Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

Proportion of synthetic flying in the future

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

Proportion of synthetic flying in the future

Old 3rd Jun 2021, 19:13
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 926
The A400 conversion is indeed almost entirely sim based with a couple of flights thrown in to emphasise the real world differences before line training is commenced. As itís fly-by-wire like all modern Airbus aircraft there is no difference in feel between the sim & the real thing.

The aircraft bashing the circuit are the qualified guys trying to get their hours in to maintain currency given that there is relatively little flying on the squadrons.
Ken Scott is offline  
Old 3rd Jun 2021, 22:53
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,513
It's easy to make the argument for ZFT for airline pilots who immediately move to a regular schedule of supervised live flying on completion of conversion training (current circumstances notwithstanding). It is a different matter for military crews who might have hundreds of hours of sim time but only a handful of live sorties under their belts when ordered into combat.
Easy Street is online now  
Old 4th Jun 2021, 09:11
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: York
Posts: 463
What happens to the “consequence of error” if most flying is synthetic, will operators take more risks and can that transfer to real flying?

dctyke is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2021, 09:21
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Lechlade, Glos.UK
Posts: 746
I am (was) a qualified simulator instructor (Jaguar) with 10,000 real hours in my log book. All types. Simulation has it's place, especially for emergencies etc, but no substitute for the real thing. When I flew fast jets, 15 hours per month (real flying) was considered the minimum. OK, simulation has improved in leaps & bounds in the last 20 years, but will never be a total substitute, one does not crash & burn in a Sim.
sharpend is offline  
Old 4th Jun 2021, 13:35
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Near the coast
Posts: 1,937
Sharpend

For better or worse modern FJ flying doesnít really need the same level of pure flying skill to stay current.

Since you mention the Jaguar I will use that as a barometer. 15 hours a month was a sensible minimum for the job and kind of flying we did.

The role and type of flying that Typhoon and F35 do makes it harder to insist on 15 hours of live flying per month.

For QFIs on the Hawk, that situation should look after itself.

BV
Bob Viking is online now  
Old 7th Jun 2021, 13:02
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Thank you all for your contributions and views. To summarise:

It is feasible to train to convert / become competent on a plane entirely/primarily in a simulator.

Pilots need to fly real hours to remain current - but these don't necessarily need to be undertaken on the advanced asset.

Some things cannot be replicated in a simulator (primarily sensations such as 'g' or the 'fear' factor which can only exist when flying a real mission). But flying real missions risks being observed and there are significant issues with replicating credible /realistic threat environments in the air. Regards the latter, if a real mission isn't realistic 'what's the point?' (from an operational / training perspective).

Projecting forwards, there are several reasons not to fly the advanced assets very often. It's expensive, it is risky from a security perspective and it's hard to replicate missions. So these assets could sit around in pristine condition and flown a few hours a month. The pilots need to keep up their hours (this could be on a cheaper asset - Aeralis?), train in simulators and get a few hours/months in the main asset (to compare sim experience with real life).

The implications for industry /MoD which I alluded to in my reply to BV thus seem very real. Does anyone else have more to contribute?

Thank you, Scrimshankers
Scrimshankers is offline  
Old 7th Jun 2021, 18:08
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 2,016
Old ground I know but if you don't practise with the complete weapon system in peacetime it is unlikely to be with you in wartime.

Going to war with a logistics, armament and engineering system that is untried and assumed will leave us with a willing pilot but precious few aircraft when peak demand comes around.

Why old ground? Well once we stopped regular independently monitored TACEVALs we decayed to the point where justifying trades (eg armourers etc) became increasingly difficult to the point where squadrons were simply not capable of performing on actual ops as a unit. Pulling the true required strength from non-deployed units to enable those actually deployed on ops to function became the norm. Even a bunch of us simple aircrew types started to realise that a more major conflict would leave us gutted of actual capability. The complete weapon system is much more than pilots playing in a synthetic universe.

So here we are, hoping that the support tail actually knows how to support multiple squadrons of aircraft that are hardly ever flown, with little maintenance and engineering practise required with 'combat readiness' stats being produced by the latest thrusters based on algorithms and modelling only fully endorsed by the bean-counters. Aircraft will spend many days or even weeks without being flown, being listed as 'serviceable' right until the point where you actually prep, fuel, arm and start the thing.

God help the frontline when they try and fix and turn an aircraft for a subsequent wave without loads of other not-due-to-fly-anytime-soon aircraft around them to either reach for or rob from. And you really have to pray for the trades that may have never undertaken their core role on a real flying aircraft under real conditions.

We live in a tactical universe where simulation has to augment peacetime flying. It has become an essential addition to the workload of frontline aircrew. We will bitterly regret allowing the augmentation required from simulation to becomes a replacement for the core business it was designed to support.
Just This Once... is online now  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 20:44
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Scotland
Posts: 22
I will give you my pros and cons from a FJ perspective:

Pros - You can practice high end war fighting in a jet with all the relevant systems working against realistic threats (I.e. not a 1970s french business jet doing 0.6M )
- You do not have the EMCON constraints of live flying.
- If you are programmed for a 4 ship sim you will probably fly a 4 ship sim, live flying not so much.
- Debrief facilities generally allow for more in depth analysis of the mission.

