A lot of buzz is headed around the Blogosphere and World Wide Web (that’s the www. part of a web address for our P-3 Bubbas) recently about the Brits sticking their nose into the history of TOPGUN…
According to an Article posted in the Telegraph (a UK paper)…
American Top Gun fighter pilot academy set up by British
When British pilots arrived at Miramar airbase in California in the early 1960s the Americans were losing a large number of dogfights in their multi-million Phantom fighters to the enemy's relatively "cheap" MiG 21s.
The tuition from the British pilots, all graduates of the intense Air Warfare Instructors school in Lossiemouth, Scotland, led to the Americans dominating the skies, the military historian Rowland White has revealed in Phoenix Squadron.
It was then that the their Naval Warfare Academy became known as Top Gun.
"Through the instructors on exchange at Miramar the AWIs methods made their way into perhaps the most well-known programme in the history of naval aviation: Topgun," he said.
The history of TOPGUN is well known in these here parts as many o’ Tailhooker actually took part in the furballs above the SoCAL, Nevada, and Arizona deserts and ocean ranges. It usually goes something like this… (according to wikipedia)
TOPGUN is the popular name of the United States Navy Strike Fighter Tactics Instructor (SFTI) program. SFTI is the modern-day evolution of the United States Navy Fighter Weapons School and carries out the same specialized fighter training as NFWS had from 1969 until 1996, when it was merged into the Naval Strike and Air Warfare Center at NAS Fallon, Nevada.
The United States Navy Fighter Weapons School was established on March 3, 1969 at NAS Miramar, California after a United States Navy study (sometimes referred to as the "Ault Report") directed by the Chief of Naval Operations (CNO) at less than desired performance of fighter aircraft, aircrews and weapons. The head of the study group, CAPT Frank Ault recommended that a graduate-level school be established to train fleet fighter pilots in air combat tactics to improve the relatively poor air combat performance of Navy aircrews over Vietnam.
The school was initially formed and placed under the control of Miramar-based fighter squadron VF-121 "Pacemakers", an F-4 Phantom Replacement Air Group (RAG) unit responsible for providing type-qualified air and maintenance crews to first-line units of the U.S. Navy's Pacific Fleet. It received relatively scant funding and resources and built its syllabus from scratch, while borrowing aircraft from its parent unit as well as other units to support the practical aspects of their operations.
Its objective was to develop, refine and teach Air Combat Maneuvering tactics and techniques to selected fleet air crews, using stand-in aircraft that could realistically replicate the nimble Russian-designed fighters that they were most likely to oppose in combat. At that time the threat aircraft were in the form of the transonic MiG-17 'Fresco' and the supersonic MiG-21 'Fishbed'. This teaching concept is known in military aviation parlance as DACT, or Dissimilar Air Combat Training, and presently is widely used in air arms the world over.
Air crews selected to attend the TOPGUN course were usually considered to be the best that their units could offer. Upon graduating they would then return to their parent fleet units to relay what they have learned to their fellow squadron mates, in essence becoming instructors themselves. Such personnel are known as Subject Matter Experts (SMEs).
The “Ault Report” is legendary in these here parts. Capt. Frank Ault was assigned the task by CNO, Admiral Tom Moorer, to identify the contributing factors in the Navy’s dismal Air-to-Air combat performance early in the Viet Nam War. Admiral Moorer wanted answers to the following questions (link):
- Is industry delivering to the Navy a high quality product, designed and built to specifications?
- Are Fleet support organizations delivering a high quality product to the CVA’s (aircraft carriers) and to forward sites ashore?
- Do shipboard and squadron organizations (afloat and ashore) launch an optimally ready combat aircraft-missile system?
- Does the combat aircrew fully understand and exploit the capabilities of the aircraft-missile system? (Corollary question: Is the aircraft-missile system properly designed and configured for the air-to-air mission?)
- Is the air-to-air missile system (aircraft/fire control system/missile) repair and rework program returning a quality product to the Fleet?
Captain Ault and his team from the Naval Air Systems Command, took the challenge (what else were they going to do?) and delivered the now historical “Ault Report” contained within is the stated recommendation that the Navy create an Advanced Fighter Weapons School (a masters level course in ACM).
VF-121, the Phantom RAG was the obvious place to start. And the instructors were assigned the task of establishing the curriculum and syllabus for this program. LCdr Dan Pederson and Lt Jim Ruliffson became the first two TOPGUN instructors.
VF-121 utilized the assets of VA-126’s A-4’s to provide the needed dissimilar aircraft training.
OK… y’all know the rest of the story… But apparently the Brits want some credit too… Even in Wikipedia on the Ault Report reference page, as of today there is an addendum relating to the Brits…
Critical to the training of the first instructors was a team of British pilots from the Fleet Air Arm, all graduates of the Air Warfare Instructors School in Lossiemouth, Scotland. Foremost among these was Lt-Cdr Dick Lord. Other members of this team were Lt-Cdr Paul Waterhouse and Cdr Doug MacDonald[1].
Needless to say this isn’t going over real well in the Been there Done that Have the Tee-Shirt Fighter Community…
From Neptunus Lex:
“…Well. That forms no part of the institutional memory of the institution I was a part of. In fact, the staff in my day paid a great deal more obeisance to the Israeli Air Force than the Brits, who after all, hadn’t fired an aerial shot in anger (or even petulance) since the Battle of Britain.
Not saying it’s not true - can’t know - but I will admit to a sneaking suspicion that amongst a certain class of Englishman, there is the assumption that anything useful to come out of the rebellious colonials has to do with the legacy of empire, while anything less savory owes to our own degraded nature…”
From Barking Moonbat Early Warning System:
“…Oh how I did not like reading this purely from a standpoint of national pride. With no disrespect to Brits EVER cause I always admired their military and know they are damn good. BUT ... well, you know…”
Recent Comments