-
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
Do you think the follow-on to the T45 should be able to fly a constant glide slope with a no-flare touchdown? Fly a carrier pattern?
Yes I do, but I don't think it will.
It's sounding like the touch and go thing is just a rumor, I have it on fairly good authority the T-7 isn't capable of carrier landings, arrested or otherwise.
When you consider the structural requirements for landing gear and airframe to withstand touching down at 600-800fpm thousands of times over the life of the airframe, it kind of makes sense not to design something for training touch & goes only. There are some flight safety considerations too- wouldn't it be nice to be able to trap in case of an emergency vs. divert 80-100 miles?
I would imagine they'll fund a carrier variant for full-up arrested landings, or (more likely) not.
Came off as party line to me, although there was more to his argument that sort of made sense, from a "T-45 manual doesn't train students to fly PLM later" standpoint. But from a holistic point of view, I still think the argument was specious. Learning the fundamentals of landing on the ship will continue to pay dividends, even in the era of PLM-only (and as pointed out, not every platform has, or will have PLM).
Last edited:
Well, the counterargument is at what point do you potentially attrite a student, or even just waste time/money/brain cells demonstrating a skill they're never going to need to execute? I know as soon as the Prowler wasn't going to Das Boot anymore, the Marines shitcanned the CQ requirement for obvious reasons. But for quite awhile, 129 still sent Marine Cat Is to the boat, because . . . umm . . . fucked if I know what that was supposed to demonstrate. How much taxpayer money did that cost?
I don't know enough about where PLM is going and when to be able to credibly answer that question. But if we get to a point where a hypothetical stud could get to a fleet-quality boarding rate/GPA using PLM, while his/her T-45 manual passes still look like the standard Goshawk student HX TMPCDIM FBAR-IC -B loonyness, the question is going to be "Cui bono? Cui gives a shit?"
I'm still curious how it'd impact the E-2 kids.
I think everyone should remember that the current interest isn’t in getting “the best training”, it’s getting “the most efficient training”.
From a qualitative standpoint it makes the most sense to keep sending everyone to the boat in the T-45 and giving them the most amount of flight time and experience possible. But we’re living in a fiscally-constrained and resource-limited environment. The fleet needs pilots yesterday, and eliminating CQ is a great way to get them to the fleet faster. There’s going to be massive trade-offs in terms of quality and experience, but you can’t cut out large chunks of any syllabus and expect otherwise.
I’m sure the VAW community will figure out a way forward that includes more FCLPs and traps during initial CQ, or maybe even something wild like going out to the fleet as a non-CQ player and then going back to the RAG to CQ with their IPs after more experience? Who knows.
From a qualitative standpoint it makes the most sense to keep sending everyone to the boat in the T-45 and giving them the most amount of flight time and experience possible. But we’re living in a fiscally-constrained and resource-limited environment. The fleet needs pilots yesterday, and eliminating CQ is a great way to get them to the fleet faster. There’s going to be massive trade-offs in terms of quality and experience, but you can’t cut out large chunks of any syllabus and expect otherwise.
I’m sure the VAW community will figure out a way forward that includes more FCLPs and traps during initial CQ, or maybe even something wild like going out to the fleet as a non-CQ player and then going back to the RAG to CQ with their IPs after more experience? Who knows.
More to @nittany03's point, the T45 is now the hardest thing to land on the ship. At what point does proving you're able to land the T45 become less of a metric of future fleet performance? How do you tell a student that he can't fly a fighter because he can't fly manual passes at the ship in an underpowered plane that's pure stuck and rudder. From a practical standpoint, how does that prepare them for the fleet?
Everyone understands the E2 problem. It's an obvious one. The solution is going to be E2 guys CQ in the E2....period. Nothing else makes sense. Considering how much stick and rudder carry over there is from the T45, it's certainly doable. Not easy, but doable. If I can teach a student to land on the boat as a solo T45 pilot, then the E2 FRS can certainly teach them to do it with someone else in the plane. It just sounds scary because that's not what we've always done.
As far as the intangibles (situational awareness, boat admin, etc) I think people are vastly over qualifying a students level of CQ knowledge and proficiency. We teach them how to get gas and taxi to the cat. Turn left and leave your gear down if you're gonna trap again. Do a clearing turn if you wanna leave. Bingo if you're outta gas. Other than that, most studs have zero clue wtf is going on nor have the SA to do anything other than exactly what they've been told. That's the entire purpose behind the lead/safe overhead in the stack. Bring them to the ship, get them in the pattern, help them home in case of emergency. Studs are not required to possess any Case I/II/III knowledge at all until the FRS anyway so the argument that they will be behind the power curve in the FRS is sort of moot. Again, if I can teach them to fly manual stick and rudder passes at the ship in the T45 then they can certainly be taught how to do it in the FRS.
