Whatever happened to the 4-ship formation?

[typerated]

A few years ago it was more common to see a 4-ship rather than a singleton or pair of fast jets.

But now I can’t recall seeing more than a pair at low level in many a year.

Surely there is more to it than lack of airframes?

[peppermint_jam]

We're flat broke like everyone else!

[jamesdevice]

no pilots to fly them

[just another jocky]

IF 4-ships were needed, they would be flown. Tactics and the requirements have changed...this is no longer the Cold war so 4-ships penetrating the IGB at low-level in defensive formation are not as necessary. What is necessary is training new crews in CAS for current ops. Once your op cycle is complete, then the other aspects of your capability can be practiced.

I flew a 4-ship recently. Have another one planned this week.

[OvertHawk]

maybe it reflects a change in the tactics that the crews are training for?

[xray one]

The 4 ship recovery was normally the biggest debrief point!

[L J R]

I was more nervous about the taxi plan myself!

[just another jocky]

Loser Plan! :eek:

[Mach Two]

Jam and Jockey have it. it all comes down to hours and op requirements. IMHO it's a skill we're losing and it's a good way of stretching the youngsters. But times change and so must we.

[APG63]

Frankly, Typerated, the whole fly pro is thinner than it was a few years ago. But we train for different missions. That said, M2 makes a good point. Once skills are lost it's hard to get them back if we ever need them again. Anyway, 4-ships do still happen, they're just not the main trg focus.

[L J R]

Brief a four ship, step as a three, taxi a pair and one into the departure end cable.....

[APG63]

Nice one, LJR. So many times!

[APG63]

Yeah, but's one hell of a formation. :E

[Alber Ratman]

The Swiss can do better.. a three ship with only a pair! LOL

'Jet Man' Flies In Formation Over Alps - YouTube

[500N]

That was pretty impressive, all 3 keeping everything together.

We'll see these Jet packs in use with the SEALS in the not too distant future.:O

[VinRouge]

4 has to have advantages over 2 in terms of ACM surely? Next threats have to be Iran or proxy with China, so would have thought 4 ship would be coming back to the fore? Lets face it, we are on the wind down for Herrick, we might be ace at cas, but its a skillset that in the post stan environment that will be once forgotten.

Or did I just say jehovah?

[typerated]

I suppose the world has moved on from low-level penetration and dropping dumb bombs as the standard way of doing business.

Who would have thought that when the Tornado was entering service.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Salty Hammer 1990,
18 ship vs "Magic gave up counting at 150+".
I don't think we were the only large AD formation either.
Cracking fun!!

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Very good,
except we recovered to 2 different bases and no-one landed min fuel ("I learned about big fuel reserves from that."). I think the point being made by others earlier was that:
1 We may be doing 2 ship CAS now, but the future (e.g. China, or a single big strike required against a nascent nuclear power ) might require big formations
2 If you don't practice these things, the skills die.
3 Wars tend to happen at inconvenient times and in awkward places, with little time for practice and even less time for regenerating dead skills.

I wonder whether we are doing the "other stuff" often enough to keep at least a core of aircrews at least familiar with such procedures. People shooting at you is no time to be reinventing the wheel.

[Flap62]

To all intents and purposes there's no such thing as an 8 ship or 16 ship. It resolves into units of four and as soon as things get messy they virtually operate autonomously. The difficult bit is the planning, deconfliction and taxy out - after that it all goes to a ball of chalk anyway!

[Mach Two]

Fox 3,

My point exactly. And, let's face it, there's never been a less convenient time for a war than now. Well, except in the coming years when numbers have shrunk even more and perishable skills are all gone.

M2 :ok:

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

I agree that any engaged 4-ball acts autonomously, and often drops to 2 pairs. But the airborne leader of the 16 can, and did in this case, make quite a difference. Shuffling a/c between 4 ships, repositioning each 4 ship's CAP datum and deciding commits are just some of the decisions. Magic can't do everything.

[typerated]

I remember Salty Hammer 1990 - a USAFE package of about 60 went through Spade in about 10 mins.

If I remember correctly first up was a fighter sweep of F-15s.
Then a wild weasel package of F-4Gs and F-16s.
A few odds and sods then a 32 ship group of F-111s (came in 4 by 4!)

Last through were some more F-15s and some RF-4s to snap the smoking holes.

I presume the CAPs were all off the Northumberland coast?

