I would imagine that all the support players roles will soon be filled by drone aircraft.
Would the rear crew roles be any different if sat behind a console on a military base rather than in the back of an E3 or Wedgie? AH and AT might be challenge though..

Devils Advocate
 

You know I like to do this so bear with me.

Is it possible that those ex-members who say it is a ridiculous idea are viewing this through the lenses of how it was in their day?

I agree that the idea of being current in LL, all weather strike in Western Europe is not something you could imagine doing on 50 hours a year. But we don’t do that any more. And we don’t need to.

I’m not saying I love the idea of spending my time in a simulator either but I’m open minded enough to realise that technology and roles have moved on enough that it is potentially feasible.

BV

Which brings us back nicely to one of my older posts of the US using off the shelf A10 gaming software and Virtual reality as a training tool, they have embraced the technology. I realise it’s not the all singing all dancing software and simulators that the military normally uses, but it has its place.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...to-train-in-vr

No Bob, I for one am not It is too much, too soon and I suspect the real reason is cost. MoD cannot afford enough flight time in 5th generation jets.

Also, what will the groundcrew be doing if the aircrew are spending so much time in the box?

A surge requirement will never be achieved with so much box time whilst real-life core skills are atrophying.

It looks like we are reducing the current 86 ground trades down to 11 so I guess what will the ground crew be doing is going to be answered very soon!

From Sir Humphrey at the ThinPinstripedLine….

https://tinyurl.com/adrryt6u

Those Magnificent Crew in their Simulated Flying Machines - Thoughts on the Future of the RAF

Alternative idea: Could we just designate some area in cyberspace where the grown up boys can play with their expensive virtual weapon toys and leave us real folks to live our reality in a real world in peace?

Conduct their wars in cyberspace. Use virtual soldiers.

Let them blow each other to smithereens, and when they get bored or give up, they can just reboot their reality.

Everybody happy!

I was a Sim Instructor at two different Helicopter Factory Schools and have a love-hate relationship with them.

I love the Sims and the value they provide for realistic training when done right.

I loathe Sim Training when it is not done right....and that far too often is the case.

Simulators are just that....fairly realistic imitations of the real aircraft re its performance and reaction to controls and systems.

They are not perfect but they can be a very valuable tool in maintaining proficiency on skills that are quite perishable.

Flying actual aircraft for routine practices can be a real waste of money and be un-necessary use of the aircraft.

Finding the happy medium between Sims/Procedures Trainers/Systems Trainers and flying the actual aircraft is the key.

SASLess, I had a go at cutting code for one of the early sims at RAE. Looking at the traces, we found pilots fell into 3 groups, over simulators, simulators and under simulators. One group over controlled and over reacted, one flew it like the real thing and one knew it was just a sim and tended to hit the ground a bit hard. Is that still true or has the technology and enhanced reality taken us beyond that?

I am not familiar with the current generations of Sims so I have no basis upon which to speak re your question.

Your three categories of Pilots reactions to the Sim is fairly accurate based upon my past experience.

In my time...the Sims used "Two" computers...one for the Sim itself and one for the Visual...and the synching of the. two suffered from a very slight lag between the control inputs felt by the Sim.....before the Visual reacted.

That very slight delay is what triggered the over controlling as in real life the aircraft reaction is felt/seen a lot quicker than in the Sim.

Later versions have improved on that for sure as in the later models I instructed in were much better in early models I first used.

The other feature that leads to "hard" landings is as the surface is approached.....the Sim Visual (in the ones I am experienced in....) lacked sufficient detail re surface texture to provide real life equivalent in Depth Perception. I used to remind Sim Students to aim for the Centerline and Touch Down Zone markings on the runway as there was more contrast in them than on the Runway surface and not to "feel" for surface as in the real aircraft.

The other interesting feature in the Sims I instructed in was as you approached the surface....perspective changed due to the modeling done by the Software Engineers....and as you got close to the ground the Centerline grew in size to where it looked like a small runway rather than a marking on a Runway.

I learned to teach the students to treat the Sim as a Sim...not the actual aircraft and noted all the visual and control differences they would encounter so they understood what was going on as a result of the design of the Sim and I found that allowed for a quicker transition to flying the Sim.

One other thing that enters into the handling problems of the Sim by Pilots who are very current and proficient in flying the real aircraft.....is the Sim is not a real Aircraft.

The G forces and other natural forces we feel as we fly the actual aircraft are not present in the Sim...even in the best full motion Sim.

An example is when a Turn is made in the Sim....say a steep turn of double a standard rate turn....the full motion Sim will tilt but then very gradually return to level in preparation for other movements.....and our well tuned butts realize that and send its signals to our Brains....where subconsciously the Brains sorts out the inputs from our eyes and conscious side....compares the signals and of course finds a fault indication between the seen and felt and that causes some confusion. Sim Sick is just as bad as Air Sick and strikes everyone at some point if you spend enough time in the Sim.

Engineers can only go so far in defying the Law of Physics in their effort to make Simulators completely duplicate the actual aircraft.

Long answer....but you are correct.

Sims are great for practicing drills and I have no problem with that, but sims will never replicate real flying.

There will always be situations where the event was never covered in the Sim and it is only real hands on that will allow a pilot to get around the unexpected, because that is where experience will be gained. If you don’t fly for real, is it really worth spending all that money if the outcome could be 50:50 (because your opponent is not playing as programmed)?

Plus, at the end of the day, are you going to send an aircraft to fight an adversary if the computed outcome says you are going to lose?

You need pilots who are capable of doing the unexpected, which is only achieved by flying for real and gaining experience, otherwise we might be better of deciding war by playing a game of Risk. It would certainly be cheaper!

Hand out VR goggles to the public so they watch a simulated display.

If synthetic training is supposedly so knaff, how do they train the RPAS crews...?

Part of the answer is probably that the operators’ station is a comfortable, 1g , shirtsleeve, zero jeopardy environment. Much like a simulator but unlike most cockpits. And I never (k)new that (k)naff was spelt with a k!