Jag pilots to be airborne FC's? [Archive]

Captain Kirk

12th Jul 2004, 10:12

DON'T PANIC

I just thought those comforting words might help.

sERIOUSLY THOUGH (oops) the trg system currently produces about 30% SS and 70% TS pilots. In about 5 years it will need to swap those numbers – a seriously difficult proposition. I am NOT in the know but can’t see how SS experience can be squandered – it’s the only factor that makes the impending change in sqn manning remotely viable and mitigates an inherently hazardous shift.

Jags were due to go in 08 anyway and they won’t turn the lights out at Colt overnight – I would guess that even 18 months would be challenging to wrap up a stn. So that’s end 06, early 07 – about the time the first Typhoon sqns are standing up. Clearly, not everyone is going to step cockpit to cockpit, but if a year/18 months/2 years is the price of a Typhoon slot I can see a few volunteers.

So – where to ‘hold’? Actually, the back end of an E3 isn’t so daft. Giving non-radar jocks a look at RAP would not be a wasted experience. Could also be a useful exercise in exploring mission commander type scenarios. Question: where would you rather be as a CSAR mission commander? I, for one, do not think it could be delegated to anyone other than a FJ operator, but where to run it from? Debate! (unclas!!)

althenick

12th Jul 2004, 11:40

Jag mates will certainly end up in the front seat of something deadly............ possibly AH when Gordon announces that "TWA" is to merge with all the other flying assets

ABIW - HArdly likely is it? Taking AH away from a service that actually knows how to run thier Cabs EFFICIENTLY with NONCOM Pilots and give it to a service where they give all their pilots a commission and have so much support it costs an arm and a leg? How much is that gonna cost?

Your having a laugh mate:D

Always_broken_in_wilts

12th Jul 2004, 11:43

No I'm landin a fish mate:p

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

srv

12th Jul 2004, 12:35

i m inclined to agree with those of us on here that think this thread is nothing but a wind up. However, I have also heard one or two whispers/truemours surrounding the topic. I for one think that its a ridiculous idea!!

Beermonkey

12th Jul 2004, 17:05

What a fantastic idea! Finally, Jag mates where they are most at home; down the back end...:p

BEagle

12th Jul 2004, 17:19

Makes a change from 'up the back end', I guess....:E

CatpainCaveman

12th Jul 2004, 23:32

Not heard this rumour before, but with a little bit of tweeking I don't see why not.

Back in the good old days of a comfy det in Turkey, the Airborne Mission Commander on the E3 out there was a FJ driver. From what I remember, there were a handful of them doing Mission Commander jobs and they used to rotate through flying circles over Turkey and sitting in the CAOC.

Now whilst I can't exactly see the School of Fighter Control being inundated with applications from Jag drivers who've just had their toys taken away to become FCs, I can see a scenario (if one of the pen pushers in the doctrine cells, or wherever it is that comes up with the usual cunning plans, thinks about it) whereby we use the E3s properly for AWACS duties rather than paying lip service to it as an add on to AEW duties.

Do this and you could stick an extra console in the back (if required - although this will take up some of the space currently reserved for duty free and pies!) and have a Jag driver as an Airborne Mission Commander. Of course this would only be for people considered grown up enough to make the decision about what to bomb and what not to bomb. So probably means that OC Jag sqns will be ok, but not sure about the rest of them.

Comments/suggestions as a viable proposition? And please don't all stone me as a heretic for suggesting it! It may be going round in circles in a tin can, but it's gotta beat a desk at STC!!!! And it is only a post-bar thought.

Grabbers

14th Jul 2004, 19:07

Surely we could always employ Jag mates in pairs as aerial erectors. One to knock 'em down and one to rebuild 'em.:E

allegedly.

Magic Mushroom

14th Jul 2004, 21:07

E-3D mission crew manning generally - and Weapons Controllers (WC) in particular - is something that will be undergoing considerable scrutiny over the next few years.

There are already 3 (one ex F3, one ex Tornado GR4 and one ex C-130 who has just completed an exchange with 849 Sqn) navs undergoing a trial course at Boulmer to give them a WC qualification. CAA requirements dictate that they complete trg at the SFC to be properly licensed for the full control services provided by the E-3. In theory, this option has been open for many years, and there are a handful of navs and AEOs that have gone that route and ended up on the E-3D. Unfortunately, until the current trial, such navs have been forced to do an extended (and frankly largely irrelevant) period of up to 2 years in a CRC prior to going to Waddington. The new system will better take account of previous flying and tactical experience and rightly fast track them onto E-3D duties.

The trial was initiated partly because the OSB(FC) branch could not supply the numbers associated with the expansion of the E-3D crews (not pie related!), and partly it has to be said for more machiavalian reasons by certain branches (IMHO).

