Who flies the Buckeye?

[airwinger]

He was a Major then '03/04 got out and moved to florida. May have come back.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

What's interesting about the T-45 pseudo-radar thing is that there is currently much more of a need for pilots to be familiar with radar work than NFO's. In fact, once the last two -14 squadrons go away, there really won't be many NFO's doing the primary A/A radar work.

That's of course, contigent upon the idea that

a) Topgun doesn't comes to their collective senses re: stickmonkey owning the radar...
and
b) You're referring to one of the squadrons whose SOP doesn't give the radar to the WSO anyways (at least two right now with the strong possibility of a third).

The Mode C idea is still pretty far-fetched. Even in the Rhino, the CIT doesn't have near the precision of an actual radar hit and is often a good bit off. And I'd be curious how the genius who came up with that one plans on putting a target aspect vector on a Mode C hit...

 

[wink]

Fly

When I left Meridian the Boeing T-45 Manager was there talking about the T-45 for NFO's. He said it will look like a radar screen, but instead of actually having a radar in the AC (to big for the 45) they will use a mode C interrogator and display the info on the screen as a radar hit.

The latest official road map for the future of naval aviation indicates a version of the T-6 with synthetic radar to replace the T-39s, and T-45s for the advanced tactical flying. So basicly, the T-39 will be replaced by the T-6 and the T-2 replaced by the T-45.

 

[Flash]

The latest official road map for the future of naval aviation indicates a version of the T-6 with synthetic radar to replace the T-39s, and T-45s for the advanced tactical flying. So basicly, the T-39 will be replaced by the T-6 and the T-2 replaced by the T-45.

Where would they put the radar, in a pod? Personally, I think it is a bad idea. No offense to pilots, but I liked getting the advanced instruction from a fellow NFO, who knew what you were suppose to be doing vice a pilot who sometimes did not. Sometimes the Hornet guys who taught in the T-2 did not have the full bag of knowledge on what an NFO's roles in the plane were. The above plan would mean that a tactical jet NFO student would never have an NFO instructor before getting their wings .

 

[wink]

Where would they put the radar, in a pod? Personally, I think it is a bad idea. No offense to pilots, but I liked getting the advanced instruction from a fellow NFO, who knew what you were suppose to be doing vice a pilot who sometimes did not. Sometimes the Hornet guys who taught in the T-2 did not have the full bag of knowledge on what an NFO's roles in the plane were. The above plan would mean that through a tactical jet NFO student would never have an NFO instructor before getting their wings .

I bet it would be some kind of GPS derived picture. You know, basicly a terrain map that looks like a radar picture vis a topo map.

I agree very much with your concern for NFO studs not getting instruction from NFOs. Think a little further and it gets worse. Where are the sweet shore duty jobs going to go in the VTs? Are we going to find just a few NFO instructors in ground school, no flying? I don't know about now, but if the sim instructors aren't civ contractors yet, like in the pilot pipeline, they will be in the future. If we get some former NFO contractors as ground instructors (like the AF has done) then there will be no NFOs in the VT community!! We can only hope that the T-39 concept will be retain in another airframe. There is value in training multiple students at the same time AND retaining the NFO instructor. And a follow on aircarft will surely be less expensive to operate. Maybe in that light the T-6 option will not seem such a good deal dollar wise.

 

[wink]

Student NFOs have always had the advantage of getting instruction from fleet pilots. Who else do you think flies the planes?? But I don't think that a pilot sitting in a different cockpit with a different set of controls is going to be in a position to fly the aircraft safely, especially at low level, and devote the time necessary to give quality primary/introductory instruction on warfare type systems. "OK Ensign, push the button on the lower left corner of the display and tell me what you see"...."No that doesn't sound right, are you sure you pushed the lower left button?"... "Standby, I need a minute"..."Ok back with ya"..."Now that sounds about right, now look about half way down the right side of the display and about 2/3 of the way to the left and observe the shading"..."What do you mean you don't see shading? Holy sh!t, did you see that guy pass off our left, that was way close"..."Lets see, did you turn the gain knob to the right about 1/4 turn like I said"..."Standby while I coordinate with ATC"..."OK back with ya, where were we?"

