• 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

Budget Cuts and Flight/Simulator Training

pilot_man

Ex-Rhino driver
pilot
I knew I wouldn't get away with just a generic critique of the sims, and good on ya for wanting details. Because I don't want to spend forever writing this up, here is a list, in no special order of my gripes with the sims. Some of them are Beaufort specific. All of them are Hornet specific.

-There are always glitches with the niche weapons (LMAV, SLAM-ER, Harpoon, HARM, etc) that don't act quite like they (or their CATMs) do in real life
-The LPOD doesn't really work the same, and for a long time there were issues when the gen 4 pods came out.
-You learn so much more about the gear and the jet when you actually fly. We discovered some issues with the hardware on the gen 4 LPOD 9 months after it came out because we were flying it in a unique climate.
-Comms aren't realistic, especially with HQ, Secure or Mids
-The sims take forever to get linked up, even when you do the propper coordination ahead of time.
-Sims routinely cancelled for maintenance (WTF?) or because training objectives couldn't be achieved (i.e. div lead flew with only one wingman because the other 2 sims went down)
-Red air not doing what its supposed to do, even with an experienced operator. In real life even if the red air screws up the setup, at least it will do something tactical, not just fly in circles at 30 degrees angle of bank like an idiot.
-SAMS not doing what they are supposed to do many times. ("dash two disregard, you aren't spiked I don't know what's wrong with the system right now)
-DTED only being funded for the area right around the main F-18 bases and Yuma airfield. If you do a CAS sim anywhere that isn't completely flat your laser handoffs will be kilometers off because of the difference between DTED and the visuals.
-shitty visuals, expecially in CAS (targets jumping up and down 100' in the air)
-SACT is stupid in the Sim
-The way EA is presented in the sim sucks compared to having real life EA with your red air
-Makes us sloppy with admin/tac admin because in the sim often you just jump straight into the tactical portion with that already set up
-Less experience troubleshooting the combat systems in the jet because they always work in the sim

There are ranges with real life emitters that are great training. Hell, they will even launch "smoky sams" up at you. They just won't actually guide on you. For that kind of training, the best thing is a having an IP simulate the missile with his aircraft, using dumps and burner. That is much better training than defending against a blip on the screen.

Again, I am not against sim training. In fact, I think we should have more sim training. What I am proposing is that we endeavor to make sim time cheaper and less "realistic" because its not all that realistic anyways (except for NATOPS and INST checks). With cheaper sim time, we can fly the same hours and still be saving money. For 90% of my sims I can get the same training value with a realistic stick and throttle and touch screens to simulate my DDIs. I would argue that for newer aircraft like the F-35 with even less switches, this is even more true. Moreover, these sims would be deployable too, so if we actually had to do a strike somewhere, the mission commander could practice it 2 or 3 times with different contingencies in the "cheaper" sim, before doing it for real. Kinda like how the SEALs built a replica of Bin Laden's compound and practiced assaulting it several times before doing the mission for real.

In reality the big expensive sims are a sunk cost, so they will continue to throw money at them to make the training marginally better and cut flight hours at the same time.


Agree with everything, but I would add that the fact that most of the time, the sims don't even have the correct OFP or it takes them TOO long to get with the times. We could fix all of this by getting rid of our lowest bidder game plan and just go with Boeing. They have the OFP when it's released and would update the sims before the jets even get the new software. They also have deployable sims available. I've wanted these for a long time. They can go with Marines on their dets, or deploy to the CVNs once the airwing embarks. Bottom line is that our sims suck right now. For reliability, realism, and effect, they just don't cut it. There are better options out there we just have to spend the money to get them.
 

gotta_fly

Well-Known Member
pilot
To answer the question about the difference between Level D and the Navy's "Level D Equivalent" I've been told that level D certification requires modeling the flight dynamics of multiple aircraft and averaging the data. Our equivalent sim only modeled one jet, so it is very realistic sim of one specific aircraft instead of the whole E-6B fleet. Not sure if it's the same in P-3 land.

Our sim is pretty decent, along the lines of what HAL described. Which is a good thing since our FRS involves around a 10:1 ratio of hours in the sim to hours in the jet. If that.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2
 

helolumpy

Apprentice School Principal
pilot
Contributor
Yeah, sorry. I guess it isn't "public knowledge" yet. The P-8 is prohibited from flying in weather <500'. CommodoreMid was talking about waiting 4 or 5 hours to launch because of a low ceiling at Jax...


There's lots of TFR's on the P-8 right now. Runway lengths, fuel loads, weapons and (I hadn't heard this one yet) weather. Why is this aircraft being introduced into the Fleet if it's not ready for the mission yet???
 

pourts

former Marine F/A-18 pilot & FAC, current MBA stud
pilot
Pourts, thanks for the clarification. You're really talking aboout the limits of even our best networked sims in the advanced tactical environment and we would probably (mostly) all agree. And I'm with you 100% on the strategy of getting as many basic/fam/ep/inst events in the basic sims as possible even (and especially) for the old dudes. I was with you til your last comment. "Sunk" costs are made/paid for in the past and exist no matter which choice is made later. So if NAE correctly identifies the purchase of the big expensive sims as "sunk," when faced with the opportunity to purchase low-fi trainers as a low-cost way to meet training objectives that are now unaffordble in the aircraft, they will buy them just as you're suggesting. The issue is whether or not they apply the correct understanding of which costs are sunk and that, my friend, is the rub.

Good catch. I am an economics guy so bad on me for using the incorrect analysis of sunk cost.

I don't know how the contracts are written for the sims. Is the initial cost of the sim hardware amortized over many years in the contract? Was there a baloon payment up front? These things matter, so its a little immature of me to conplain about them not knowing the payment schedule.

