ASTOR Lightweights
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: .Lincs.
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASTOR Lightweights
I've just heard, and i've no idea whether this BS or not, that the WSOp slot on the new ASTOR ac is restricted to those under 11 stone. If this is true, then from what I've seen this restricts about 95% of the branch.
It seems odd because the cost of an extra couple of stone would probably widen it to 50%.
Maybe its because there are no pilots/Navs under 13 stone, and therefore they've robbed 2 stone off the WSOps, thus allowing the lardies up-front to carrying on eating all the pies, while the WSOp picks at his salad.
It seems odd because the cost of an extra couple of stone would probably widen it to 50%.
Maybe its because there are no pilots/Navs under 13 stone, and therefore they've robbed 2 stone off the WSOps, thus allowing the lardies up-front to carrying on eating all the pies, while the WSOp picks at his salad.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: s of 55N
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is the weight restriction a consequence of the 're-branding' of the AEOp branch? As they are now to be known as WSOPs (which sounds much punchier) are the powers that be assuming they are all also slimmer and more military? Additionally, to be entirely correct and to maximise the chances of brand uptake, shouldn't navs now be called WSOs?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heard recently that the aircraft is very weight sensitive in its ASTOR configuration and that they will not be able to man all of the stations on board. Also heard it is struggling to make the altitude.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: USA
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As if they could ever do that?!
Actually from what I hear the aircraft is not that great, production is being halted in Canada due to lack of sales and the only other modified versions (for Japan) are very late entering into service.
Actually from what I hear the aircraft is not that great, production is being halted in Canada due to lack of sales and the only other modified versions (for Japan) are very late entering into service.
Wasn't the Globex a fairly late entrant into the competition?
Remember Gulfstream campaining the G5 hard (and doing lots of sponsorship, ferrying of VIP's) at RIAT in the late '90's in an effort to swing this - they even took me for a ride, which was nice
Remember Gulfstream campaining the G5 hard (and doing lots of sponsorship, ferrying of VIP's) at RIAT in the late '90's in an effort to swing this - they even took me for a ride, which was nice
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: La Belle Province
Posts: 2,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
re: late entrant
GX certified about a year behind the GV - mainly as a consequence of being an all-new design rather than something of a derivative.
From what I recall of the numbers, there are of the order of 100 GXs "delivered" and about 150 GVs. "delivered" because numbers of both types are in various completion facilities around the world. Given the head start in deliveries for the GV, that 50 a/c differential is not surprising.
GX production is indeed being temporarily halted this winter, along with many other Bombardier business jets. I wouldn't lay the blame for that on the aircraft. Other than US governmental charity orders, I doubt Gulfstream are selling many "G550"s either.
From what I recall of the numbers, there are of the order of 100 GXs "delivered" and about 150 GVs. "delivered" because numbers of both types are in various completion facilities around the world. Given the head start in deliveries for the GV, that 50 a/c differential is not surprising.
GX production is indeed being temporarily halted this winter, along with many other Bombardier business jets. I wouldn't lay the blame for that on the aircraft. Other than US governmental charity orders, I doubt Gulfstream are selling many "G550"s either.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
From someone who has been involved on the periphery of this platform. Yes there are some weight concerns regarding the GX ASTOR. Specifically, it may not be possible to put the hoped for fourth mission console down the back, although this will undoubtedly get installed later. However, the original spec only required 3 so it meets that requirement. It is also struggling to meet the op altitude requirement. However, this is not a major snag as it will still be operating WAY above JSTARS and will suffer considerably less terrain shadow than the US platform. All of these issues would have been worse had we selected the GV as the ASTOR air vehicle.
Currently, it is expected that ASTOR will enter service roughly on time and in budget. It's not perfect (the Army BS and total lack of understanding regading ISTAR is unbelievable, and a Tornado nav accepted a pants intercomm system because he didn't believe it was possible to listen to more than one radio and intercom at a time!), but ASTOR will be a MAJOR capability addition when it enters service.
Don't knock it.
Regards
M2
PS A pity about the int ASTOR 'aircrew' only getting an air steward type arm falsh (instead of a brevet) and crew pay mind!
From someone who has been involved on the periphery of this platform. Yes there are some weight concerns regarding the GX ASTOR. Specifically, it may not be possible to put the hoped for fourth mission console down the back, although this will undoubtedly get installed later. However, the original spec only required 3 so it meets that requirement. It is also struggling to meet the op altitude requirement. However, this is not a major snag as it will still be operating WAY above JSTARS and will suffer considerably less terrain shadow than the US platform. All of these issues would have been worse had we selected the GV as the ASTOR air vehicle.
