No computers then an aircraft like F35 is going no-where - the Aircrew can, but the jet isn’t. No calculator - oh please, they do teach basic non-calculator maths at GCSE and certainly enough to do basic MDR and fuel/time/distance calcs. It is also still a significant part of the Computer Based Aptitude Tests (CBAT). No mobile phones - there are still land lines at some locations, but believe it or not GPTN is being phased out to VOIP at most military stations in the next couple of years. Now GPS (in fact GNSS) and sat nav is the really interesting one - this is what would likely happen if GNSS failed to perform these days:

1. The UK along with most of the world would go bankrupt in around a fortnight. The world’s banking systems use the time signal from GNSS to synchronise trading these days.
2. Agriculture and fisheries are heavily reliant on GNSS for a number of things. So be prepared to go hungry fast!
3. Civil Emergency Services are now tasked via datalinks (synched to GNSS time signals) and using positional data from sats.
4. Most large countries use GNSS time signals to synchronise the frequency of power station output on their ‘national grids’.
5. No cash machines, no debit card machines, no online shopping.
6. No digital radio or TV.
7. No live travel info on public transport and the rail network ceases.

More info in this document on how the loss of GPS/GNSS would affect the UK and the wider world - wondering how a few FJ pilots would cope is a little out of touch, I might be so bold to offer?
https://assets.publishing.service.go...ase_Report.pdf

There is a reason why everyone is getting excited about space - it is something that nearly all nations rely heavily upon and so we need to think more widely than about how a few Jet Jockeys would cope! :ok:

Yup, one of the biggest losses I have known in my time. He inspired and educated a new generation. Sadly, never a ‘household name’ outside of the few hundred of us that were lucky enough to receive his wisdom.

Excuse the slight thread drift, but as a truckie introducing the C130J into service in the 90’s, my training partner during our manufacturer’s ‘convex’ in the USA wondered how the ‘kids of the day’ would cope with all this new-fangled computer driven stuff, as he was struggling to keep up.
He didn’t take kindly to the suggestion that the ‘play station generation’ would take it in their stride, unlike him....

Dunno, why not send a suggestion to LMCo for a future software drop? :ok:

What the hell is all the whining about?!

Viewing it through neutral eyes I thought it was bloody good. If it’s intention is to aid recruitment then I think it’s bang on the money.

If it doesn’t appeal to people of previous generations then I don’t think that’s a problem.

I could go on all day about previous replies but I’ll try to minimise my inputs.

Regarding the question of whether the pilots of today could cope without computers I say of course they could. I started my instructional career on 19 Sqn on the Hawk T1 (pre GPS). Students coped then. Students cope with the Hawk T2 as well. Either group of students could cope with either aircraft if they were taught to.

Would it be appropriate if I said that pilots of yesteryear could never fly modern fighters because they couldn’t cope with the computers? Personally I think that statement would be just as ridiculous as saying modern students couldn’t cope without them.

As for those that think I’m on a crusade to disrespect my forebears I say please stop and think.

On this site it seems that some people believe it is perfectly acceptable to criticise the current generation with impunity. However, for the reverse to happen is apparently disrespectful. Why must these things be a one way street?

I am more than happy to admit when I’m wrong. I can take criticism on the chin. Is that true of everyone on here?

As to the guys and gal on the programme I say bloody well done.

Personally I avoid TV cameras like the plague.

I have flown with many of the staff and students on both fleets (not in an F35 obviously) and I thought they all came across well. Clearly whatever they do they will attract criticism from some people so more kudos to them for being brave enough to talk to the cameras in the first place.

Whether you agree with the instructional methods on show is largely immaterial. In 2019 the methods work very well. There is more effort to accommodate learning styles and more understanding of actual teaching methods than was true many years ago.

Before you get all huffy just consider that I have been a QFI for 12 years on the Hawk (A2 on several variants) and spent four years qualifying as a teacher before I joined the RAF. I do know a thing or two about the intricacies of imparting knowledge.

Standards of instruction now are as high as they have ever been. The methods are just different to days gone by.

So, one episode in and it gets a thumbs up from me. Let’s see what next week brings.

BV

BV

Well said. And it reinforces my point to viz, which was - why the hell does it matter if the staff-mate calls the stude-mate ‘mate’ ? (See what I did there;))

Is anyone else tiring of the fact that any post to defend the current system by us ‘relative youngsters’ instantly generates long diatribes of outrage from those who might be getting slightly confused in their dotage. :ugh:

As well as the aforementioned reasons, the down wash is so brutal that it needs to stay high until it’s over a suitably prepared surface. Those are expensive; you wouldn’t want to make them any bigger to allow for expansive low-speed manoeuvring at 20ft.

Just watched the first episode.

I went through a very different system in a vastly different RAF that had a totally different operational environment for those who made it through.

I came away from watching the first episode with a tremendous feeling of pride for both students and staff.

If that was any way typical of today’s RAF then I have a great deal of confidence in its ability to do the job, with warmth, humour, efficiency and skill.

And do the job is so significant. My generation only ever practiced, we never did it for real. The young people featured in this programme know that they are going to have to do what they are training for for real, and most probably sooner rather than later.

I took great delight in their attitude and approach, and my admiration for them knows no bounds.

I would have been proud to call any of them mate.

Yes, but then the carriers were big enough to actually have supported a conventional through deck facility, so what exactly does this vertical capability bring to the table as all the lift engine is doing is taking up valuable fuel and munitions capability, remember this is / was slated at being the Harrier for the 21st century, if it has lost the ability to operate ashore dispersed in a war time situation from unprepared sites, then surely the logic behind giving it the ability to hover in the first place is flawed.


As for all the chat about the training regimes and cockpit banter etc and not in my time and a lot of yours too, all I can say it may have changed, yes, and the time before getting to the front line is ridiculous,
BUT they must be doing something right, because the Gulf Wars, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan are testaments to the professionalism, dedication and skills of those currently serving in harms way and is there for all to see,
so to all those detractors, the proof of the training establishments achievements is written in their ability to provide combat proven pilots.

Thread creep. Would it have been better to have had cats, traps and a whole load of F-18s?

I know there’s a conventional F-35 but is the cost/capability difference from the F-18 (quantity has a quality all of its own) worth it?