My plan would actually take longer to get a JO to the fleet, but they would have a lot more experience making their time in the fleet more valuable.
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
NEWS Air Force leadership talks frankly about pilot retention
- Thread starter ChuckMK23
- Start date
Pretty sure I saw the NC OLF land for sale on GSA auctions fairly recently. Looks like we were quietly giving it back.
I'm afraid that new starts are going to be a hard sell->non-starter in any foreseeable future. It's a good thing that we built the interstate system when we did. Can you imagine trying to imminent domain all that land now?
Bingo. I haven’t taken a hard look at the current VTJ advanced syllabus, but I bet my last paycheck it could use an update to focus on the “sensor management” a great deal more.
One of these days I will learn how to quote multiple posts...
Yes contract air support (or CAS to really confuse the issue) are going to start taking place a lot of the adversary duties. However they are not buying new aircraft.
For the Navy the F-5 is probably going to be the percentage threat. NAWDC’s F-16’s are going to start dying in 2023 unless they get the mid-life upgrade (unlikely) and VFA-204 and VFC-12 are going to be flying broke-dick Charlie’s till they get broke-dick low lot Rhino’s.
You mentioned NGTS, but everyone keeps saying that LVC will be great once we get NGTS online. But they've been saying that for 4+ years. They'll get it eventually, but not everyone is on the same timeline.
The major issue with LVC that I kept hearing about was Classification. Want to do AWF with an CVW of the future? Great, as long as you don't expect everyone to participate because not everyone can interface through the LVC at a TS level. Solvable? Sure. But remember my comments about PMA-205 in another thread.
And as an amusing side, I just tried to go to PMA-205 to check on something and I got this:
Networking Accomplished!
(yes, I know you can get to the page from within NAVAIR's menu, eventually)
I know what you're getting at here, but I don't think it's going to be an issue. The network is going to remain GENSER, then platform capabilities are what they are. We operate with that kind of mix today.
T-X is a decent possibility for a ground based adversary if the Navy is smart enough to jump on.
With respect to creating smarter, more capable nuggets, I’m all for it. I’ve been advocating the same for helo types as the Navy buys their new helo trainer. I think, unfortunately, the price tag is too much for our manning model wherein we keep pumping people into the left side and shrug our shoulders on the right side.
If they've made progress, great, but as of two TS ENARGs ago (okay, I guess it's 3 now...time flies), F-35 was what was causing the issue. It wasn't that you couldn't emulate data, it was that anything externally touching the node had to be TS because the network internally was TS . I'm over-simplifying it, but you get the idea. It appeared to be a more IT-generated problem than a technical capability issue.
In other words, "sanitizing this to downgrade it is too hard, so we're just going to punt and overclassify everything." Would that that's the first time I'd heard of that phenomenon.
I remember my night tac form flight at 101. I think we took off pinky and I couldn’t figure out how to dim the lights to the right combination to allow me to see properly at night because I’d never flown that lot/jet type. I pretended to be visual when I was blind almost the entire time after it got dark.
How realistic is LVC? I’m not a fan of anything simulated if it is used as a replacement for real training w/ real metal.
You can do a an event in the sim and rock it because all the systems are perfect and things are 1s and 0s when you would probably get slayed in the jet dealing with how things work for real.
T-45 could be useful red air, especially with an EA and TCTS pod. When you have people resorting to “ghost groups” to satisfy T&R red air requirements... anything can be useful.
Maybe if we retained more people and kept people in the cockpit we’d reduce our training burden for not only VTs but for initial fleet codes we could use sorties for more useful training... but that’ll never happen.
Last edited:
Have you seen the VMTS T-45s at Pensacola? They basically have an unclassified APG-73 for a/a and a/g. Plus datalink threats (or generate them from the other cockpit) to create LVC style fake bandits.
In other words, "sanitizing this to downgrade it is too hard, so we're just going to punt and overclassify everything." Would that that's the first time I'd heard of that phenomenon.
My limited understanding is that it was more complicated than that. As with everything the Navy procures, it meets the initial specs, but when the specs change (not sending certain info, in this case), the software needs to be rewritten, which of course it wasn't designed to be rewritten in the first place.
The same issue happened to both the Hornet and the H-60 with the AOP (or whatever jet guys call the system software). As capabilities were getting added, the code was getting bloated, and you couldn't rewrite the code without starting over. I lost track of where VFA went with this, but I think they went the same direction as H-60 and it's now on the top 10 (and I think at least partially funded, if not more so).
Can’t tell if you’re joking or not, but I think that is incorrect.
Notably, the USAF has an officer specialty for planning & programming, which the USN does not. The USN makes its URL, RL, and Staff Corps officers do planning & programming tours. That’s why Brett327 spent so much time in the Pentagon.
Not sure what you're referring to WRT bloated code, but F18 software (SCS) are updated every 2 years, with each build bringing new capabilities and CVI features.