However, obtaining a more cosmopolitan WC mix for the E-3D will be of considerable advantage for the fleet. The modern role of the jet sees it controlling a uniquely diverse range of assets and operations. FCs have an excellent record of success on the E-3D in terms of trg and upgrades. However, given recent ops, WSOs/WSOps with mud moving, Tac/SF AT and SH or AAC guys would be particularly relevant to E-3D WC duties. Although I think a Jag pilot is innappropriate at this stage (unless someone volunteered!), it's certainly been discussed. In short, be in no doubt that WSOs from all fleets will start to be employed as E-3D WCs in the coming years.

Captain Caveman,
You make some valid points regarding what is generally known as the Airborne Command Element (ACE) employed by USAF AWACS on ONW for many years. These jets also carried a Turkish observer on all missions and such requirements were one of the reasons why the E-3D got a tenth console as a UOR.

However, I would suggest that with 'reachback' to CAOCs via modern data links and SATCOM such a role is of questionable value now other than in a few niche operations. Also, during ops in BH, Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, the duties carried out by such an individual on USAF jets were ably carried out by the normal E-3D TD. As an experienced E-3D guy myself, I'd rather use any extra consoles for additional WCs to expand my control capability. TDs are used to being given considerable responsibility to exercise weapons employment options and ROE via their weapons team. You don't need to be a wg cdr to do that.

You are quite correct however to state that the E-3D's have been forced to adopt an AWACS/ABCCC type role with an AEW platform. Only in the last few years have we got a 'AWACS' style comms fit, and we are still 4 consoles short of what the USAF jets have. ISTAR is high on the increasingly small funding list these days, but we are still some way off a true Air Battle Management (ABM) capability.

Capt Kirk,
Valid comments ref CSAR management. However, whilst the On Scene Cdr (OSC) duty is undoubtedly best left in a FJ or AH cockpit, the 'big picture' CSAR Airborne Mission Cdr (AMC) tasks are normally effectively allocated to assets such as the USAF EC-130E ABCCC (when it was still in service), AWACS or JSTARS. We've done several of those over the years, and indeed, an E-3D FC TD recieved a Jt Cdrs Commendation for his coord of the Kosovo F-117 CSAR.

Regards,
M2

Mr Bridger

19th Jul 2004, 19:30

Do I here you right. WSO's as WC's, and I thought the branch had standards: that's the FC branch you understand.
I'd love to be updated on their progress as I can't see how a bunch of aircrew mavericks (geese, to use Topgun parlance), could ever adapt to ditching their Primadonna hats and getting down to understanding the big picture.:confused:

YellowBelly

19th Jul 2004, 19:56

OK - the E-3D is a large aircraft, but would it have room for all those ego's?

Magic Mushroom

19th Jul 2004, 20:35

Mr B,
Last I heard, they were doing fine and should be starting the E-3D OCU in Oct.

In terms of 'big picture' understanding from the FC Branch hierarchy...I'll make no comment!!

Regrettably for many very sharp FC guys out there, the branch has consistently shot itself in the foot ever since the first FC brevet was awarded 21 years ago.
Regards,
M2

sonicstomp

20th Jul 2004, 18:06

At the risk of spoiling a potential inter-branch slagging match ;) I say good luck to them on the jet - they will add much to the party....

What keeps the E3D top of its tree is the diversity of experience on the jet - Fast Jet, Maritime, FC etc...

Magic Mushroom

20th Jul 2004, 18:52

Sonicstomp,
Couldn't agree more!! The nice thing at Waddo is that the majority are blind to brevet and rank.
Regrettably, some individuals outside the Component are not so open minded.
Regards,
M2

YellowBelly

21st Jul 2004, 19:42

A lot of WSO/WSOps (nine MR2 crews and an F3 sqn) soon to be looking for flying jobs. Will this address the planned increase in the number of E-3D crews? Indeed, will it accelerate a move towards an E-3D mission crew consisting entirely of aircrew branches/trades vice Ops Spt FCs and TG12? Not saying its a good thing, as logic dictates a good mix of experience (as discussed above), and I know its an old chestnut. However, this time, there will be a lot of aircrew looking for new airborne careers.....

Magic Mushroom

21st Jul 2004, 20:20

YB,
The loss of the F3 and Nimrod units will not entirely address the build up in E-3D crews. However, I think that the presence of OSB(FC), SNCO FC and TG12 on the E-3D are indeed numbered in both surveillance and weapons specialisations. Notwithstanding plans to finally sort the status of FC and ATs by their inclusion in MFTS, I can't see them being there post approx 2010.
Regards, M2

twenty2fifty

21st Jul 2004, 23:32

Dear Non fast-jet, esp Mr Bridger!

having spent 3000 hrs as a fast jet (GR1/4) NAV, i'm not a WSO of non-descript brevert - you "non pilot" / "non navs" are the biggest bunch of !@#$%%^ around! I really can't see what you have to do down the back there, please tell me!