Currently, it is expected that ASTOR will enter service roughly on time and in budget. It's not perfect (the Army BS and total lack of understanding regading ISTAR is unbelievable, and a Tornado nav accepted a pants intercomm system because he didn't believe it was possible to listen to more than one radio and intercom at a time!), but ASTOR will be a MAJOR capability addition when it enters service.
Don't knock it.
Regards
M2
PS A pity about the int ASTOR 'aircrew' only getting an air steward type arm falsh (instead of a brevet) and crew pay mind!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
Surely if they complete a recognised Aircrew training course they would be entitled to wear a brevet and gain flying pay.
It is a snub to those of us who have completed, and those who tried and failed, these courses to see certain people wearing a made-up brevet just for status.
Not a bitch at those who wear the brevets but at those in position of influence who let it happen.
Just do it properly or not at all.
Surely if they complete a recognised Aircrew training course they would be entitled to wear a brevet and gain flying pay.
It is a snub to those of us who have completed, and those who tried and failed, these courses to see certain people wearing a made-up brevet just for status.
Not a bitch at those who wear the brevets but at those in position of influence who let it happen.
Just do it properly or not at all.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles,
Couldn't agree more regarding your sentiments about 'do it right or not at all.'
However, who defines a 'recognised flying trg course'? We have had Fighter Controller 'aircrew' for 20 years now who have not passed through an FTS. Yet it is my understanding that these FC's (and E-3D Airborne Technicians) complete more flying hours to earn their brevet than do LM's or AEOp's (I stand ready to be corrected on this fact however). Many FC's have thousands of hrs and over a decade of flying experience. They serve as flt cdr's on operational E-3D sqn's and both the OCU and OES are currently commanded by FC breveted individuals. Many carry CFS instructor accreditation. Are any of these guys any less capable than a nav or AEO?
Nevertheless, I would fully support the argument that it should be done correctly. The FC brevet was briefly considered to be absorbed into the WSO/Op stream in exactly the same way as the Signaller brevet will be. Yet it was senior (non E-3D) officers in the FC branch who stopped this initiative so as to not lose control of an element of their empire. Nearly all the FC's at Waddo are keen to throw off the tag of being 'not real aircrew' and a number of attempts have been made for them to complete AAITC (for the SNCO FC's and AT's) and a similar 3 FTS course as the signallers do. Regrettably these efforts have been thwarted by a mix of cost, lack of capacity at 3 FTS and politics.
My comments regarding the ASTOR Int, Army and TG14 personnel who will only get crew pay is that they will be in a similar position as the E-3D FC's and AT's. They'll be essential to the ASTOR's capability, many will no doubt achieve many years and thousands of hrs flying, yet they're not entitled to either a brevet or flying pay.
My own belief is that E-3D FC and AT aircrew, and the future ASTOR Int, Army and TG14 personnel should be formally selected for aircrew duties, do AAITC (if they're a SNCO), and a short course similar to that run at Cranwell for Air Signallers.
However, please don't suggest that just because a guy wears a 'made up brevet' that he is automatically less capable than the AEO, AEOp or nav sitting next to him doing the same job. If this was not your inference however, I apologise!
Regards
M2
Couldn't agree more regarding your sentiments about 'do it right or not at all.'
However, who defines a 'recognised flying trg course'? We have had Fighter Controller 'aircrew' for 20 years now who have not passed through an FTS. Yet it is my understanding that these FC's (and E-3D Airborne Technicians) complete more flying hours to earn their brevet than do LM's or AEOp's (I stand ready to be corrected on this fact however). Many FC's have thousands of hrs and over a decade of flying experience. They serve as flt cdr's on operational E-3D sqn's and both the OCU and OES are currently commanded by FC breveted individuals. Many carry CFS instructor accreditation. Are any of these guys any less capable than a nav or AEO?
Nevertheless, I would fully support the argument that it should be done correctly. The FC brevet was briefly considered to be absorbed into the WSO/Op stream in exactly the same way as the Signaller brevet will be. Yet it was senior (non E-3D) officers in the FC branch who stopped this initiative so as to not lose control of an element of their empire. Nearly all the FC's at Waddo are keen to throw off the tag of being 'not real aircrew' and a number of attempts have been made for them to complete AAITC (for the SNCO FC's and AT's) and a similar 3 FTS course as the signallers do. Regrettably these efforts have been thwarted by a mix of cost, lack of capacity at 3 FTS and politics.
My comments regarding the ASTOR Int, Army and TG14 personnel who will only get crew pay is that they will be in a similar position as the E-3D FC's and AT's. They'll be essential to the ASTOR's capability, many will no doubt achieve many years and thousands of hrs flying, yet they're not entitled to either a brevet or flying pay.
