Civilian Aggressor Squadrons?

[Tex_Hill]

I work for a corporate contract fuel company HQ'd at GYI/Grayson County Airport, (formerly Perrin Field), and in early May a company called International Tactical Training Center set up shop in one of the hangars here. In late May, early June they brought in an IL-78 "Midas", (which has been parked ever since), as well as a TA-4 and a L-39.

When ITTC showed up, they told the airport board that they had a contract from the Netherlands to do their aggressor training for them. The President of ITTC, (a retired USAF Lt. Gen.), stated that by the end of September they would have F-16's, MIG-29's, & SU-27's operating out of here on a permanent basis. Well, here it is November & none of this has happened. Apparently, these guys didn't have the contract with the Netherlands that they said that they had and now they claim to be shooting for contracts with the USAF & Navy. I doubt these guys will be able to pull anything off because they can't even afford to put fuel in the IL-78 in order to run the APU.

So this afternoon, I talked to a friend who recently got back from Russia after inspecting some SU-27's for a competitor of ITTC's. The company is backed by Ross Perot Jr. and is setting up shop at AFW/Alliance Ft Worth. This company does have the necessary capital, but they aren't officially announcing operations until they have everything in place.

So my question is this, is there a genuine need for this type of enterprise and if so, why?


Thanks,

Tex

 

[Coota0]

Don't know but if the set ip at Alliance goes through it will be very cool...my in-laws live pretty close to there.

 

[Gatordev]

Don't remember which company it was, but there was an outfit that started flying out of K-Bay while I was there. They shared one of the hangars w/ the -53 dudes. Is there a need? Well, they were pretty busy, usually flying 1-2 hops a day. If a battlegroup came through, they'd go out and play, but a lot of their work was w/ other surface units during work ups. Seemed to be a genuine need, from what I saw.

 

[Catmando]

So my question is this, is there a genuine need for this type of enterprise and if so, why?
Tex

Tex,
I think there may be a "need," but it is limited. Regardless, the "need" pales when faced with the overwhelming expenses, not to mention the difficulty in marketing and officially coordinating such an operation.

I knew well of a similar operation many years ago that did very well "finding and cultivating" the "needs" of friendly foreign air forces. But even with excellent credentials and impressive contracts, it could not cover expenses nor keep enough contracts going to stay in business.

As for the "why" . . . the US is obviously a leader in tactics and training. This is quite valuable to many. And there is no shortage of former military crews with considerable talent and expertise. And while there are serious security issues, I have seen these overcome in the past…but they remain (and should remain) problematic.

Then of course there is (was?) the outfit out of Palomar, who has for many years flown as "targets" for ship and BG exercises flying Lears. But that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

 

[Brett327]

Tex,
I think there may be a "need," but it is limited. Regardless, the "need" pales when faced with the overwhelming expenses, not to mention the difficulty in marketing and officially coordinating such an operation.

I knew well of a similar operation many years ago that did very well "finding and cultivating" the "needs" of friendly foreign air forces. But even with excellent credentials and impressive contracts, it could not cover expenses nor keep enough contracts going to stay in business.

As for the "why" . . . the US is obviously a leader in tactics and training. This is quite valuable to many. And there is no shortage of former military crews with considerable talent and expertise. And while there are serious security issues, I have seen these overcome in the past…but they remain (and should remain) problematic.

Then of course there is (was?) the outfit out of Palomar, who has for many years flown as "targets" for ship and BG exercises flying Lears. But that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

There's a group up in Canada that does the same thing. We would do lots of coord ops with them and the Canadian Navy up around Whidbey. Actually pretty cool to work with and they're real pros.

Brett

 

[Flash]

I work for a corporate contract fuel company HQ'd at GYI/Grayson County Airport, (formerly Perrin Field), and in early May a company called International Tactical Training Center set up shop in one of the hangars here. In late May, early June they brought in an IL-78 "Midas", (which has been parked ever since), as well as a TA-4 and a L-39.

When ITTC showed up, they told the airport board that they had a contract from the Netherlands to do their aggressor training for them. The President of ITTC, (a retired USAF Lt. Gen.), stated that by the end of September they would have F-16's, MIG-29's, & SU-27's operating out of here on a permanent basis. Well, here it is November & none of this has happened. Apparently, these guys didn't have the contract with the Netherlands that they said that they had and now they claim to be shooting for contracts with the USAF & Navy. I doubt these guys will be able to pull anything off because they can't even afford to put fuel in the IL-78 in order to run the APU.

So this afternoon, I talked to a friend who recently got back from Russia after inspecting some SU-27's for a competitor of ITTC's. The company is backed by Ross Perot Jr. and is setting up shop at AFW/Alliance Ft Worth. This company does have the necessary capital, but they aren't officially announcing operations until they have everything in place.

So my question is this, is there a genuine need for this type of enterprise and if so, why?


Thanks,

Tex

Usually companies that provide adversary support generally fly older surplus military aircraft of western origin: J35 Drakens, Hawker Hunters, T-33's, Kfirs and the old reliable, A-4's. I seriously doubt that it would be cost effective to use the newer Russian fighter, and the Russinas aren't exactly the best when it comes to supplying necessary things like parts.

http://www.atacusa.com/sections/aircraft.html

http://www.topaces.ca/Services.html

http://www.atsifightertraining.com/tactical.html

http://www.hunterteam.com/defence_simulation.htm