YellowBelly

22nd Jul 2004, 06:08

2250

(At the risk of biting) - Clearly you need to expand your horizons beyond your own specialisation and come and see for yourself. Considering we provide a service to all players during a conflict (indeed, if we're not there, you don't go anywhere 'hot') its often disappointing how few aircrew from other roles come flying with us. Not only would it help you appreciate our capabilities and limitations, it may also help us to develop the services we provide. So, take the blinkers off and come for a ride....and the curry is free...

Magic Mushroom

22nd Jul 2004, 06:15

Don't rise to it YB...especially when he can't spell!!:)

YellowBelly

22nd Jul 2004, 06:20

MM

Wise advice but its now off my chest! And what is a "brevert" anyway?!

twenty2fifty

22nd Jul 2004, 09:42

sorry everybody, was late night, was pissed

lesson is don't try to join an argument when you log-on late after closing time!

the moring after I can't think what my point was anyway.

not sure what a brevert is either!

please accept apologies
:\

gadgetbent

31st Jul 2004, 12:29

The word on the street is that the WSOs on the FC cse up at Boulmer at the mo may not be doing that well. Rumours are that one of them has been known to be rather vocal in how they are really not enjoying the cse and are not looking forward to going to Waddo.

This certainly does not bode well for the future!

GB

gadgetbent

1st Aug 2004, 13:26

Deliverance,

I think that you are maybe trying to get a rise out of FCs with those unqualified comments.

If that really is a genuine slap aimed at FCs then at least come up some justification!!

GB

JessTheDog

1st Aug 2004, 16:12

I'm not trying set myself up as a shining example of moderation and wisdom, but I would counsel against posting comments referriing to personnel who may be easily identifiable ("normal" personnel that is, and not our glorious leaders) and who may be undergoing a course of training with career implications. This could lead at the very least to teddies exiting cot and possibly to more.

Now, back into normal slander mode....

gadgetbent

1st Aug 2004, 16:42

JTD,

I do agree that it is unfair to post info that can lead to somebody being identified. But on the flip side it is also unfair on the FC Branch, which is struggling at the best of times, to be gaining people who have absolutely no interest in the job and who happily slander the branch knowing very little about it.

I will move on and apologise for causing offence.

GB

JessTheDog

1st Aug 2004, 17:20

GB

Would a WSO or N end up with a FC brevet if they ended up the back end of the E3?

In fact, are WSOs "streamed" to go straight to the jet or will they do their time underground like everyone else? It would seem extremely unfair if "proper" FCs are denied fair competition!

JTD

SirToppamHat

1st Aug 2004, 20:47

Jess

Direct to E-3D once they reach the CQ standard. This will require a period in the CRC for live trg.

At the last count, Weapons Controller Trg consisted of 5 phases. IIRC:

1. Sim at SFC Boulmer.
2. Live (and Sim) at CRC (up to 2v2, subordinate WC for split freq).
3. CR Course (FT at SFC)
4. Trg to LCR (QRA, AAR, multi-ship, FM/MM etc etc)
5. Trg to CR (large scale exercises etc).

If what I hear is correct, the WSO candidates will go to E-3Ds after Phase 2. This is a pretty basic standard to reach, and I wonder whether it will increase the burdon on the E-3D Conversion Course. Previously, for FC candidates at least, the required standard was to have completed Phase 5, and preferably more than one tour!

Some people believe 2 years spent in the CRC would be a waste for those with previous experience in the air (see MagicMushroom's previous comments). For what it's worth. I think that going straight after Phase 2 is likely to be problematic for other reasons. How about a middle way, perhaps a year in the CRC and then an E-3D course?

One final thing; what will happen to WSOs taking this route if they fail to reach the WC CQ standard? Back from whence they came? Re-stream Surveillance? I guess time will tell.

Good luck to anyone trying it.

gadgetbent

1st Aug 2004, 21:12

I completely agree with the comments made by SirToppamHat.

It is potentially going to cause a lot of problems. The WSOs are doing a very curtailled Phase 2 when they go down the Bunker in a few weeks. How can they be expected to learn all the tools needed to control in a bunker and then continue on a considerably more difficult E3 conversion cse immediately after? Surely a spell of consolidation would be sensible.

What if they do fail? Perhaps the E3 cse will be another auto-grad situation?! The FC branch has to hope not!!

Deliverance,

Agreed, it is a massive lottery as to how good the control you get is. The bunkers have a massive problem with experience so the odds are severely against you getting a competent experienced and relaxed controller. Half the time you get a baby controller who has little experience of controlling anything other than 2v2 in the MDAs.