And by the way. Just because a pilot flew with NFOs doesn't make him qualified to teach anyone how to be an NFO. A Prowler pilot only knows what a Prowler pilot likes to get from the NFOs in his crew. He doesn't know the NFOs job, just what he thinks he needs. The only person that knows how to be a NFO and is qualified to impart that knowledge on to future NFOs in a NFO. It is about more than a shore duty job. It is about readiness.

 

[Brett327]

And by the way. Just because a pilot flew with NFOs doesn't make him qualified to teach anyone how to be an NFO. A Prowler pilot only knows what a Prowler pilot likes to get from the NFOs in his crew. He doesn't know the NFOs job, just what he thinks he needs. The only person that knows how to be a NFO and is qualified to impart that knowledge on to future NFOs in a NFO. It is about more than a shore duty job. It is about readiness.

Word.

Brett

 

[Flash]

And by the way. Just because a pilot flew with NFOs doesn't make him qualified to teach anyone how to be an NFO. A Prowler pilot only knows what a Prowler pilot likes to get from the NFOs in his crew. He doesn't know the NFOs job, just what he thinks he needs. The only person that knows how to be a NFO and is qualified to impart that knowledge on to future NFOs in a NFO. It is about more than a shore duty job. It is about readiness.

I could not agree more.....:icon_smil

 

[wink]

I would argue that the above example is not terribly different than how all pilots learn radar usage. The difference being that there are simulators that exist beforehand to familiarize the pilot with radar usage so that phrases such as "Push the button on the lower left corner of display" are not neccesary in the aircraft. The aircraft is used for practical application of what has been learned in classrooms, computer labs and simulators before the flight ever takes place. There is no reason that NFOs cannot teach those classes, develop those computer labs and administer those simulators.

That doesn't change a thing. Just because it is done that way for pilots as a necessity, doesn't mean it is the most effective way to train. I might argue that if a stick monkey could just put his ego aside for long enough he may benefit from initial systems training taken like student NFOs currently do. The fact is it isn't necessary to train NFOs that way if the proper investment is made. The proposed plan is an unnecessary compromise of safety and training effectiveness.

I would also argue that in a platform with a small crew, the pilot usually does (or at least should) know the NFO's job, just as the NFO should know the pilot's. There is quite a bit of training that goes on from senior to junior crewmembers, no matter the platform, no matter the seat.

Sure. To be precise though, even the best pilots only knew the NFOs job to the extent that as an end user of the NFO product, so to speak, he knew what was required of the NFO(s) in his crew. And on occasion, could help a nugget NFO produce what the pilot needed to get them through the mission, nothing more. If you do better then that, I tip my helmet to ya.

 

[Punk]

And on occasion, could help a nugget NFO produce what the pilot needed to get them through the mission, nothing more.

ahem, MASTER RAD - ON

that's all I got

 

[wink]

ahem, MASTER RAD - ON

that's all I got

Ah, it's ok punk. Your ECMOs will train ya real well.

 

[Brett327]

Ah, it's ok punk. Your ECMOs will train ya real well.

Yeah, no one ever looks at that light anyway.

Brett

 

[Punk]

Ah, it's ok punk. Your ECMOs will train ya real well.

To follow on with what UINavy is saying, it has nothing to do with ego or whatever. But one thing I've picked up on in 129 about the backseat system as a pilot is this, we're gonna gloss over it, give you a quick overview, and not really expect you to understand it till you're CAT III maybe. And at the moment, that's all ok with me because there really isn't anything more that I can do except dive into the classified pubs (which as a pilot I don't even get). And even then, it seems like unless you're working with the system all the damn time, you're not gonna have a real good idea about it. It just seems to me that this community doesn't expect much from the pilots with regard to the magic black box system in the back.