[Bill Macgillivray]

A four ship (or indeed a two ship!) is not really a viable fighting formation in this day and age, IMHO. Talk "Typhoon" or any "F-series" and equivalents and you have singletons that probably have more capability than we have ever seen in the fighter world - however big the formation! "Watch yer 6"!!:ok::ok:

[Easy Street]

Four aircraft flying around in the same bit of sky in a modern threat environment are just asking to be killed in a single trigger press by either a Fox 3-equipped fighter defence or a double-digit SAM. In such an environment my preferred tactic would be to split to the four winds and run for your lives - maybe seeing the other aircraft in the distance near the target, but otherwise not again until recovery! In an ideal world you would maintain SA on the whereabouts of your buddies and other friendlies with a datalink picture, which is why datalink is likely to become a minimum requirement for participation in future air campaigns (IMHO). The short-range IR threat, traditionally the reason for cross-cover and mutually supporting elements, simply pales into insignificance against things like SA-20 and PL-12. The hard part is convincing dyed-in-the-wool cold war warriors that this is so!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You are right about somethings Easy Street, but not others. There is a lot you can achieve with reference to tactics with a 4-ship against an active or semi-active shooter that do not involve splitting to the four winds. Even with a data link there would still be a need for cross cover, but not at the ranges that the GR4 flies battle formation at present; L16 is not the panacea, but it will go a long way to changing tactics for the better, roll on TIEC! I don't think data link will be a minimum requirement in a campaign, what happens if the link goes down, or it is U/S in your jet, does everyone just go home?

The cold war warriors are actually quite right to promote the 4-ship. I agree, some of the tactics might be a bit dated, but it is a tiny part and something that can be remedied. Its the dyed-in-the-wool Afghanistan warriors that need to be convinced that pairs unopposed CAS is not going to be how every war unfolds and is certainly not the way ahead.

BTW, what would you be doing floating around in a SA-20 MEZ?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Concentration in time and space is always going to have some validity. I think what Easy Street says is applicable to certain 4 v 2 scenarios - the recce jags used to do this. Also, if the deconfliction can be done, separate routes coming together only over the target achieves concentration. But, as AD, picking off singletons is like Xmas. Salty Hammer showed you absolutely cannot turn your ass to the stream.
Also, with point defence, if the bombers all spread out then the necessarily spread out SAMs get 1 kill each.

Run an early package which is all fighters playing bombers has been done in every war, and works bloody well. Then the opposition has to assume the trick could happen anytime. In a big package, it's hard to figure out who's fighter and who's bomber. Against singletons it doesn't much matter.

Cold War, Gulf War, Next War, Peloponnesian War - a means is still needed to concentrate effort.

Yes, Fox3 AAMs and new SAMs make it harder, and mean some Cold War tactics won't work, but I think a numerically significant (or even superior) opposition is going to require concentration of effort somehow.

[APG63]

Fox 3, you couldn't have put it better. If anyone thinks there won't be another GW1 or GW2, they lack imagination. And we have to keep going back to packages to penetrate/saturate defences. Question is, what's going to be left of the Air Force to do it? And where will the skills come from?

I am only speaking for myself here, but I don't see too much of those capabilities left around her just now.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

We need to be careful here. Cold War warriors are out of touch and don't have access to what has been tried on recent exercises.
Balanced against that is that most of the principles of air warfare (and indeed, warfare) haven't changed.
It seems likely that, in the current climate, the threat is being changed to meet the capability, and the risk is being lowered to justify reducing the capability, ad infinitum. Or ad one F-35, 2 pilots with 50 hours each a year, and no worries since the only FO-accepted threat is .... Jersey!

[APG63]

Yes, Fox 3. Right again. But there are a lot of us still here that were cold war warriors. Or did I miss your point?

[APG63]

Oh, and I'm not out of touch. Still very much in the fray.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

The knackered out-of-touch git is Self.
I'm just trying to figure out how projected RAF capability / tactics would stand up against a newly-nuclear-tipped Iran, or the Chinese deciding to "reclaim" Taiwan, or Russia reoccupying a few of it's old Republics, or any of about 20 other potential scenarios.

[APG63]

Fair point. I think we're all trying to work that one out. I guess we all just crack on and what we always do, the best we can. We're still going to good, no matter how much the politicos take away from us. Not sure they're leaving us enough to do everything that might be asked.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Banana,

I would assume that you are being sarcastic when you say that cold war warriors are out of touch?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Oops,
responding just to previous comment about "cold war warriors". Well aware that there are always people in a generation who get their thinking stuck in a single mode.
Wished to point out that that doesn't apply to every warrior from the Cold War.
It's the classic dialogue:
"It ain't the same now, Grandad"
vs
"Some principles still are, Sonny. Tell me how your smart-arse new toys/tactics will solve this one"
Are we developing a new, shiny "square" wheel, or was it the old one that was square ("You try parking on a hill with them new-fangled round things, sonny")?
I think any new tactic should be put up to question, and should stand on its own merits, not who's saying it. Otherwise we will always be preparing for the last war.
There are reasonably foreseeable scenarios where big packages might be necessary.

I also think it is the job of the Service chiefs to point out to Government when policy cannot be achieved with the forces allocated, and to insist that policy or capability is changed accordingly, on pain of resignation. I don't think this has been done for about 15 years at least. The basis of democracy is otherwise being undermined. Never mind the fact that we are in the final stages of losing two wars.