A few of us try to keep the standards up!!

GB

Magic Mushroom

1st Aug 2004, 22:30

JTD,
The WSOs in question will keep their original brevets just as the nav and AEO WC personnel that we've had at Waddo for many years have. This is because they will still be WSOs, albeit WSOs who have passed the WC course; they will not be branch changed nor have their terms of service altered.

As far as the validity of time in the CRCs goes, Sentry Trg Flt are currently trying to cope with personnel who largely graduated as WCs after the BQ standard was lowered considerably (and such essential items as close control etc were binned from the syllabus). As a result, STF are now often instructing at a level that would have been considered far below BQ standard only 4 years ago. Therefore, what the WSOs will lack in CRC control experience, they will gain from operational aircrew background. Although they will offer different trg challenges to an OSB(FC) with 12-18 months CRC experience, they will in my opinion be no worse a trg risk.

Additionally, much of the CRC CR syllabus is irrelevant to E-3D ops (a classic example being Maritime Marshall). The average CRC WC has - to an extent - to be 'de-trained' in certain aspects of CRC methodology when arriving at Waddington (eg he has to plan far more rather than rely on coordination with ATC). Before anyone starts screaming 'elitism', I am in no way suggesting that E-3D personnel are better than those in the CRCs. My comments are merely a reflection that the requirements of E-3D mission crew differ considerably from those of ground based units because their jobs are very different.

If anything, I believe that the length of time being stipulated by the SFC for WSOs undergoing WC trg is overly conservative. Certainly a year of 'time in the bunker' would (IMHO) be nugatory effort.

Regrettably, many in the FC branch have long viewed the E-3D as 'their' right and I have heard many senior FCs stating that people need to be rotated through the jet to give others 'a break from the CRCs' and that 'we must remain focused upon what is best for the (FC) branch'.

However, what is good for the FC branch in terms of E-3D manning may not necessarily be what is good for the wider Service. Getting a far more cosmopolitan mix of E-3D WC background (eg GR4, Tac/SF AT, SH and AAC) would be a major advantage for the E-3D in modern ops.

Regards,
M2

SirToppamHat

2nd Aug 2004, 10:54

M2

If anything, I believe that the length of time being stipulated by the SFC for WSOs undergoing WC trg is overly conservative.

What? The CQ is already very limited. Reducing time still further must surely mean that Nav candidates are trained to an even lower level? Or perhaps you are suggesting that they should undertake a more intense course. Whichever, I stand by my view that the existing plan is short-sighted.

If you want to train these people as controllers, then let them complete the whole course. If they bring so much to the party, they will have no trouble qualifying and even less completing the OJT and FT to CR. I have no problem with their being guaranteed E-3D duties (they are already receiving flying pay), albeit after a necessary (but much reduced) period in a CRC.

If the reason for re-training is to get these people onto the E-3D just because of their wider experience, then why bother training as a WC - surely it would be far simpler to put them through Surveillance Trg?;)

IMHO, the way the current plans are shaping up, graduates from this bastardised course will be neither one thing nor the other. Hardly fair to them, their instructors, the E-3D Force or in the 'Wider Service Interest'.

STH

gadgetbent

2nd Aug 2004, 19:40

MM,

A lot of your views are valid and in principal many FCs have no problem with WSOs being "fast tracked" to the Jet.

I do have a couple of issues that I do want to take you to task for!

1) Maritime Marshall is not on the WC CR Trg Syllabus and has not been for several years. Not knowing this clearly shows an elitist disregard for the current SFC WC Trg Syllabus.

2) We both know that FJ aircrew have a very crude and often misinformed understanding of radar services. The crash cse that the WSOs are being subjected to can hardly equip them with all the tools needed to operate safely in the Jet.

3) I agree that the current CQ standard is very low. What does STF expect the WSOs to be qualified to do when they arrive - 1v2s or 4v4s- just a slight difference!

I do wish the WSOs the best of luck and recommend that they stop slagging of the FC Branch when they clearly have no idea what it does.

GB

p.s. Being a Direct Entrant and not having the pleasure of a Uni ed - what the f*** does "nugatory" mean?!

BEagle

2nd Aug 2004, 20:48

It's one of those stupid, vague expressions used by staff hats.

Basically, "Nugatory effort" means "B£oody waste of time"!

Oh, deep blue water thinking of jointery with vison..:yuk:

The Gorilla

2nd Aug 2004, 21:08

I knew somebody would accuse MM of being elitist!!;)

As somebody who once worked in a CRC and then went to fly on the E3's, albeit as an "outsider" I have to agree with everything MM has said in his piece!!!

