That's why we had to sing f-in songs in parades at USNA my senior year.
-
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
Program Cuts
- Thread starter bolterking
- Start date
That's why we had to sing f-in songs in parades at USNA my senior year.
The talk about adding simulated radar intercepts to T-45 land isn't brand new (i.e. they were talking about that when I was there). The low cost (compared to hornets) of the T-45 was the objective. It was supposed to be just a base line to familiarize.
How much would that actually save with the amount new wingees would forget and how much they would have to relearn with the actual Secret tactics? I have no idea. I *imagine* a lot. But as previously stated, that might not be the reflection in a fitrep...
There was never any talk of reduction of flights while I was there that I knew of (circa July, 2007), but that doesn't really mean much since it has been a few months.
How much would that actually save with the amount new wingees would forget and how much they would have to relearn with the actual Secret tactics? I have no idea. I *imagine* a lot. But as previously stated, that might not be the reflection in a fitrep...
There was never any talk of reduction of flights while I was there that I knew of (circa July, 2007), but that doesn't really mean much since it has been a few months.
They have this device that they just spent lots of money to develop and install in Lemoore that costs less to operate than even the mighty synthetic-radar equipped T-45. If you want to get somebody time playing with a radar while having to keep control of the aircraft, use the SIMULATOR! There is no reason in the world that they should be using a fake radar in training command. There is no way that they will be able to reduce the number of hops that use the Radar in the RAG. There are almost no hops right now that are just to use the Radar anyway. From even the earliest AWIs they are doing almost full-up tactical intercepts. Add a couple of simulators and save the millions of dollars to make the retarded synthetic radar program.
As if enterprising SNAs won't figure out a way to memorize the different intercept profiles and have gouge out within about 2 classes...
As if enterprising SNAs won't figure out a way to memorize the different intercept profiles and have gouge out within about 2 classes...
It's shocking how logical and simple the right answer can be.
With the new tailhook syllabus, they are exploring options on what flights to delete. It appears that the overall flight time for the syllabus is roughly the same, only slightly modified in various phases. From the RAGS, the chief complaint has been poor TACFORM and ability to multitask (I read this as RADAR), so I think the shift is trying to address that.
From what I've seen of the current syllabus, there are areas that seem to be overkill. Why have two baby form solos? Why three Weapons solos, then a check ride, then another solo? Why 5 low level flights single ship? A lot of folks are looking at these and trying to get more out of the flight time.
In terms of downloading flights, some people are proponents of this, others are strongly against it. I am against it. Because the T45 is roughly 8K cheaper per flight, some want to add CAS, FAC(A) and all sorts of other flights to the T45 syllabus. I think there is even discussion of adding a few sorties in the T45 after wings!?! If these types of flights are added to the T45, if anyone asked me I would insist they be AFTER winging. The Navy/ MC already trains way more than any other service prior to designation. In the AF, pilots get winged at the equivalent of intermediate complete. The Indian students we train in Kingsville already have Indian wings when they show up. Only the Navy has people drop bombs, fly 3 plane ACM, land on a carrier and fly section low levels prior to saying, "hey buddy, you're a pilot."
From what I've seen of the current syllabus, there are areas that seem to be overkill. Why have two baby form solos? Why three Weapons solos, then a check ride, then another solo? Why 5 low level flights single ship? A lot of folks are looking at these and trying to get more out of the flight time.
In terms of downloading flights, some people are proponents of this, others are strongly against it. I am against it. Because the T45 is roughly 8K cheaper per flight, some want to add CAS, FAC(A) and all sorts of other flights to the T45 syllabus. I think there is even discussion of adding a few sorties in the T45 after wings!?! If these types of flights are added to the T45, if anyone asked me I would insist they be AFTER winging. The Navy/ MC already trains way more than any other service prior to designation. In the AF, pilots get winged at the equivalent of intermediate complete. The Indian students we train in Kingsville already have Indian wings when they show up. Only the Navy has people drop bombs, fly 3 plane ACM, land on a carrier and fly section low levels prior to saying, "hey buddy, you're a pilot."