Now how to implement the aircraft as a weapons systems, hell yes, bring it on. Afterall, that's what we're here for. Even then, from all the discussion among FRP's and IP's, that sounds like that happens once we're in the fleet working on CAT II stuff. Obviously Brett, you can help shed some light on this.

In the Prowler this isn't a problem, but with the Shocker it will be, and I'm sure the Hornet guys appreciate this too, is the absolute lack of radar training we get prior to wings. I know Boeing is talking about the Mode C radar they're planning on putting into the -45, great, that'll be 10 years from now. Even now though, I won't ever manipulate a radar until I get to a different platform. And from talking to my buddies in the VFA RAG's, that's one of the more difficult things to master in the jet.


What am I getting at, its not that we don't care or that its above us, its that the training seems to be lacking for the pilots in some certain, very important areas.

 

[wink]

What "ego" are you talking about? Are you insinuating that SNAs and/or NAs have egos which are too large to let them think that initial systems training is for them?

No, not that they resist initial systems training as it is, but that if they were required to learn it as NFOs do, without their hands on a stick, and in greater depth, it would be resisted. I saw it myself in the VS community of the mid 80s. We had some crews that were dual piloted. The copilots were generally, though not always, good for nothing more then spreading the wings and dropping the hook.

Then again, wouldn't you say that the same applies to NFO's? The pilot 'end product', in the mind of the NFO would be to get the NFO safely back aboard the boat., right? I'm not sure that the NFO could safely bring the A/C aboard himself, but he can surely help the pilot to bring the A/C aboard without knowing how to exactly manipulate the throttle(s) and stick himself.

My point exactly. Except that I believe NFOs most times are more motivated to provide a good pilot product to the aircraft commander because it is obviously safety related then a pilot is to provide aid and comfort to a nugget NFO. NFOs can't get it back aboard the boat and pilots can't perform the NFO's key duties. So why should a pilot have a virtual lock on the training and mentoring of student NFOs under the proposed new track? Maybe some sh!t hot high time RIO like Shung (he is looking for a flying gig) should be teaching you guys initial CQ.

Interesting conversation, nonetheless.

True enough. Can you agree that the proposed plan of all initial NFO flight training being conducted in two place aircraft with only a single pilot instructor is a compromise over the current system of multiple students with a dedicated NFO instructor and students flying as both copilot and mission NFO in a single sortie?

 

[Brett327]

What am I getting at, its not that we don't care or that its above us, its that the training seems to be lacking for the pilots in some certain, very important areas.

Here's the thing - in the Prowler, monkey skills are kind of like back seat skills with one important caveat. Pilots aren't exposed to most of the backseat jamming stuff (at least at your level) because it's something that they will never have to do in the jet, just like an ECMO (even ECMO 1) will never have to have the finesse and nuance with stick and throttles. That's what happens in the backseat - a bunch of finesse and nuance with what we refer to as "button-pushing." While I'm on topic, to dispell any notion that the Prowler Pilot is just a bus driver, pilot technique is a huge part of how effective a jamming signal we can put out, so keep that in mind as you progress though 129. When you're in a jamming orbit and your right seat bitches at you for sloppy turns, there's a good reason - every turn should be at 11 units and on the ragged edge). BTW, don't confuse CAT I/III etc with ACTC Level I/III, etc. Apples and oranges. Anyhow, as pilots progress through the ACTC syllabus, they'll be exposed to more and more of the ECMO world, and likewise, the ECMO will be more in tune with the finer points of the actual flying of the jet. Having said that, the ECMO will never be at the controls, and the pilot will never be mashing buttons in the back - fact of life. The most intensive exposure a pilot can ever get to the ECMO world is if they go through the Weapons School and get a Level V qual. Even then, he will never be mashing buttons, just like the Level V ECMO won't be at the controls. Aircrew members specialize for a reason. Personally, I pride myself on being as knowledgeable as I can possibly be in running every aspect of the front seat, even though I'll never be at the controlls. That means nurse-maiding the nugget as well as the 2000 hour O-4 or your CO if he's having a bad day behind the boat.

Looks like I picked the wrong day to quit drinking,

Brett