My own belief is that E-3D FC and AT aircrew, and the future ASTOR Int, Army and TG14 personnel should be formally selected for aircrew duties, do AAITC (if they're a SNCO), and a short course similar to that run at Cranwell for Air Signallers.
However, please don't suggest that just because a guy wears a 'made up brevet' that he is automatically less capable than the AEO, AEOp or nav sitting next to him doing the same job. If this was not your inference however, I apologise!
Regards
M2
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: A 1/2 World away from Ice Statio Kilo
Posts: 404
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
"However, please don't suggest that just because a guy wears a 'made up brevet' that he is automatically less capable than the AEO, AEOp or nav sitting next to him doing the same job. If this was not your inference however, I apologise!"
Never suggested apology accepted!
I was to be involved with the introduction of WSOp training at Cranditz. This training was to produce Airmen Aircrew to fulfil all the roles of WSOp, not just to produce Maritime operators for the frozen north. I can’t see the logic of keeping FCs out of this as I believe all would benefit. Unless of course it could be the politics of the empire. Think about the benefits in career terms this could introduce to the FC trade for the scumbags. Make a case and push it up the line, you never know you just might make a difference.
I had a better offer of a career so I am not involved any more, with regards to Flying Hours it is quality not quantity that counts.
"However, please don't suggest that just because a guy wears a 'made up brevet' that he is automatically less capable than the AEO, AEOp or nav sitting next to him doing the same job. If this was not your inference however, I apologise!"
Never suggested apology accepted!
I was to be involved with the introduction of WSOp training at Cranditz. This training was to produce Airmen Aircrew to fulfil all the roles of WSOp, not just to produce Maritime operators for the frozen north. I can’t see the logic of keeping FCs out of this as I believe all would benefit. Unless of course it could be the politics of the empire. Think about the benefits in career terms this could introduce to the FC trade for the scumbags. Make a case and push it up the line, you never know you just might make a difference.
I had a better offer of a career so I am not involved any more, with regards to Flying Hours it is quality not quantity that counts.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Charles,
Agree with everything you say old chap. The WSO/Op scheme I believe will prove an effective rationalisation of a number of aircrew trades and particularly the AEOps. I'm aware that the WSOp course will provide module based trg to cover all future roles for the trade: MRA4, SAR, ASTOR, AWACS, R1 etc.
I vehemently believe that there should be no such thing as 'real' and 'non-real aircrew' and that the FC's (by this I mean the OSB FC officers, TG12 and SNCO FC's), AT's and ASTOR Int types should all be involved in the WSO/Op stream trg.
The primary stopper for the FC's who arguably have the biggest case for WSO involvment is its own branch leadership. With a few notable exceptions, the FC hierarchy are uniquely devoid of operational experience, particularly in modern OOA ops. Such poor leadership means that there is an exceptionally weak understanding of E-3D personnel issues from the individuals steering the branch.
However, there is also a degree of prejudice from elsewhere regarding the FC and AT brevets. It is extremely disappointing to note that both the FC and AT brevet's have been excluded from MFTS plans as they are 'not real aircrew'. This would have been the ideal chance to sort out the halfway house which currently exists. Things have and will continue to be pushed up the line but I suspect with little hope of success.
You are also entirely correct vice 'quality not quantity'! E-3D flying is a fast way to rack up the hrs and the flt deck is not the most challenging of roles. However, the importance of the platform means that the diversity of tasking gives crews an unrivalled 'big picture' knowledge of ops, from ground forces coord to the control of stealth packages. And the in flt catering makes the Nimrod look like a soup kitchen!
Cheerio!
M2
Agree with everything you say old chap. The WSO/Op scheme I believe will prove an effective rationalisation of a number of aircrew trades and particularly the AEOps. I'm aware that the WSOp course will provide module based trg to cover all future roles for the trade: MRA4, SAR, ASTOR, AWACS, R1 etc.
I vehemently believe that there should be no such thing as 'real' and 'non-real aircrew' and that the FC's (by this I mean the OSB FC officers, TG12 and SNCO FC's), AT's and ASTOR Int types should all be involved in the WSO/Op stream trg.
The primary stopper for the FC's who arguably have the biggest case for WSO involvment is its own branch leadership. With a few notable exceptions, the FC hierarchy are uniquely devoid of operational experience, particularly in modern OOA ops. Such poor leadership means that there is an exceptionally weak understanding of E-3D personnel issues from the individuals steering the branch.
However, there is also a degree of prejudice from elsewhere regarding the FC and AT brevets. It is extremely disappointing to note that both the FC and AT brevet's have been excluded from MFTS plans as they are 'not real aircrew'. This would have been the ideal chance to sort out the halfway house which currently exists. Things have and will continue to be pushed up the line but I suspect with little hope of success.