:ok:

gadgetbent

2nd Aug 2004, 21:21

Seeing as the WSO cse is the first of many, it can be assumed that they will not be many slots left for jnr WCs at the CRCs. Who is going to break the news to them, that the one truely operational tour for FCs is in fact no longer for FCs? I can see their hearts breaking as we speak! Or will the STF find time to re-train "sub-standard" WCs from the CRC in its historically antiquated training methods!!

MM was only accused of being elitist as he clearly has no understanding of the WC Syllabus, or any interest in WC Trg in the CRC. Maybe if what the CRC pushes out is so not right for the CRC he should visit the CRC and advise them as to what they could do to help STF.

The proof will be in the pudding when / if the WSOs they check out. It will be very interesting to see what happens a few months down the line when they have their first airprox! Forgot - only CRC WCs have airproxes!?

GB

Magic Mushroom

2nd Aug 2004, 23:16

STH & GB
As an FC with a lot of E-3D time who has also served in several CRCs, I feel confident of offering a ballanced argument from both sides of the fence.

The reason that I state the proposed WSO WC syllabus is overly conservative is that STF regularly graduate exchange officers from the RN, USAF, USN and foreign forces who have NO prior experience of the application of control services. Whilst these guys present their own peculiar trg challenges, many have subsequently proved to be excellent WCs who have merited upgrade to FA and TD. Additionally, all of the current E-3Ds WSOs who went WC felt that they gained little at the CRCs.

With regards to Maritime Marshall, when I last left the ASACS environment not all that long ago, it was part of the CR syllabus. The reason that I used that as an example was that STH listed it in this very thread as still being part of Phase 4 LCR trg!!!!!:rolleyes:

Your suggestion that FJ aircrew have a 'crude and often misinformed view of control services' is somewhat of a generalisation. I would say that the majority have a sound understanding. However, the different perspective of employing such services from 'the other side of the tube' sometimes leads to misunderstandings.

As far as the WC input standard for STF goes, this is largely semantics. Few of the current WC students coming through STF have done much beyond 2v2 work. I would suggest that, as long as the WSOs are exposed to 2v2 work at Boulmer, their aircrew experience will enable them to cope with the more demanding work.

As far as getting back to the CRCs to tell them what is required by STF: I am an FC. I have served in several CRCs. I may not be able to quote the current CR syllabus line and verse. But I have seen both sides of the fence. Additionally, I was very careful to avoid suggesting that I was any better than a CRC guy. Nor have I ever referred to the CRCs as having an 'antiquated trg system'. So may I suggest GB that we avoid such petty snipes, do not twist or invent the words of others, and remain objective.:hmm:

I truly feel for the FCs on the ground as they watch WSOs come through and 'take' much sought after slots on the E-3D. God knows, I know how much I wanted to get on the jet when I was a first tourist. However, the status of FC personnel on the E-3D has for many years been massively undermined by the politics of it's own branch hierarchy. As a result, FCs on the E-3D are increasingly being marginalised and disadvantaged in relation to their WSO colleagues. The FC branch is now feeling the consequences of such machiavalian actions. Although the current mix of FCs, WSOs and WSOps works extremely well, I suspect that FCs will have disappeared off the jet by 2010.

Casting such politics aside however, the WSO WC scheme will provide notable benefts for the E-3D force. Whilst there will probably be some failures, my E-3D and CRC experience leads me to believe that, overall, it will be a success.

Regards,
M2

PS I too was a DE who avoided the nugatory effort of a uni ed!!!;)

PPS Beags, never been a staff hat, nor do I wish to be one!!!

pregnant penguin

3rd Aug 2004, 09:25

You really do like the sound of your own voice MM don't you?! I understand that each and everyone of us has opinions,and the right to voice them, after all that is the basis of this site. But why do you feel the need to enforce your opinions as fact?

I understand that many years in the job you do mean that you feel qualified in what you say, but opinions are exactly that, opinions. None right, none wrong. I have read with interest each epistle you have submitted to this forum and really all I can glean from what you had to say, as an impartial by-stander, is that we are all equal, but you are more equal than others.
Why all the back bitting and b*tching? What inadequacies are you trying to prove are untrue? why do you continually feel you have to have the last word? I am not being derogatory, just curious. Is it really any wonder that the 'lowliest' people believe there is an elitist attitude from the E3-D crews when you post such patronising replies?

Though I must thank you, and the many others who join you in using PPrune to brush up on their English and not just to air their ideas and views! The forums more often than not read as a 'who can come up with the most syllables in one word' to make themselves look the most intelligent! Go on admit it guys, you all cheat at scrabble don't you?? You're the guys who offer to do the scoring so you can add a few sly points here and there, and who's hand lingers in the bag that bit longer as you try to feel the letters you want!! You are, aren't ya??

But nugatory?? Hmmm, that one is lost on me!! If it's a meaningless waste of time, shouldn't it be negatory? Look, now you've done it!! You've even got me making up words! Goddam it!

