The Medal of Honor: A History of Service Above and Beyond By Boston Publishers, ed. Review by Steven D. Ellis 51 American Military Aircraft 1908-1919 By Robert B. Casari Review by Joseph Romito 51 Believers in the Battlespace: Religion, Ideology and War By Peter H. Denton, ed. Review by R. Ray Ortensie 52 British Airship Bases of the Twentieth Century By Malcolm Fife Review by Carl J. Bobrow 53 The Phantom in Focus: A Navigator’s Eye on Britain’s Cold War Warrior By David Gledhill Review by Mike R. Semrau 53 Lords of the Sky By Dan Hampton Review by Janet Tudal Baltas 54 An American Pilot with the Luftwaffe: A Novella and Stories of World War II By Robert Huddleston Review by Steve Agoratus 54 The Astronaut Wives Club By Lily Koppel Review by Janet Tudal Baltas 55 Malloch’s Spitfire: The Story and Restoration of PK 350 By Nick Meikle Review by Steve Agoratus 56 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Air Force Pricelist As of 3/1/2011
    Saunders Military Insignia PO BOX 1831 Naples, FL 34106 (239) 776-7524 FAX (239) 776-7764 www.saundersinsignia.com [email protected] Air Force Pricelist as of 3/1/2011 Product # Name Style Years Price 1201 Air Force Branch Tape Patch, sew on, Black 3.00 1216 AVG Blood Chit Flying Tigers Silk 20.00 1218 Desert Storm Chit Silk 8/1990-Current 38.00 1219 Korean War Chit Silk 38.00 1301 336th Fighter Squadron USAF F-15E Fighter Color Patch 10.00 1305 F15E Fighter Weapons School Patch 10.00 1310 EB66 100 Missions Patch 9.00 1311 129th Radio Squadron Mobile Patch, subdued 3.50 1313 416th Bombardment Wing Patch 9.00 1314 353rd Combat Training Squadron Patch 6.50 1315 Air Education and Training Command InstructorPatch 6.50 1317 45th Fighter Squadron USAF Fighter Patch Color 10.00 1318 315th Special Operations Wing Patch 9.00 1321 1st Fighter Wing (English) Patch, Handmade 9.00 1326 100th Fighter Squadron USAF Fighter Patch Color 10.00 1327 302nd Fighter Squadron USAF Fighter Patch Color 23.00 1328 48th Tactical Fighter Squadron USAF Fighter Patch Color 7.50 1329 332nd Fighter Group Patch 10.00 1330 20th Fighter Wing Patch, desert subdued 7.50 1331 21st Special Operations Squadron KnifePatch 6.50 1333 Areospace Defense Command GoosebayPatch Lab 4.00 1335 60th Fighter Squadron USAF Fighter Patch Color 9.00 1336 Spectre AC130 Patch 9.00 1338 Spectre Patience Patch 8.00 1339 162nd Fighter Gp Int Patch 10.00 1341 442nd Tactical Fighter Training SquadronPatch (F111) 8.00 1342 21st Special Operations Squadron patch 7.50 1346 522nd Tactical Fighter Squadron Patch, subdued 3.00 1347 Doppler 1984 Flt.
    [Show full text]
  • 'World War 2 Treasure Hunters' TV Series RAF Kings Cliffe
    ‘World War 2 Treasure Hunters’ TV Series RAF Kings Cliffe Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire Client: Date: July 2018 Series 1, Episode 5 Magnetometer Scanning, Metal Detector Survey & Test Pit Reports SACIC Report No. 2017/118 Authors: Timothy Schofield, Mark Sommers & Stephen Taylor © SACIC RAF Kings Cliffe Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire ‘World War 2 Treasure Hunters’ Television Series Series 1, Episode 5 Magnetometer Scanning, Metal Detector Survey & Test Pit Reports Authors: Timothy Schofield, Mark Sommers, Stephen Taylor Illustrator: Timothy Schofield, Mark Sommers, Rui Santo Editor: Stuart Boulter Report Date: July 2018 HER Information Site Name: RAF Kings Cliffe, Kings Cliffe, Northamptonshire Date of Fieldwork: 20th – 21st June 2017 Grid Reference: TL 0445 9875 Oasis Reference: suffolka1-323511 Project Officers: Timothy Schofield, Mark Sommers WWII Finds Expert: Stephen Taylor Client: Emporium Productions Ltd Digital report submitted to Archaeological Data Service: http://ads.ahds.ac.uk/catalogue/library/greylit Prepared By: Timothy Schofield, Mark Sommers & Stephen Taylor Date: July 2018 Approved By: Stuart Boulter Position: Senior Project Officer Date: July 2018 Signed: Contents Summary 1. Introduction 2 2. Geology and topography 4 3. Archaeological background 5 4. Methodology 7 5. Results and discussion 9 6. Conclusion 11 7. Archive deposition 12 8. Acknowledgements 12 9. Bibliography 13 List of Figures Figure 1. Site location 3 Figure 2. Kings Cliffe – Location Map 15 Figure 3. Kings Cliffe – Magnetic scanning results, metal detector survey area, findspot locations 17 Figure 4. Section of Test Pit 19 List of Appendices Appendix 1. Metal detector finds from RAF Kings Cliffe Appendix 2. OASIS form Summary On the 20th and 21st June 2017, Suffolk Archaeology Community Interest Company (SACIC) undertook a magnetometer scanning, metal detector survey and test pitting exercise on a suspected World War 2 (WW2) dump site on the former RAF Kings Cliffe base in Northamptonshire.