Cons - The main one is that you do not develop rounded airmanship in a sim, clearly a sim helps, particularly with emergency handling, but so far sims have struggled to replicate the full spectrum of challenges that one encounters in the real world.
- Flying is not just about the aircrew, deploying a sqn and running a high tempo flying programme in an austere location clearly involve a huge 'whole force' effort. Good luck with deploying a Sqn that only fly, and engineer, a couple of jets a week, especially when those systems are highly complex.
- A recent USAF report into increased accident rates listed over reliance on synthetic training as one of the main contributing factors. It would suggest that we have already pushed the boundaries of what is safe.
- You can't pull G.

My personal view? 90% synthetic in unsafe, 50/50 probably just about works at the moment. Sims complement live flying.
SOX80 is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 21:16
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 478
On a similar theme, what is the thinking on the usefulness training weapons ranges?

An occasional use to drop the real thing at Garvie and also the odd Strafe so you get used to the clatter of the gun going off.

But hard to imagine much call for an half hour slot on the Dive Bomb target at Donna these days?










typerated is offline  
Old 10th Jun 2021, 23:56
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 64
Posts: 175
Originally Posted by Sholayo View Post
Haha, welcome to the Internet.

I am currently IT manager in a large international company and my hobby is aviation including military aviation. I do not care but I am curious. Will that introduction work?
Oh, and I am neither Chinese nor Russian spy.


This
So, we cannot rule out North Korea, then!.
Thaihawk is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 01:25
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 38
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by typerated View Post
On a similar theme, what is the thinking on the usefulness training weapons ranges?

An occasional use to drop the real thing at Garvie and also the odd Strafe so you get used to the clatter of the gun going off.

But hard to imagine much call for an half hour slot on the Dive Bomb target at Donna these days?
We donít have 3/14kg practice bombs in the inventory any more (nor their full size KRET and KFF brethren) therefore in the absence of anything like a [email protected] Training Round itís all a bit pointless - barring gunnery.
frodo_monkey is online now  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 10:04
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 928
To be pedantic aren't some hawk T1s still using 3kg out of Leeming for JTAC training?
downsizer is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 11:40
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 166
Originally Posted by Timelord View Post
Indeed it could. Airlines have been doing Zero Flight Time conversions for some years now. The first trip however will have been done with a training captain and probably a “screen” FO.
Several sectors you will find before his line training is completed. All the conversion work up for JSF solo is simulator is it not? I think Typhoon is going the same way too. Backseater trips for engineers is a thing of the past I hear from mates still in. Mate of mine that is engineering management had a go in the Cranwell rig yesterday. If it is a sim as well, the G loadings are there to add some realisim of forces. Of course they are not likely to ramp up at the rate a real airframe does. Then again it is not a sim set up by his pictures. However there is nothing I would see with present technology to have such a sim that is going to put realistic forces into a human body.

Last edited by Cat Techie; 11th Jun 2021 at 11:55.
Cat Techie is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 21:13
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by frodo_monkey View Post
We donít have 3/14kg practice bombs in the inventory any more (nor their full size KRET and KFF brethren) therefore in the absence of anything like a [email protected] Training Round itís all a bit pointless - barring gunnery.

Thanks - I didn't know they had stopped (at least for the front line) that's fascinating.
'
I've seen 1000's of them dropped so it is the end of an era. Presume they finished with the Tornado.

I also assume the Spadeadam is not useful any more. I've no idea if it has modern threats these days but the practice of countermeasures would be severely limited.
Hard to see it providing anything a sim can't
When Spade opened in the late 70s ultra low level was a large part of the EW training - how times have changed.
typerated is offline  
Old 11th Jun 2021, 23:06
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 38
Posts: 232
Originally Posted by typerated View Post
Thanks - I didn't know they had stopped (at least for the front line) that's fascinating.
'
I've seen 1000's of them dropped so it is the end of an era. Presume they finished with the Tornado.

I also assume the Spadeadam is not useful any more. I've no idea if it has modern threats these days but the practice of countermeasures would be severely limited.
Hard to see it providing anything a sim can't
When Spade opened in the late 70s ultra low level was a large part of the EW training - how times have changed.
We actually ditched the practice bombs and CBLS when the dumb bombs went out of service, some time around 2012ish.
frodo_monkey is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2021, 00:29
  #36 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,104
Originally Posted by Cat Techie View Post
However there is nothing I would see with present technology to have such a sim that is going to put realistic forces into a human body.
Look up Desdemona (DESoriŽntatie DEMONstrator Amst) and you might be surprised.
ZFT is online now  
Old 12th Jun 2021, 19:28
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,513
Originally Posted by downsizer View Post
To be pedantic aren't some hawk T1s still using 3kg out of Leeming for JTAC training?
Not sure if they are still, but they definitely carried on after Tornado stopped using them in 2012 (as correctly stated by frodo_monkey). The reason was that the NATO STANAG for JTAC training required a minimum number of talk ons to Ďactualí weapon releases to qualify as a controller. It was a ridiculous number when you consider that nothing changed for the trainee besides some Ďpressureí; it was more than the aircrew needed to get combat ready! Got to love NATO sometimes; I wonder if theyíve managed to change the STANAG yet.
Easy Street is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.