PP:D

JessTheDog

3rd Aug 2004, 11:33

Nugatory, one off the bingo card!:D

BEagle

3rd Aug 2004, 13:43

nugatory

adj. futile; powerless; null; nugacious.

negatory

adv. no. (Originates from CB radio slang as in "Ah, you wanna give me a 10-9 on that, Pig Pen? Negatory, Pig Pen; you're still too close. Yeah, them hogs is startin' to close up my sinuses. Mercy sakes, you better back off another ten.." from Convoy by C W McCall.

ORAC

3rd Aug 2004, 13:53

It is a sad reflection on modern society that so many have such a poor vocabulary, and even more sad that so many seem pleased about it, rather than trying to remedy it. Nugatory is from the latin nugae, but they stopped teaching that a few years back as well.

We live in a time of philistines, perhaps we ought to ask Bill Cosby to open a chapter of his campaign on this side of the ditch..... :suspect:

Echo 5

3rd Aug 2004, 14:13

ORAC,

Don't wish to appear pedantic, but, as you brought the subject up
do you mean:

latin as in Latin ?

and

philistines as in Philistines ?

Only asking !!

BEagle

3rd Aug 2004, 14:26

Mortuus quam mortissime?

I note that, many years ago, I was sitting an Entrance Scholarship for my school; this included 2 Latin papers.

Paper 1 (Composition) included such gems as:
2. (a) Give the nominative singular masculine of all the participles of the following verbs, and then translate the participles into English: facio, credo, patior.

Whilst Paper 2 (Translation) required the translation of a section from Pliny, then 4 lines from Ovid's Fasti - including a requirement to "...scan the first 2 lines, marking quantities, feet and main caesuras"!

That's what some of us had to do at the age of 13! But was it worth it...not sure. I do rather doubt it somehow. But I'm pretty certain that the slouching indolent digi-yoof of today would merely exclaim "Nah - 'snovair. 'S dooin me'ed in" if presented with such a paper.

Not much to do with JagFCs - sorry!

ORAC

3rd Aug 2004, 14:36

Economist style guide - philistine - lower case. (http://www.economist.com/research/styleGuide/index.cfm?page=805682)

I am not perfect, never claimed to be, and I do make typos. I am embarassed by my faults, failings and ignorance, mea culpa. I attempt to correct them when they are pointed out and learn by them*. I would never be proud of them....

* And they were many and deep in my Spanish class today - but I did learn a bit. Me gusto estudiar.....

(ps. If they are that short of experience in the bunkers, I'd be happy to help out in my spare time. Got a couple of 16 v 32 ships in my log book (1991)... :O )

Echo 5

3rd Aug 2004, 15:27

ORAC,

Re (P)philistine upper/lower case.....I stand corrected.

Philistine(n) = one of the warlike inhabitants of ancient Philistia who constantly harassed the Israelites.

philistine (adj) = uncultured, commonplace, materialistic.

Here endeth E5's lesson for today !!

Prijon

3rd Aug 2004, 17:23

I'm getting lost here...

when did Latin enter the WC syllabus?! I might have stood a chance on the ADFC a few years ago if it had been included....

amo, amas, amat, amamis......perhaps not.....

Magic Mushroom

3rd Aug 2004, 20:39

PP,
You are absolutely correct; my opinion is worth no more than anybody elses. I genuinely do not wish to appear patronising or cause offence to anyone. If I have, then I apologise.

I can well understand how my rantings can look like I'm trying to have the last word. The great weakness of sites such as PPRUNE is that debate often appears harsh as words cannot be softened by a beer and such things as body language.

I am certainly no elite. I just want the best for the Service and wish to put my arguments into the debate.

As GB and STH suggest...only time will tell who is correct!

Regards,
M2

ORAC

3rd Aug 2004, 20:55

Prijon,

You obviously followed the classic Roman method: veni, vedi, velcro - I came, I saw, I stuck around........

BEagle

4th Aug 2004, 06:49

Prijon - 'amamus', not 'amamis'. Write out the full conjugation 10 times, then off to matron for syrup of figs, boy.

ORAC - 'vidi', not 'vedi'. 'Velcro' would probably be the first person singular present tense active mood of a 1st conjugation verb, hence would mean 'I stick'. Perhaps the first person singular of the perfect tense active mood (I stuck) would be more appropriate? I.e. 'velcravi'? See me after second prep!

"These things having been said, however, the movers of mud entered the machine of the mushroom in order to defeat the having been drawn up cohorts of the enemy by directing the fire steeds of the aerial knights ." Molesworth II

;)

antipodean alligator

4th Aug 2004, 08:46

This thread has been a most interesting read. Having worked with NATO, French, USAF and RAF E-3s , I can certainly say that the E-3D team at Waddo have got the crewing mix right, from a customer's perspective anyway.