    [Show full text]
  • U N I T E D S T a T E S a I R F O R C E Major General
    2/14/2017 www.af.mil/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/Print.aspx?PortalId=1&ModuleId=858&Article=108613 U N I T E D S T A T E S A I R F O R C E MAJOR GENERAL JERRY D. HARRIS JR. Maj. Gen. Jerry Harris is Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia. He assists the Commander in organizing, training, equipping and maintaining combat­ready forces for rapid deployment and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of peacetime air sovereignty and wartime defense. The command operates more than 1,300 aircraft, 34 wings, 19 bases, and has more than 70 operating locations worldwide with 94,000 active­duty and civilian personnel. When mobilized, the Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve contribute more than 700 aircraft and 49,000 people to ACC. As the Combat Air Forces lead agent, ACC develops strategy, doctrine, concepts, tactics, and procedures for air­ and space­power employment. The command provides conventional and information warfare forces to all unified commands to ensure air, space and information superiority for warfighters and national decision­makers. The command can also be called upon to assist national agencies with intelligence, surveillance and crisis response capabilities. General Harris entered the Air Force in 1985 as a graduate of the ROTC program at Washington State University. He has served as a flight commander, operations officer, weapons officer, and inspector general. The general served on the staffs of two numbered Air Forces and one major command, all in operations. He has also served as the Combined Air and Space Operations Center Battle Director for operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom.
    [Show full text]
  • 131St FS Eagles Soar Into Tyndall
    Gulf Defender Friday, November 17, 2017 tyndall.af.mil gulfdefender.com 325FWTyndall 116ACW, JOINT STARS JOIN 131st FS Eagles soar into Tyndall CHECKERED FLAG 18-1 | PAGE 3 By Airman 1st Class Delaney Rose Team JSTARS 325th Fighter Wing Public Affairs provides joint airborne command TYNDALL AIR FORCE and control, BASE — The 104th Fighter intelligence, Wing, 131st Fighter surveillance, and Squadron from Barnes Air reconnaissance over National Guard Base, Mas- land and water and sachusetts, deployed nearly provides combat 200 members and seven support forces to aircraft to participate in meet state and Checkered Flag 18-1 and national objectives. the concurrently running Weapons System Evalua- tion Program (WSEP) Com- CHECKERED FLAG bat Archer at Tyndall Air PICTURES Force Base. Nov. 6-17. | PAGES 8-9 Checkered Flag is a large-scale exercise that Checkered Flag integrates the war-fighting is a large-scale, power of both fourth and aerial total-force fifth- generation aircraft. exercise that The purpose of the exer- combines fourth cise is to provide a training and fi ft h-generation environment that simulates airframes enhancing realistic threats in order to the capabilities improve the proficiency of Airmen while and effectiveness of Air- training to rapidly men and maintain the respond to current, future of air superiority. real-world confl icts The 104th Fighter and preparing for Wing brought their Air- the future of air men and F-15C Eagles, a superiority. fourth generation aircraft, to continue their mis- sion of maintaining highly trained, well-equipped, and motivated military Commissary ............... 2 forces in order to provide Pics ........................8-9 combat-ready F-15 aircraft A U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Colonel R. Cary Amburn
    U N I T E D S T A T E S A I R F O R C E COLONEL R. CARY AMBURN Colonel R. Cary Amburn is the Deputy Director of Communications, Headquarters Air Combat Command, Joint Base Langley-Eustis, Virginia. He is responsible for cyberspace and communications policy, resource advocacy, and program management supporting Air Combat Command’s mission—providing combat ready forces to deliver dominant combat airpower in support of national security strategy implementation. His team provides critical cyberspace and communications support for the command’s 34 wings, 1,300 aircraft, 19 bases, and 70 worldwide operating locations with 94,000 active- duty and civilian personnel. Prior to this assignment, Colonel Amburn served as the Director of Command, Control, Communications and Computers Systems (CJTF/J6), Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa where he led military and contract personnel in the planning, procuring and implementation of communication projects supporting the task force’s mission throughout its 9-country AOR in East Africa as well as providing expeditionary communications support to the East African Response Force. Colonel Amburn is a Cyberspace Operations Officer and has served in every level of the Air Force structure from Headquarters to Squadron. He has commanded both garrison and deployed communications units. EDUCATION 1989 Bachelor of Arts in Political Science with a minor in Business Management, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee. 1989 Operations Management Officers Course, Keesler AFB, Mississippi. 1993 Squadron Officers School, Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 1995 Master of Arts in Public Administration, Troy State University, Troy, Alabama. 1996 Master of Science in Human Resource Management, Troy State University, Troy, Alabama.
    [Show full text]
  • U N I T E D S T a T E S a I R F O R C E Lieutenant General
    U N I T E D S T A T E S A I R F O R C E LIEUTENANT GENERAL JERRY D. HARRIS JR. Lt. Gen. Jerry Harris is Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic Plans and Requirements, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C. In support of the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force, General Harris leads the development and integration of the Air Force strategy, long­range plans and operational capabilities­based requirements. He directs and coordinates activities ensuring the Air Force builds and employs effective air, space and cyber forces to achieve national defense objectives. General Harris entered the Air Force in 1985 as a graduate of the ROTC program at Washington State University. He has served as a flight commander, operations officer, weapons officer and inspector general. The general served on the staffs of two numbered Air Forces and one major command, all in operations. He has also served as the Combined Air and Space Operations Center Battle Director for operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom. General Harris has commanded at squadron, group and wing levels. Prior to his current assignment, General Harris was the Vice Commander, Air Combat Command, Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, responsible for organizing, training, equipping and maintaining combat­ready forces for rapid deployment and employment while ensuring strategic air defense forces are ready to meet the challenges of peace time air sovereignty and wartime defense. General Harris is a command pilot with more than 3,100 flying hours in the F­16. EDUCATION 1985 Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering, Washington State University 1992 Squadron Officer School, Maxwell AFB, Ala 1997 Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, Ala.
    [Show full text]