Proportion of synthetic flying in the future
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,049
Likes: 0
Received 97 Likes
on
16 Posts
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 it’s 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.
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.
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.
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
For better or worse modern FJ flying doesn’t 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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2021
Location: UK
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Ban Chiang,Thailand
Age: 66
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, we cannot rule out North Korea, then!.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 40
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Narfalk
Posts: 392
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 12:55.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Here and there
Age: 40
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
'
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.
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 ‘actual’ weapon releases to qualify as a controller. It was a ridiculous number when you consider that nothing changed for the trainee besides some ‘pressure’; it was more than the aircrew needed to get combat ready! Got to love NATO sometimes; I wonder if they’ve managed to change the STANAG yet.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So I'm guess that another business jet isn't the answer you are looking for once the current MSASS contract expires in December 2024? Seems understandable to me. Which brings me to the question of what do you want to replace Hawk T1 and Tranche One Typhoon with noting the likely fiscal constraints?
Well, What I would want would be a 4+ Gen dedicated Red Air Sqn backed up by something that can provide accurate EW threat rep. Say some F16s with Learjet backup or even with their own dedicated EW pods. Clearly that is as likely as me making CAS so in all honesty I think we would be best off investing in accurate synthetic threat rep rather than coming up with a half arsed airborne solution. Maybe whilst contributing to some sort of pan European/NATO Red Air for LFEs?
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, What I would want would be a 4+ Gen dedicated Red Air Sqn backed up by something that can provide accurate EW threat rep. Say some F16s with Learjet backup or even with their own dedicated EW pods. Clearly that is as likely as me making CAS so in all honesty I think we would be best off investing in accurate synthetic threat rep rather than coming up with a half arsed airborne solution. Maybe whilst contributing to some sort of pan European/NATO Red Air for LFEs?