What scares me is that the FC community down here seem to have the same view that the RAF FCs were accused of having in some of the earlier replies in this thread....That is that they think Wedgetail will be their own private air force, they'll probably even try to fly the thing too!

As a muddie who will be sans chariot in 6-8 years, the WSO concept in use at Waddo seems like a good option to consider......but will the RAAF FC empire allow such cross-breeding?

ORAC

4th Aug 2004, 15:13

You have to decide what you are buying.

If, like the RAF did originally, you are just buying a remote radar head for AD operations, it would make sense to man it, and run it, like a CRP or CRC. But a lot of water, however, as flowed under the bridge since then, and I very much doubt it.

The majority of people now see such platforms as more of an ABCCC with an integrated sensor capabilty. The manning should, therefore, represent the roles you wish it to perform in the future, not what the legacy system requires at present. The question for the future is where, and in what mixture to place your battle staff - in the aircraft or on the ground. I believe the USAF are moving in the direction of more bandwidth and decision making in the CAOC/AOC.

Which raises the interesting subject of who is writing the UKACCS specification and who the shareholders actually are. Still, not to worry, smart acquisition is proving so successful so far....

Perhaps more important than bums on seats in the aircraft will be coordinating the exchange of data across all platforms in all systems in all environments. Anyone any experience of the US JICO/JICC and which trades staff it?

Prijon

4th Aug 2004, 15:45

BEagle

apologies - school boy error!

Mind you, the only decent thing about learning Latin was that it made watching the "Romans Go Home" graffiti scene in Life of Brian that much funnier. Now, do I need the nominative, accusative or dative....??

Anyway, back to the thread!

ORAC

4th Aug 2004, 16:27

In this forum, probably the ablative. But I wouldn't get carried away about it....

BEagle

4th Aug 2004, 17:02

Except that 'domus' takes?

The locative!

Right. Romanes ite domum. Now write it out 100 times before sun up or I'll.....

A question for the mushroom folk - is the traditional 'AEW' role now past its sell-by? How much closer to the roles of JSTARS are you, in fact, mainly working?

Will there be much blurring between AWACS and ASTOR type roles in the future?

Perhaps the Swedes had a good idea - keep the controllers on the ground and downlink data from the air platforms. No 'dead time' lost in transit, just replace the platforms on station and the controllers in their concrete caverns when needed. Of course it wouldn't be much fun to work in such an environment, but wouldn't high-capacity bandwidth downlinked-data from a deployable range of assets be more effective than having to fly them around in something as valuable as an E3D?

Magic Mushroom

4th Aug 2004, 21:56

Orac,
Your comments are accurate. The US military very much view the CAOC as an emerging weapon system in it's own right via data 'reachback'. The advantages of this is that you decrease massively the footprint in theatre. The negative side is that - as you suggest - reachback requires HUGE amounts of bandwidth which is immensely expensive. I believe that the US have spent tens of billions of dollars buying up bandwidth for their requirements over the next 20 years.

From a practical point of view, CAOCs already hold the theoretical hammer of many decisions in ops such as Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq. The guys sit watching numerous data link pictures in real time and can speak to AWACS, JSTARS and a variety of other players via SATCOM. However, in reality reachback is not yet mature enough. A classic example is control of AAR assets. CAOCs like to keep the hammer on the fuel give away plan. However, things change on so many other radios which the CAOC can't listen to that such decisions are in practice taken by the AWACS/E-2C/TACC guys with the CAOC backbriefed.

From the limited experience I have of the US JICO position, I believe that most are what we would call FCs from the surveillance specialisation. In fact, during TELIC, several RAF FCs were integrated into the USAF JICO roster.

Beags,
Yes, the traditional AEW concept is (IMHO) history and the E-3Ds have never really been used in that way. However, I would say that AWACS, SIGINT, JSTARS/ASTOR complement each other. Thankfully, in all recent ops, we've got used to working with each highly effectively. The only issue with ASTOR is the lack of capacity for decision making in the air due to the small crew and comms fit in comparison with JSTARS.

The Swedish Eriyeye system is very much a cold war concept of a flying extension to ground based radar cover. Interestingly, the Saab 340s they loaned to the Greeks had operator consoles fitted. As these returned to Sweden, the consoles were not removed and the other Swedish aircraft will be similarly modified.

Meanwhile, data linking to the ground is all well and good until the link breaks or someone goes out of UHF range. Additionally, such links only transfer track as opposed to the sensor data which is available in the air. The bandwidth and technology to achieve sensor data transfer is causing the USN massive problems with their Cooperative Engagement Capability and is not yet mature.