To build confidence. After T-45s a majority of those guys are never going to have anyone in their back seat again. We solo the F-18 after 4 flights. You need to be used to handling things by yourself in order to be flying Fighters alone after 5 hours with an instructor. I felt that I learned more from one solo in the T-45 than I did in 3 "dual" hops. Those 3 weps solos were among the most enjoyable T-45 flights that I had. In fact I still remember my last weps solo. My lead turned out to be the Air Boss on my Nugget cruise. If anything they need to add more solo hops in the syllabus.
Absolutely retarded in my opinion. If you guys can just train them to make decisions, fly form, and LEARN HOW TO RENDEZVOUS, they have plenty of time to learn how to do CAS and tactics in the RAG. Why would you train them to do CAS in the T45 when the whole syllabus here is designed to just teach them how to use the F18 CAS page? Circle the wagons in the T45 is all about understanding the basics of bombing and handling the aircraft.
If we were going to download anything, I would think that more basic formation would be what we would download. Getting rid of any form flights in T45 can't be the right answer. We have to add extra rendezvous to almost every flight up into the Strike syllabus because the guys still can't do the ABCs. I don't know what the makeup in Meridian and Kingsville is anymore, but I know I learned VERY incorrectly how to fly form and especially TACFORM from E-2 and P-3 pilots. I sure as hell don't want to have less flights in the RAG here to now fix their form flying AND their bombing,etc because we downloaded F/A tactics down to a place where some large percentage of the pilots are not F/A guys. I know the numbers are getting more F/A heavy there, but I can't imagine that Hornet guys even make up half of the ready room yet.
I have heard these same rumors, and I know it's not up to either of us. Our OPSO has talked about those changes and adding NVGs and the RADAR hops. Everybody here thinks it's retarded, so I'm sure the powers that be are going to get negative feedback from our side of the equation. Our skipper is pretty good at telling his bosses what he really thinks, not what they want to hear. So, hopefully somebody will think about how many times you have to save $8k to make up for one lost hornet or how often we have to do remediation in the hornet. Sending a guy through Transition phase at the rag 2-3 times probably more than negates any savings his entire class afforded the Navy as they went through T45s.
Ok, first of all for Milky and Junior, et al. It's NOT someone's FITREP bullet. The idea wasn't a JO's or some CDR's bid for pack plus, but it was direct feedback from FRS CO's conference's and RAG IP's telling CNATRA what was lacking in students showing up at the FRS. Big picture was that guys could use more radar work and lots of guys were getting lost in the MFD management area. It's what YOU guys asked for in the fleet...
Fast forward with the T-6AUP (pronounced Ay-uP) with it's HUD and COTS MFDs, along with the T-45 with VMTS (a GPS and data based "false" radar training device for ground mapping, etc and NOT intercepts). However, the VMTS was also capable of being ordered with a synthetic air-to-air mode that used TCAS technology IOT for T-45 to to radar intercepts with each other. That's about all I know, and that's where I left the project. Someone else has the handle now...
I love how rumors and opinions start getting a life of their own and soon become fact...
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Howabout buying a bigger jet instead of the British Clown-Car we seem to have wedded ourselves to?
You know, the jet that is smaller and more anthro restrictive than anything flying in the fleet.. Just a thought.
You know, the jet that is smaller and more anthro restrictive than anything flying in the fleet.. Just a thought.
MB,
You're not the first nor the last victim of anthro. My first XO was a victim of too big for TA-4Js. Made it all the way through T-2s and finally had to throw in the towel during TA-4s because it was waaay too small for his 6'5" frame.
Makes no sense does it. Your operational jet/bird is bigger than what you're flying in the TRACOM.