You are also entirely correct vice 'quality not quantity'! E-3D flying is a fast way to rack up the hrs and the flt deck is not the most challenging of roles. However, the importance of the platform means that the diversity of tasking gives crews an unrivalled 'big picture' knowledge of ops, from ground forces coord to the control of stealth packages. And the in flt catering makes the Nimrod look like a soup kitchen!
Cheerio!
M2
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear Magic Mushroom
had the privilege of flying on awacs some time ago, very much a rolls royce in comparison to both types of grimrod. However, even though you have a very nice galley area your ovens are pish. Nimrod oven can cook a frozen chix curry to piping hot in 20-25mins. After 45 mins in the E3D oven it was just about ready.
Nice carpets though
had the privilege of flying on awacs some time ago, very much a rolls royce in comparison to both types of grimrod. However, even though you have a very nice galley area your ovens are pish. Nimrod oven can cook a frozen chix curry to piping hot in 20-25mins. After 45 mins in the E3D oven it was just about ready.
Nice carpets though
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M2
"........and the flt deck is not the most challenging of roles."
So why can't Fighter Controllers do it? You must of been asleep during all that AAR. In 7 years, I only saw one FC go on a p-sortie (MCT, SCT) to see what happens. The AEOps did but then again, they came from a different system.
Regards
NW
"........and the flt deck is not the most challenging of roles."
So why can't Fighter Controllers do it? You must of been asleep during all that AAR. In 7 years, I only saw one FC go on a p-sortie (MCT, SCT) to see what happens. The AEOps did but then again, they came from a different system.
Regards
NW
Last edited by Next Waypoint; 25th Oct 2002 at 13:02.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear NW,
Flippin eck...calm down old chap!
My comments above are of course a huge generalisation for which I didn't mean to cause offence. You will also note that I have not suggested at any point that the flt deck job is less challenging than the mission crew positions down the back. So please don't let your ego be too bruised.
Of course, the majority of mission crew types are chopped pilots (be that at OASC or FTS) and I have the utmost respect for all you flt deck types. I often remind people down the back that at the end of a long mission it's you guys that then have to stick the ac down, possibly in very poor weather and high crosswinds while us goats are all dozing. The E-3D is very unforgiving in the landing regime if only because of the engine clearance. And no matter how many times I watch it, AAR still amazes me (I'm certainly not asleep down the back). Similarly, the Eng role on the E-3D is one of the most demanding left for those guys and they are essential to the jets mission.
Actually, I've done quite a few P-sorties and I believe that there is a strong case for mission crew to do maybe 2 a year as part of their annual stats. You'll certainly find me in seat 5 for T/O or landing as often as I can.
As for AEOp's doing more P-sorties than FC's, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I assume that you mean mission crew AEOp's rather than AEOp CO's who are obviously required to fly on a large number of P-sorties. Other than that, in my experience, no specific mission crew brevet volunteers for any more P-sortie trip than the next. However I'll bow to your first hand knowledge on this subject.
So basically NW, take a chill pill.
Regards
M2 (chopped pilot from OASC!!!!)
Flippin eck...calm down old chap!
My comments above are of course a huge generalisation for which I didn't mean to cause offence. You will also note that I have not suggested at any point that the flt deck job is less challenging than the mission crew positions down the back. So please don't let your ego be too bruised.
Of course, the majority of mission crew types are chopped pilots (be that at OASC or FTS) and I have the utmost respect for all you flt deck types. I often remind people down the back that at the end of a long mission it's you guys that then have to stick the ac down, possibly in very poor weather and high crosswinds while us goats are all dozing. The E-3D is very unforgiving in the landing regime if only because of the engine clearance. And no matter how many times I watch it, AAR still amazes me (I'm certainly not asleep down the back). Similarly, the Eng role on the E-3D is one of the most demanding left for those guys and they are essential to the jets mission.
Actually, I've done quite a few P-sorties and I believe that there is a strong case for mission crew to do maybe 2 a year as part of their annual stats. You'll certainly find me in seat 5 for T/O or landing as often as I can.
As for AEOp's doing more P-sorties than FC's, I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here. I assume that you mean mission crew AEOp's rather than AEOp CO's who are obviously required to fly on a large number of P-sorties. Other than that, in my experience, no specific mission crew brevet volunteers for any more P-sortie trip than the next. However I'll bow to your first hand knowledge on this subject.
So basically NW, take a chill pill.
Regards
M2 (chopped pilot from OASC!!!!)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: roughly near Everleigh DZ
Posts: 166
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old fashioned cooking
Magic mushroom and escapee,
even a C130 classic could cook an ACC in 25 mins, get with today and "ping" it in a J, 5-6 mins should do it !
even a C130 classic could cook an ACC in 25 mins, get with today and "ping" it in a J, 5-6 mins should do it !
