IN FOCUS: Simulation seen as key to cost-effective military training
Even the boys working with the F35 put some serious reservations when it comes to relying too much on simulation training;
"ACC has done several studies and evaluations of live and simulator training to determine the right mix of live and virtual training that maximises combat readiness while reducing training costs in today's fiscally constrained environment," says USAF major command. While the technology has great strengths in terms of procedural training and large-force employment exercises, it also has some serious accuracy limitations. "ACC also views most simulator training as a complement versus a replacement of live fly training due to the strengths of each training medium," says USAF.
....
Even with some level of motion, one major limitation of simulators is that they cannot replicate the physiological effects on the human body. Simulators cannot train student pilots on aspects of flight such as experiencing g-loading and the associated vestibular effects; nor can they replicate physiological exhaustion. A simulator is also unable to replicate the "feel" of an aircraft, such as airframe buffet cues.
"All of this is important in dogfighting - the feel of energy bleed and increasing buffet as you trade [airspeed] for nose position," says one senior USAF officer.
A senior USAF instructor pilot says he has never flown any simulator that has been able to model the flight dynamics of a fighter accurately - despite some of the latest simulators incorporating inflating g-suits, speakers for vibration and even moving plates in the seat.
For the US Navy, the problem is even more acute. There is no substitute for some of the specialised tasks naval aviators are required to carry out - such as carrier landings - which must be performed in a real aircraft.
....
There are, however, those who advocate increasing carrier qualification training in simulators to reduce naval aviators' required flight hours. "That makes us as flightcrew very nervous," Charles says.
Perhaps where the simulator is most lacking is that students are always consciously aware that there is no real danger. Another senior USAF pilot says: "You simply cannot replace the sight, sound, smell, g-forces and fear you experience when actually flying."
Charles concurs. "You can't put the fear of dying in the sim," he says. "You can't ever replicate the fact that if you get low at the boat that you will actually hit the boat."
For many younger pilots, "getting in the simulator is playing a very expensive video game", Charles says. "Now, there are folks who are very good in the sim, but do very poorly in the jet."
Charles says many young pilots are simply overwhelmed by having to operate the aircraft and its systems while simultaneously experiencing g-forces and other airborne environmental factors. "But on the other hand, there are some folks who do mediocre in the sim and get in the jet and they perform very well," he says.
....
During a real Red Flag exercise, for example, a flight lead for a four-ship of fighters might have to fly though bad weather and navigate to where he needs to go in suboptimal conditions. The pilot may also have to deal with snags with air traffic control and or administrative tasks, which happen as a matter of course during a regular flying day.
It may be necessary to deconflict from other airborne traffic or manage safety rules, or deal with issues such as an aircraft malfunction or bad radios. Charles cites situations where a USN flight lead might have to substitute a different pilot or aircraft for a certain task mid-flight as a result of unforeseen problems.
"There is friction in just getting to the fight that is not represented in the sim," the senior USAF pilot says. "There are pluses to the sim, but I still think that you need to have the majority of your training in the air."