Sorry. Hope we find a way to get you flying again.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
The 45C is noticeably "bigger" (the cutouts under the MFD add legroom).. But according to NOMI they are the same size.
Waiver is in work.
Waiver is in work.
Never accused anybody of that. I always thought whomever came up with this plan thought it was the best course of action/would be cheaper. I believe that it could have even come from feedback from the RAG. I just think that it is misapplied steps if those are some of the steps being done to make a better product for the RAG.
If we are supposedly asking for this, it's weird how all of the feedback internally here is that it makes no sense that this is what we are looking at doing. As far as the talk around here goes, my understanding is that nothing has even been changed yet. It is all just proposed change. I don't know more than that. I was just being a good JO and bitching about something that will probably never happen in case somebody that cared was listening.
I apologize if my comment was construed as meaning the changes are solely a FITREP bullet. I was expanding on the reinventing the wheel comment and my cynicism of changes being made simply to change things came through. In my very limited opinion I didn't see any need to change the program and felt the training I received was top notch and prepared me well for the RAG. I will preface that with the fact I have very little experience to draw from. I'll defer to those who have much more knowledge on the matter.
just in case that last comment is directed toward me and my post, we can note the disclaimer I placed in the last sentance of my post ......along with the T-45 with VMTS (a GPS and data based "false" radar training device for ground mapping, etc and NOT intercepts). However, the VMTS was also capable of being ordered with a synthetic air-to-air mode that used TCAS technology IOT for T-45 to to radar intercepts with each other. That's about all I know, and that's where I left the project. Someone else has the handle now...
I love how rumors and opinions start getting a life of their own and soon become fact...
in reference to the thread ...
one thing that is being looked at is the way 3 plane ACM solos (the last two flights in the ACM syllabus which are 2v1 hops) are being flown ... IP's are now leading students on their 3 plane ACM solo flights and scheduling a dedicated bandit (an IP) instead of an IP (bandit) and two student solo's flying as a section ... now that the lead is an IP, he can actually debrief the student on how well or poorly he flew as a wingman during the 2v1 flight. My understanding, though, is the "bean counters" are bitching because now instead of a 3 jets & 1 IP to get two student X's, you will now need 3 jets & 2 IP's to get one student X.
S/F
Milky, Junior and Jarhead,
If we had this discussion in person, I assure you my demeanor wouldn't be so "squashing" or belligerent sounding. I applaud all JOs/CGOs that tell the boss' that their baby is ugly or that he's wearing no clothes. But I'm big on the facts and not launching the first LFE wave on "...they said". I wish I had the mouth when I was a JO. Instead, I only spoke up when I thought not doing so would get me killed. Keep it up, your comments are going to get me to walk down the hall and ask what's going on with VMTS and downloading.
It may be just what it seems, stagnant at this point.
If the FRS community is balking at the thought of downloading, then we need to hear it at the next FRS summit, ACOL conference, etc. Fact is, someone there in pointy-nose land asked for it and now you guys, two to three generations down the line don't want it. FWIW, it was just in the research proposal phase when I saw it anyway. Could have run it's natural course already. I don't know.
If we had this discussion in person, I assure you my demeanor wouldn't be so "squashing" or belligerent sounding. I applaud all JOs/CGOs that tell the boss' that their baby is ugly or that he's wearing no clothes. But I'm big on the facts and not launching the first LFE wave on "...they said". I wish I had the mouth when I was a JO. Instead, I only spoke up when I thought not doing so would get me killed. Keep it up, your comments are going to get me to walk down the hall and ask what's going on with VMTS and downloading.
It may be just what it seems, stagnant at this point.
If the FRS community is balking at the thought of downloading, then we need to hear it at the next FRS summit, ACOL conference, etc. Fact is, someone there in pointy-nose land asked for it and now you guys, two to three generations down the line don't want it. FWIW, it was just in the research proposal phase when I saw it anyway. Could have run it's natural course already. I don't know.