Countering the aerial threat

Training any modern air force to allow it to deliver the optimal military effect is an expensive process. This is epitomised in the provision of live aggressor aircraft and associated resources to replicate the actions of an expected hostile air force. This aggressor force must mirror an enemy’s techniques, tactics and procedures (TTP) and where possible, aircraft performance but there are many ways of achieving those goals.

The concept of using specialist aerial training services to train and test air forces in opposition aerial tactics has its roots in the Vietnam War when in 1969 the US Navy formed its Navy Fighter Weapons School at the then Naval Air Station (NAS; now Marine Corps Air Station – MCAS) Miramar, California. Referred to variously as Red Air, Aggressor, Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT) or Adversary aircraft, the approach adopted by the Navy Fighter Weapons School helped the US Navy (USN) to develop TTPs to counter the MiG-17 and MiG-21 aircraft of the Vietnam People’s Air Force. Perhaps more importantly, it significantly reduced the USN’s attrition rate. The US Air Force (USAF) rapidly followed suit and established its own aggressor squadrons.

Although USN, USMC and USAF aggressor squadrons remain active today, a 2017 Congressional Research Service paper highlighted a need to enable the US Department of Defense (DoD) to, “alleviate shortages of pilots and…shortages in readiness with the Navy and Air Force [by] contracting out some kinds of pilot training – specifically the live simulation of enemy aircraft.” To address these issues, greater emphasis has been placed on using contractor provided aggressor services to counter what a Government Accountability Office (GAO) letter to the Armed Services Committee in December 2021 described specifically as, “near-peer adversaries, such as China and Russia.”

Additionally, these contractor-provided aerial services have grown to include the provision of electronic warfare (EW) and close air support (CAS) training. The current trend sees this market continuing to grow not only in the US but also with a number of foreign air arms.

One of the leading providers of these services is Top Aces where the company, “anticipates continued business growth as military forces modernise, adopt 5th generation aircraft like the F-35, and prioritise enhancing operational readiness,” the company’s Vice President of International Business, James McGovern told ESD. “In the context of recent geopolitical events – the demand for live, realistic, challenging, and affordable training scenarios that replicate near-peer adversary capabilities has increased [and is] providing increasing value.”

McGovern opined that by leaving the provision of aggressor services to a specialist contractor, air forces can “concentrate on core Blue Air techniques rather than assuming adversary roles.”

Another perspective on the growth in the provision of aggressor services is provided by private military contractor, Draken International. With its headquarters in Lakeland, Florida and a major operation in the UK following Draken’s takeover of Cobham Aviation Services in 2020, the company has a global footprint. According to the company’s spokesperson, Alistair Balmain, the “geopolitical volatility” that has been “experienced globally over the past few years has brought into sharp relief the need for armed forces to be prepared to engage threats of varying intensity” and this is driving the take-up on third-party provided aggressor services. Conflicts in places such as Ukraine have “brought the reality of war to Europe, confirming the need for a better defensive posture”, he said.

US DoD takes the lead

In the latest iteration of contractor-supplied Red Air for the USAF, September 2024 saw the DoD select eight companies to supply adversary air (ADAIR) services, including CAS to Air Combat Command. Under the terms of the USD 5.4 billion programme, referred to as Combat Air Force/Contracted Air Support II (CAF/CAS II), the eight companies selected for the programme will operate from Luke, Seymour Johnson, Kelly, Hill and Eglin AFBs. According to the DoD: “This contract provides complete contracted air support services for adversary air threats and close air support threats. Work will be performed throughout and outside the contiguous US and is expected to be completed by 13 October 2029.”

Recipients of the award were: Airborne Tactical Advantage (ATAC), Draken International, RAVN Aerospace, TACAIR and Top Aces with CAS services being provided by Blue Air Training, Coastal Defense and Valkyrie Aero.

 

CAF/CAS II is clearly significant but its cost is only a portion of what the DoD spends on replicating hostile air assets. Currently underway is the USN’s REDAIR Task Order that ends in 2028, which is being carried out by Reno, Nevada-based Tactical Air Support. As for the US Navy’s EW threat training, this is being supplied by Phoenix Air Group under a USD 165 million contract to provide 5,000 hours per year.