What I meant to say was more along the lines of this: there is much institutional momentum behind the current sims. They influence how the T&R is written for one. Everyone who is in the business at this point has always had them in their current form (just different software), so on a subconscious level they are comfortable with them even though they suck. The people that work there have been there for decades. Everyone knows their names. There are so many factors preventing change.
 

pourts

former Marine F/A-18 pilot & FAC, current MBA stud
pilot
And I'm with you 100% on the strategy of getting as many basic/fam/ep/inst events in the basic sims as possible even (and especially) for the old dudes.

Thats not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that in the Hornet community, once you are in the fleet, the only time you need to be in a "realistic" sim with the exact same buttons and switches as the airplane, is for instrument checks, NATOPS checks, and a quarterly EP sim. That last part about a quarterly EP sim is just my opinion. I have been in a squadron where they were done every month without fail, and I have been in a squadron that never does them. Once a quarter seems reasonable to me, as a "should" or course.
 

MIDNJAC

is clara ship
pilot
Thats not exactly what I am saying. I am saying that in the Hornet community, once you are in the fleet, the only time you need to be in a "realistic" sim with the exact same buttons and switches as the airplane, is for instrument checks, NATOPS checks, and a quarterly EP sim. That last part about a quarterly EP sim is just my opinion. I have been in a squadron where they were done every month without fail, and I have been in a squadron that never does them. Once a quarter seems reasonable to me, as a "should" or course.

Wow, that is pretty aggressive.....was this a -D squadron as well? I can't even imagine doing this in a single seat ready room, let alone doing it for 2+ X that amount of people.

Agreed on the above.....about the only time I get into the sim is as you mentioned. Every now and then there is a SFWT sim event, or some sort of good deal practice getting ready for a det, but not nearly often enough for the sim quality to really matter to me. I'm sure if they could do a lot more with them in a realistic fashion, then we would use them more.
 

jollygreen07

Professional (?) Flight Instructor
pilot
Contributor
To answer the question about the difference between Level D and the Navy's "Level D Equivalent" I've been told that level D certification requires modeling the flight dynamics of multiple aircraft and averaging the data. Our equivalent sim only modeled one jet, so it is very realistic sim of one specific aircraft instead of the whole E-6B fleet. Not sure if it's the same in P-3 land.

Our sim is pretty decent, along the lines of what HAL described. Which is a good thing since our FRS involves around a 10:1 ratio of hours in the sim to hours in the jet. If that.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

You must be flying a different sim than me. It's great for procedures/cockpit fam. Flying wise? Not so much. I've flown 408 many times and she doesn't do that stupid pull when you drop the flaps. That sim is garbage.
 

nittany03

Recovering NFO. Herder of Programmers.
pilot
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
They can go with Marines on their dets, or deploy to the CVNs once the airwing embarks.
But then how would you send the FNG on a snipe hunt to do his "EP sim rehack" his first day on board? :)
 

phrogpilot73

Well-Known Member
By "VBS2" do you mean the application Virtual BattleSpace by Bohemia Interactive? BIS also makes the Armed Assault series (and previously the Operation Flashpoint series), which is pretty much the only computer game I still play. It's amazing what that game engine can do for it being a jack of all trades simulation engine.
Yup, that would be it. Pretty amazing game engine, as you mentioned - and very good for infantry squad level tactics. For what we train for, it's not as good. The DVTE system is better for what we do, but not as good for infantry squad level tactics. MARCORSYSCOM is looking to fund one or the other (not both), and when queried for our input - we said pretty much that if they could make VBS2 do x, y an z - then fund VBS2, if not - fund DVTE.

As for the contracts for sims, I can honestly say I have no idea. Our main sim (the MSAT) was cobbled together from scraping the barrel for funds from the get-go. Still to this day, it's not a program of record - so I'd say that's the reason ours sucks so bad.
 

navyao

Registered User
Okay, all do respect I have no clue what the sims are like that you guys fly but I thought I'd at least show you all what's out there for all of us. My sim is on a desk top PC but I gotta admit it's pretty high speed, low drag. Click the link and watch the vid, I think it's pretty impressive, I'm sure you'll all agree. You guys were talking about systems malfunctions in your sims, in this one I can pre-program any gripe I want; hydraulics, radar, engine failure(s), etc. Every button, switch and dial I can drag my mouse over click it and it works. As far as flight characteristics go, I don't know because other than riding brakes, I've never flown the real thing, ha! It certainly isn't easy landing on the boat, as a matter of fact it's hard as hell! From what I know though it's the same in the sim, that at 3/4 it's AoA and ball flying. The only bad thing is my desk doesn't move and I don't sit in a NACES, other than that it's pretty cool.
 

zippy

Freedom!
pilot
Contributor
There's lots of TFR's on the P-8 right now. Runway lengths, fuel loads, weapons and (I hadn't heard this one yet) weather. Why is this aircraft being introduced into the Fleet if it's not ready for the mission yet???
There's lots of TFR's on the P-8 right now. Runway lengths, fuel loads, weapons and (I hadn't heard this one yet) weather. Why is this aircraft being introduced into the Fleet if it's not ready for the mission yet???

P-8 is still in the LRIP stage. It wasn't fielded as a fully mature platform. It will grow into one as time progresses just like every other new aircraft has... Provided MPRA leadership doesn't let it's fear of its own aircraft prevent the P-8 from
Growing into its full potential over time. While the P3 has successfully continued to grow and evolve since its initial production, in recent history the community has viewed the aircraft as a systems problem instead of a weapon system- a hindrance to the mission, instead of a tool to complete the mission with.
 
Top