PUMP, SKATE, BANZAI and others

I have been looking for some UNCLASS documentation about A/A tactics such as PUMP (grinder), SKATE/SHORT SKATE, BANZAI, CRANK, BRACKET, NOTCH attack etc. Any information about comms flow from the pilot's perspective would be appreciated (AFTTP 3-1 seems to be aimed at controllers for the most part). I have a basic understanding of how they work but I don't have any documentation I can share with my squad mates.

All Weather Intercept - AWI (unclas) https://www.cnatra.navy.mil/local/docs/pat-pubs/P-825.pdf

'Plan skate' and 'plan Banzai' are referenced in the unclassified AWI and not directly, but mostly, explained. In short, following on the intercept past initial weapons release, the section lead must make a decision on wether to fight ot the merge or abort. Skate implies shoot and run. It's to release weapons and exit before entering the enemies WEZ, which is is referenced as the Minimum Abort Range or MAR. Plan Banzai would be the opposite, a directive call to fight to the merge.

Crank is fairly obvious and also mentioned in the AWI and many other places. It's a directive call, but its also a friendly aspect state, which is confusing. As a tactic, it's quite rigid in it's theory and relates to defending an incoming shot, whilst supporting your own. Reference F-Pole.

Notch isn't referenced as a 'tactic' as such, but it's also referenced in the AWI. It's sometimes part of the intercept when defending the missile, ideally after Pitbull, in order to assess your spike (and ultimately drop it) You can only notch when not supporting a missile, so you can work out where this comes. it's a basic premise of any radar missile defence.

Bracket seems to be ubiquitous, but it's mostly referenced in older docs such as Shaw's and before, when two fighters might have split, but the current Navy docs don't actually mention Bracketing as a tactic since sections stay together in training, and in fact, it seems they only teach up to sections of two fighters unclassified.

Pump, Grinder's and Chainsaw's are definitely not mentioned in the AWI. You can infer a lot about where these are used by conceptualising the racetrack CAP pattern and how you might use them both offensively and defensively, i.e. tactically. Any of these concepts you can tell is based on a simple 'baiting' premise, alternating the defending and attacking section depending on who the smaller bandit section is focusing.

General rule of thumb is that you find process, especially baseline processes taught and unclassified. Once it gets to Fleet training and tactics, those advanced tactics seem (to me) to be not unclassified and information isn't put out about how and when the armed forces may use them. However you can infer a lot about them from various sources.

Beware, there is some utter trash on YouTube from people who converted their own understandings of terms and then codified them unofficially and due to their status as a Tuber, given enough thumbs up, this rubbish gets presented as fact, so you need to be careful watching that stuff. There are plenty of legitimate resources though that make mention of the concepts, mostly the F-16 community.

My plain advice would be to read the AWI and SEM, and once you understand the principals, develop your own tactics. Principally, you don't use tactics as a "Rock beats scissors beats Paper" exercise, you use them by understanding the theory and exacting a sound strategic response to a given situation. Also, cross reference everything you read.

I've read the AWI many times and it's easy to see, it specifically removes the considerations of "tactics" and instead issues process and baseline. There's no way on God's earth you would always launch an AIM-120 on the stated timeline in every situation, so knowing that, then learning DCS missiles, you should be able to apply the concepts with some degree of relevance. Don't be afraid to make your own TTP. Most virtual squadrons do.

Lastly, enjoy DCS in this aspect. It is truly amazing how many elements of Air to Air strategy hold their legitimate usefulness in both simulation and real world use. Missiles behave very similarly, with exactly the same concepts, manipulating your sections positioning works just as well, although AI can be a little defensive and humans are way better opponents.

thanks for this, and the link to AWI, which I had not seen before, and I have read Shaw previously, do you have a reference to SEM ?