Lastly, and the most controversial, what happens if we kill someone at the boat in a T45? We've accepted a qualified, redundant system in the fleet that's incredibly forgiving with a huuuge safety margin but to get there you gotta do this really, really dangerous shit first? I don't think anyone is willing to let that happen. And before you argue that someone's lack of T45 experience may be what causes a mishap in a fleet jet, think really really hard about how much your own T45 experience shaped the type of pilot you ended up being (i.e., how many times in the FRS and the fleet did you ever say "but in the T45.....")
This whole argument sorta reminds me of some WWII old timers flying props who refused to wear helmets because it interfered with their ability to "listen to the engine".
Everyone understands the E2 problem. It's an obvious one. The solution is going to be E2 guys CQ in the E2....period. Nothing else makes sense. Considering how much stick and rudder carry over there is from the T45, it's certainly doable. Not easy, but doable. If I can teach a student to land on the boat as a solo T45 pilot, then the E2 FRS can certainly teach them to do it with someone else in the plane. It just sounds scary because that's not what we've always done.
As far as the intangibles (situational awareness, boat admin, etc) I think people are vastly over qualifying a students level of CQ knowledge and proficiency. We teach them how to get gas and taxi to the cat. Turn left and leave your gear down if you're gonna trap again. Do a clearing turn if you wanna leave. Bingo if you're outta gas. Other than that, most studs have zero clue wtf is going on nor have the SA to do anything other than exactly what they've been told. That's the entire purpose behind the lead/safe overhead in the stack. Bring them to the ship, get them in the pattern, help them home in case of emergency. Studs are not required to possess any Case I/II/III knowledge at all until the FRS anyway so the argument that they will be behind the power curve in the FRS is sort of moot. Again, if I can teach them to fly manual stick and rudder passes at the ship in the T45 then they can certainly be taught how to do it in the FRS.
Lastly, and the most controversial, what happens if we kill someone at the boat in a T45? We've accepted a qualified, redundant system in the fleet that's incredibly forgiving with a huuuge safety margin but to get there you gotta do this really, really dangerous shit first? I don't think anyone is willing to let that happen. And before you argue that someone's lack of T45 experience may be what causes a mishap in a fleet jet, think really really hard about how much your own T45 experience shaped the type of pilot you ended up being (i.e., how many times in the FRS and the fleet did you ever say "but in the T45.....")
This whole argument sorta reminds me of some WWII old timers flying props who refused to wear helmets because it interfered with their ability to "listen to the engine".
Last edited:
We’ve been CQ’ing Marine SNA’s even though only a small fraction will ever deploy on a CVN. They could have saved money by splitting off a pipeline for F-18 studs destined for carrier squadrons. I’m glad I got to do it although it had only some similarities with landing on an LHD in a harrier. It still made me a better pilot, in my opinion. But like SlickAg just said, it’s about cost savings and I bet it’s cheaper to develop some kind of autoland to retrofit to E-2’s.
The other obvious solution:
CMVE-22B frankenCOD
The other obvious solution:
CMVE-22B frankenCOD
Marine SNAs aren’t currently going to the boat in the VTs. The current plan is to identify F-35C players when that happens and send them (for as long as the Navy keeps going).
The E-2 thing will be a tough road to hoe. There really won’t be any more need for T-45s for them without the boat. They can get a form syllabus in the T-44. Everything in the syllabus was geared towards the boat in the T-45, to include the form flying (need to join up on the lead safe to head out there). It sucks because they’ll get a LOT fewer hours and have essentially zero CVW ready room environment exposure before they show up. The only thing the T-44 can’t get them is night form (needed for the E-2D for in-flight refueling) but they’ll come up with ways to mitigate it.
Last edited:
In the end, I'm pretty sure the decision has already been made......or at least an irreversible momentum has been set. None of us will have any say in it anyway. But I DO think that at the very least, fleet "CQ" or FCLPs are a giant waste of time and taxpayer dollars. I would have said that when I didn't have PLM as well. But that makes it doubly true. Yes, I am speaking for F/A-18//EA-18G only here