Although contractorised training provision is growing, the DoD still provides a significant proportion of its own in-house adversary air capabilities. The USN for example supports three aggressor reserve squadrons (VFC-12, VFC-13 and VFC-111) flying the F-5N/F Tiger II and F-16A/B/C. The upgrade to the latter fleet was undertaken by Amentum and cost USD 818 million whilst the F-5s are being upgraded under the ARTEMIS programme. The USAF has 64th, 65th, and 706th Aggressor squadrons, while the USMC has VMFT-401 flying the F-5N and based at MCAS Yuma.

One issue to arise from the use of commercial contractors and indeed, military in-house aggressor provision, is the types of aircraft being flown and their capabilities. These aircraft – with the notable exception of 65th Aggressor Squadron that flies the F-35A Lightning – are all 3rd- or 4th-generation aircraft that are trying to simulate 5th-generation platforms such as the Russian Su-57 and Chinese J-20.

This ‘performance gap’ can be overcome with avionic solutions according to Top Aces’ McGovern. “Top Aces’ fleet of A-4 and F-16 Advanced Aggressor Fighters are both equipped with the company’s proprietary Advanced Aggressor Mission System (AAMS),” he told ESD. “This open mission system is federated from the aircraft Operational Flight Program and allows for the integration of cutting-edge technology, such as AESA [active electronically scanned array] radar, IRST [infrared search and track], and the Scorpion Helmet Mounted Display, effectively replicating the threats posed by 4th- and 5th-generation adversary fighter aircraft.”

Top Aces believe that having an open architecture avionics system enables “customers to continuously adapt their training threat,” including making use of integrated live, virtual and constructive domains. Along with its partners, EpiSci, Coherent Technical Services Inc and Seger Aviation, the company has developed what it terms, a “proprietary AI-driven autonomous constructive wingman” that has been integrated with the company’s AAMS on the F-16. The project is still in the operational testing and evaluation phase but the company says other capabilities, such as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), can also be virtually added.

Another example of adding a live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) capability is epitomised by the Advanced Tactical Augmented Reality System (ATARS) that has been developed by Red Six Aerospace. ATARS addresses a key problem associated with aggressor training in that it enables pilots to identify and engage virtual targets as well as operating with a virtual wingman. The company is currently under contract with the USAF to integrate ATARS with unspecified Special Forces assets at Hurlburt Field, Florida and is also conducting trials in the UK to integrate the system on the BAE Systems Hawk T2 aircraft.

 

Draken is more circumspect when it comes claiming how it replicates 5th-generation threats. “To fly peer versus peer training using ‘exquisite’ 5th-gen assets is often prohibitively expensive and restricted due to national security constraints, so Draken doesn’t claim to offer a service that replicates exactly the performance of 5th-generation threat platforms,” says Balmain. “Instead, our blend of live EW threat replication and live Red Air services achieves a substantial proportion of the required 5th-generation training output in a cost-effective fashion. Our technology roadmap ensures we constantly optimise our services to reflect the evolving threat picture we present for these platforms…and deploy technologies that create the required training enablers.”

But it is not all about manned aircraft. US UAV specialist platform manufacturer General Atomics has been contracted by the DoD to provide two specially modified MQ-20 Avenger UAVs into surrogate adversary autonomous aircraft to address the DoD’s Project Red 5 requirement. Managed by the DoD’s Test Resource Management Center (TRMC), the programme allows US 5th-generation aircraft to train against modern, stealthy UAV threats.

Another layer of cost to be added to the aggressor equation concerns the method of tracking an aircraft’s position and weapon engagement status. This process is known as Autonomous Air Combat Manoeuvring Instrumentation (AACMI) and features an external pod or internal unit linked to the aircraft’s databus and passes information, in real-time, via satellite positioning systems. Manufacturers include IAI, Leonardo, Collins Aerospace and Cubic Defense.

Typical systems include the Cubic P5/P6 AACMI system that is encrypted for use by 4th- and 5th-generation aircraft, and the Rockwell Collins Tactical Combat Training System II (TCTS II), also security cleared for use by 4th- and 5th-generation aircraft.

Cubic has also developed a software tool to assess air combat exercises. Known as Simplified Planning Execution Analysis and Reconstruction (SPEAR), the software “delivers a complete and effective real-time and playback of ‘when, how and what’ happened, allowing the participants to spend the majority of their debrief time on the analysis of ‘why’ it happened,” explains Paul Averna, the company’s VP and GM of Advanced Training Solutions.

