Languages use depends on the platform, etc. MQ-8 used Linux and V-22 was working updates to FCCs and Mission Computers to bring in more computing power and more modern languages.
-
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
No more CQs?
- Thread starter phrogdriver
- Start date
Wat . . .
Top hook breaks the deck man, as nature intended. This is the way.
BUT WHAT IF THE PILOT ABSOLUTELY HAS TO FLY A MANUAL PASS AND PLM AUTOLAND DOESN’T WORK? SURELY YOU CAN HAVE A PERFECTLY FUNCTIONING JET WITHOUT A FCS???
Yes, it does; every language is a tool which has its own strengths and weaknesses. That said, Linux is not a language; it's an operating system, or more precisely an OS kernel you can build a specific Linux distro around. Like, say, Android.
Oftentimes, the reason to use a lower-level language is due to resource constraints. A higher-level language such as Python or C# abstracts away a lot of the manual housekeeping and allows a developer to focus on the important stuff, just like FBW and PLM. But that comes with a performance overhead. Assembly is the lowest of low-level languages, because you're sending discrete commands and granular instructions directly to the CPU. So written properly, it's insanely fast. But the developer is equally going to be absurdly down in the weeds when writing code, having to manually move bits and bytes between the CPU and RAM for everything.
What's happening now is that, in the era of phones that have as much power as a 1980s supercomputer, the juice is starting to not become worth the squeeze. There will always be edge cases where you need to write some stuff in assembly, typically the stuff that directly touches the CPU and provides an interface for other people to interact with it. But elsewise, it's turning into a small sacrifice in performance for not much gain.
Even C and C++ are eventually going to become dated. They're almost as fast, but also make you manually control what goes where in memory, and if you screw that up, you can create a bunch of different entertaining security holes that hackers can use later. So now, there are new languages like Rust that people are starting to experiment with, where someone has cracked the code on how to keep things fast while denying devs the opportunity to manually screw up admin.
Pretty sure this isn't serious, but I'll answer it anyway: NO.
No FCS = Eject or die. The jet is uncontrollable, so "manual" wouldn't work either. If the jet is controllable but things are failed to the point PLM isn't working, it was going to be a divert from the ship anyway. If no divert is available, rig the barricade or controlled ejection.
Last edited:
So regarding carrier training in the VT, some thoughts...
Will the follow-on jet at least be able to do a constant rate descent with no flare, so SNAs can practice carrier landings? Seems obvious it should. You can skip the tail hook and nose links for cats and traps. Maybe some spindly F16 hook for blown tire landings. The aircraft could then be used for shipboard touch and go exercises.
For training, with modern GPS and other Nav the profile on final could be captured within inches in all axes, and every landing debriefed like a CQ phase hop. FAM, FORM, etc. For that matter, all the way around the pattern. TACTS for CQ.
Some great cameras at the approach end, and paddles could be sitting back in the ready room sipping a beer and waving each pass at the field. Acclimate to servitude of the LSO from day one.
I’m liking my idea of a civvy ship converted into a touch & go only flattop for CQ training and refreshers. Every squadron on the coast could pop out for regular bounce sessions.
Will the follow-on jet at least be able to do a constant rate descent with no flare, so SNAs can practice carrier landings? Seems obvious it should. You can skip the tail hook and nose links for cats and traps. Maybe some spindly F16 hook for blown tire landings. The aircraft could then be used for shipboard touch and go exercises.
For training, with modern GPS and other Nav the profile on final could be captured within inches in all axes, and every landing debriefed like a CQ phase hop. FAM, FORM, etc. For that matter, all the way around the pattern. TACTS for CQ.
Some great cameras at the approach end, and paddles could be sitting back in the ready room sipping a beer and waving each pass at the field. Acclimate to servitude of the LSO from day one.
I’m liking my idea of a civvy ship converted into a touch & go only flattop for CQ training and refreshers. Every squadron on the coast could pop out for regular bounce sessions.
Yea, I wasn’t serious, but I appreciate you answering it anyway. I learned this new technique on Twitter where you just say ridiculous things in all caps and it makes it true or relevant.
I'm no Naval Aviator but I got to fly 1.0 in the front seat of an F-18F in 2014 and discovered this too.
The IP talked me through a departure starting around FL340, and the jet started the best roller coaster ride I've ever been on. Once the IP's voice became slightly more urgent on doing a reset of some switch back on the panel under my left elbow, I figured it wasn't going well.
After what was an uncomfortably low recovery for the IP, we knocked it off and RTB'd. IP (TPS grad... SevenHelmet, it was Lick... ask him about it) said it was the closest he'd come to shelling out in his Navy career.
The computer graphic recreation based on the data that was pulled from the jet was pretty cool!
Damn Zoomies, can’t trust those pilots ?
Nice, Huggy. Sounds like you might have had to do an FCS reset... during a departure. I recall hearing Lick's version of this story a couple of times while at Beale during my DT-II (he was my advisor), on none other than the U-2 Dragon Lady. This was maybe a year or so after you retired.
Small world.
I’m not an F/A-18 pilot anymore, so I’ve wondered about how the engineers overcame the dreaded 4-channel AOA failure for PLM, as it always seemed like the most common worst-case behind the boat scenario. Is GAIN ORIDE smarter now or has something else changed?
Quick related sea story:
My last deployment was the first one where that particular air wing used PLM. I loved it. Flying passes had never been so easy....right until I got a 4 channel AOA failure...two flights in row on two different jets (PSA: Tell your PCs not to try and see if the old style AOA probes will spin freely all the way around. Spoiler alert—they don’t.) For those two flights it was back to full manual passes to get aboard. On one of them it wasn’t apparent which probe was the good one to select (both showing about the same), which meant no E-bracket and that I actually had to, gasp, scan airspeed during the approach (still going to therapy for the PTSD caused by this one).
Quick related sea story:
My last deployment was the first one where that particular air wing used PLM. I loved it. Flying passes had never been so easy....right until I got a 4 channel AOA failure...two flights in row on two different jets (PSA: Tell your PCs not to try and see if the old style AOA probes will spin freely all the way around. Spoiler alert—they don’t.) For those two flights it was back to full manual passes to get aboard. On one of them it wasn’t apparent which probe was the good one to select (both showing about the same), which meant no E-bracket and that I actually had to, gasp, scan airspeed during the approach (still going to therapy for the PTSD caused by this one).
Going back to a few posts ago, the flight hours aren't going to be replaced with something else.
The new syllabus proposals will have folks "off-ramp" into their platforms earlier; helo guys will be selected sooner, not do the full T-6 syllabus and go to heloland sooner. Jet guys will get picked sooner and do "tacform" and other things to make them "better" in the T-45. They've tried this once before in the early 10s and it didn't go very well.
A new T-45 syllabus with some additions was sent back with what amounted to "no additions, status quo only, and subtractions are welcome".
The goal is to get SNAs from street to fleet ASAFP and as cheaply as possible.