If, and that's a big if, students get waived from CQ it would not start with E2 guys. I would still plan on going to the boat.
-
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
T-45C Replacement
- Thread starter Birdbrain
- Start date
I assume you mean further forward on the airplane, and therefore closer to the main landing gear? Sounds like a recipe for a lot of hook skips due to the dynamics of rolling over the arresting gear cable you're trying to catch... good thing nobody ever made THAT mistake with an airplane.
?
That sounds about right. It was, as I recall, just a mock-up. I don’t think they ever actually built one.
We should probably do three things. 1. Start replacing the T-45 with the T-7 red hawk. 2. stop all VT CQ and do all CQ at the FRS 3. Buy a shit load of T-7s to act in the adversary role
Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) Aircraft Request for Information
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6d54370f5b...rt=-relevance&index=opp&is_active=true&page=1
https://beta.sam.gov/opp/6d54370f5b...rt=-relevance&index=opp&is_active=true&page=1
I feel for you and others if that ends up happening; can't imagine if the first time I went was in that pig. I'm sure plenty of pioneers have done more though! And honestly, a little secret... you need to have the skills and ability to land it, but I'm pretty sure nobody in my E-2 class would have CQ'd without a lot of real-time coaching from the RAG instructors. Some helped more than others, but all were instrumental. You won't be trusted to land five dudes on the boat when you show up to your fleet sqadron on day one either way. Even if immediately deployed, your senior JO/O4+ will be helping you more than you know.
Well written. From the outside looking in I agree that the training pipeline needs to be compressed and your professional point of view adds to that in connecting how modern combat aviation has changed.
I think the need to apply combat skills development in undergraduate pilot training transcends just Strike. We historically take a divergent path from our AF and Army peers in developing anything more than Commercial Pilot skills in the Multi Engine and Helo pipeline.
A refreshing take.
I like the proposal, and it makes sense. I am not familiar with the failure modes of PLM, but I assume they are robust. My only concern is the E-2/C-2 pilots. Having their first traps in the fleet airplane is a recipe for mishaps. The plane is large and unforgiving of errors. Completing CQ in the T-45 is a good stepping stone approach. I fear that this will be abandoned in the interest of $$$.
I had a blurb about the need for the E2/C2 but took it out to keep the article on point. I don't disagree that is a hard problem to solve. Maybe keep a small number of T-45's on line in Norfolk for the E2/C2 (really just E2 here soon) bubbas?
Great article Farva. Your biggest selling point is T-7 cost to fly/maintain vs. grey Fleet jet costs. Sounds like you need to sell it to CNATRA and the Air Boss because it makes sense and in the end it will save money and make better FRPs.
Maybe similar to the idea of sending Marine Hornet pilots with a carrier follow-on commitment to a post-winging CQ?
How about:
- E-2/C-2 pilots graduate with their class having never been to the boat (like everyone else)... however, the procedures and techniques of carrier landings would have been taught from the first landing in the T-45.
- After winging, remain at Kingsville / Meridian and go through a focused CQ syllabus that finalizes preps for the boat, and gets them their 10 traps.
- Off to FRS success.
I got to actually fly a few landings in T-2, T-45, F-18B/D/F (as well as watch a few in the TA-4J), and I sure wish I could have had the opportunity to try to land on the carrier. Frickin' fun... and cool.
And hard.
When I left the HTs this was a huge talking point, but the problem was just so many different types of missions and services to train to - AH-1, UH-1, MH-60S, MH-6R, HH-60J (or the follow-on for the USCG), HH-65, MH-53 (with multiple variants and mission sets), MV-22 and now the CMV-22. I am sure they are still looking into it, but it was mixed responses from Wing leadership every year at NHA, so in the end, everyone settles on brilliance at the basics. I would like to see it change; if there's a place where an intermediate and advanced could make sense - surely the HTs fit with all the basics of helicopter flying, then follow-on training on some specific profiles (CAS, a real SAR syllabus instead of the 1 intro flight; I think the NVD and forms syllabi are pretty good, not sure how you could teach dipping or anything like that, but also some basic Excess Power management flights would be good).
I had an interesting data point, ran a mission training a cadre to operate an upper tier drone, left (pilot) and right (ball operator) seat, and we had a mix of winged aviators and others go through the training. Out of 15 to go through the training, we had 3 fail. Winged aviators. Helo guy, Hoover NFO, I forget the other pilot's community.
The number one grad was a guy who was a DCO, worked as a flight test engineer in his day job. No mil operator experience prior to that. Lots of Xbox.
Being a good drone operator was all about being able to take the sparse input and build a worldview in the noggin, then act on it. Good stick and rudder didn't automagically transfer over.