The dilemma for both in-house and external providers of Red Air services is to stay abreast of enemy TTPs to make training relevant and of real value. McGovern says this is a “challenge but it’s also a crucial element” in providing meaningful adversary air services.

 

“Top Aces invests in open-source intelligence analysis and research to ensure our training reflects the most current and relevant adversary TTPs, in collaboration with our customers’ desired requirements,” explains McGovern. “Our team works closely with various defence organisations and government agencies to ensure our training scenarios are highly representative. This ongoing effort not only enhances the realism of our services but also better prepares our NATO and partner Air Force customers to effectively counter diverse threats in dynamic environments.”

European approaches

Adding together the cost of in-house and contractor provided aggressor services alongside infrastructure support such as CAS, EW, AACMI and ranges, and it becomes clear why the US DoD spends many billions of dollars each year on replicating enemy threats. Smaller European air forces simply do not have the financial muscle to replicate what the US DoD can offer.

The UK for example has had to cut its cloth accordingly following the demise of its Air Support to Defence Operational Training (ASDOT) programme that was scrapped in 2019 for failing to secure funding. Since then, a plethora of programmes have been launched – or launched and then overtaken – to focus on target services, Red Air and EW provision.

In January 2025, Draken was awarded a USD 215 million contract to provide the “ability to respond to missile attacks, air-to-air combat, electronic warfare, and attacks on ships from aircraft,” the MoD said. Known as the Interim Medium-Speed Operational Readiness Training Services programme, this contract partially superseded the Interim Red Air Aggressor Training Services (IRAATS) programme that Draken secured in 2020 with the first Red Air sorties flown using Draken’s L-159 Honey Badgers from December 2022.

The UK MoD’s next requirement is understood to be part of the ‘Mustang Portfolio’ that involves Red Air and EW/air defence simulation. A Prior Information Notice (PIN) has been issued to industry and this 15 year project is forecast to begin in 2028.

Supporting the UK’s wider aggressor initiative has seen Draken working with Collins Aerospace to introduce the latter’s Joint Secure Air combat training System (JSAS) to provide an enhanced ACMI type capability. According to Collins Aerospace, “JSAS pods will enable near real time combat training information to be viewed at the aircraft base, and be ready for de-brief immediately after landing.” To enhance interoperability with coalition partners, “the system will be upgraded in time with a variant of the next generation TCTS II pods enabling fully encrypted interoperability with all coalition platforms across legacy P5 and future P6 ACMI waveforms.”

In the Netherlands, the Royal Netherlands Air Force (RNLAF) awarded a contract to AEC Skyline and Top Aces in late 2024 to provide adversary air services under a proof-of-concept trial. AEC Skyline acquired three former Royal Thai Air Force L-39ZA Albatross aircraft for CAS, EW and target towing training although it is thought the RNLAF contract will see Top Aces using its A-4/TA-4J Skyhawk complete with AAMS that are used to provide training alongside AlphaJets and a Learjet 35 for the Bundeswehr. The decade-long programme with the Bundeswehr has seen Top Aces provide training for the nation’s air force, navy and army.

 

As to France, their air force has a significant gap in its abilities to generate aggressor forces. In 2021, the ARES Group procured ex-Qatari Air Force Mirage 2000s to meet an informal European Defence Agency (EDA) requirement to provide aggressor aircraft. Procor has also bought Mirage 2000s but as yet, no formal contract with the DGA procurement agency is thought to have been signed.

Closing thoughts

As the cost of operating 5th-generation combat aircraft continues to rise, the requirement for surrogate threat aircraft accelerates. The challenge for smaller air forces is the cost of the aggressor service and the fidelity of that service, both in terms of aircraft performance and the exploitation of potential enemy TTPs to replicate the 5th-generation platforms that are likely to be faced.

However, threats are not set in aspic and continue to evolve. Two of the trends that many customers are now focussing on and needing to address are one-way attack (OWA) drones and sea-skimming missiles. These growing threats are made more difficult to counter by a potential enemy’s EW threat profile.

The US is well positioned in its aggressor provision, but the same cannot be said for many nations in Europe. Perhaps it is time for NATO or the EDA to address this issue by establishing a multi-national capability?

Author Box: Following a career in the British Army specialising in air defence, Dr Trevor Nash PhD spent four years in the T&S industry before becoming defence journalist concentrating on training, simulation.