As an aside, the Swedes are talking about modding the Erieye so that it has a ground surveillance capability. Given that such changes are a lot easier on an E-scan radar as opposed to the E-3s mechanical APY-2, I strongly suspect that the RAAF will be looking to do likewise with Wedgetail. Such a secondary JSTARS/lite capability would add more strength to Antipodean Alligators argument to get Pig (and AP-3C) navs into Wedgetail.

Regards,
M2

BEagle

5th Aug 2004, 07:29

"CAOCs like to keep the hammer on the fuel give away plan."

I've heard that daft sounds-tough expression used in other theatres, but WTF is it supposed to mean? Sounds like some typical Spamspeak which doesn't mean anything to non-jargon speakers.

Does it mean 'manage'

Thanks for the rest of a most interesting post though, MM!

MrBernoulli

6th Aug 2004, 19:55

Enough of the Spamspeak Mr Housemaster! Can we have more of the Latin lessons please?

Amo Amas Amant etc etc

BEagle

6th Aug 2004, 20:05

Third person singular, present tense, active mood of amo should be amat, boy! Not amant - that's the third person plural!

amo, amas, amat, amamus, amatis, amant

Now write it out 100 times whilst I give the deputy matron a good rogering!

trap one

29th Aug 2004, 09:17

BEagle
In reply to your queston, which has been delayed cause Aunty Betty moved me again, is that the personnel at CAOC wanted to micro manage the the whole event.
In other words instead of issuing guidance about how they wanted the Cdrs Intent to be carried out. They insisted on telling the crews exactly who was to refuel from whom. The simple fact is that they were best kept out of the loop and only "back briefed" on what had been done.
A certain exampleof their "ideas" being illustrated by the following story.
With a very quiet AOR about 7 months after the original punch up in Afganistan a ?H-53 put down on a island in a river not very far at all from Tora Bora. Naturely this attracted the locals (who we'd just been bombing the whatsits out of). Now they were armed with the local mix of weapons, including RPG's and heavy MG's on trucks. With a FAC and trops in the back they were better equiped than most downed crews, but when they asked for over head cover, COAC said no. They didn't explain why just said no, now on this particular trip the USN were supplying most of the FJ and with the Mother on the SATCOM and aware of the prob, they were more than happy to allow FJ with weapons on board to extend over the AOR. They had no problem about letting crews flex their deck recovery time. This was one day that the AOR was flush with gas and we had no problems about keeping a Tanker and hence FJ's over the downed helo.
What was eventually allowed was a TV/IR equiped but not gun equiped 4 prop to fly over the helo, once the UAV had gone home. Now at this time neither was armed, so if the brown stuff did hit the fan the closest armed assests, which were holding on the tanker was 200 miles away.
Also they would direct certain ac to refuel from certain tankers. This despite the fact that we'd told them that either the system was US, that these aircraft required. Or that the tanker in question was at the other end of the AOR covering a tasking they'd allocated earlier.

I've had similar Micro Managements from other CAOC's, in Kosovo where the CB's were a major problem and they had IMC'd the whole of the Albania/Macedonia airspace, of being told to put the AAR tracks down below the weather. Which was 13k With lightning, the hills go up to 9k plus, if my memory serves me right. Also the Albainians still had civies in the area, with no ATC radar to help them out, throw in all the rotary/prop stuff going under the weather from Italy to Macedonia. Thats why i said no, and moved the AAR out of the tracks so they could find some layers to work in.
Or worse when involved in GW2, when the AAR boys dried up due to the sand storms. CAOC neglected to tell us that there were problems untill we notice that AAR replacements were not on the tube. Then said "oh we've scrambled some from Deigo Garcia 30 mins ago they should be with you soon". Needless to say we didn't feel supported!

MM
As for the WSO's IMHO I believe that they will miss out on experience at the CRC's, not just in understanding "services" but in gaining valuable experience and exposure to basic E3 WC work such as AAR, Check in and the job the CRC does to let the WC's do their job. Yes I know that they will have previous experience. But with deficits in these areas then STF will have their work cut out for them.
As for your comments about the WSO WC's that believe that their ground time was largely a waste. I believe that it was because they were being trained for the Cold War. Not the job that the E3D now does, which is after all amost 95% different to a CRC.
I further believe that there are 2 reasons that FC's arrive at Waddo with such poor preparation for their job. One is the lack of experience and that is through out the CRC of E3 methods and exposure to the way that people are expected to work when on the E3D. This again is due to lack of experience, only this time with in the supervising chain of command within the CRC.
The second is the fact that average WC arrives earlier in their career, couple this with a shorter time in the basic training period and the end result is you have to spend more time to reach the high standard that you require.

That said I firmly believe that the WSO's will supplant the FC's and that encludes the Surveilance as well as weapons, due to the fact that the money will not be there to pay two lots of flying pay.