brabus

Poor comparison - we haven’t fought a mostly conventional war vs. a mostly uniformed, state-sponsored military in the 21st century. But still, seen plenty of comparative violence levied on our enemies. I get the frustration guys, but maybe throttle back on the emotion and apply more logic founded on knowledge of capabilities and the warfighters who employ them. I have plenty of real world experience to support the fact we absolutely do “push people’s shit in” when desired. Should we do that more often, yes, but to say we don’t ever do it or lack the capacity to do it now is false. And if you’ve never been a part of it, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen.

Several times. I’m not saying we go to Russian levels of Geneva convention violations or sub-human evilness of ISIS. In my opinion, neither of those are required to be considered “all in” for winning war. I’ve also seen plenty of terrain denial and other stupid shit, so I get the frustration.

Meh, seen many raids where we “knocked with a Gustav.” You’re not wrong that we’ve been generally CDE/ROE driven to retarded lengths, but we absolutely are willing to do things that throw all that out the window. When it’s important enough to us, or shit hits the fan bad enough, we will do whatever it takes to win (while maintaining our humanity).

https://www.outkick.com/british-pilot-snorts-coke-off-topless-woman-tries-to-fly-packed-plane-to-uk-report/ This guy has to be a former RAF dude…or Biff pretending to be British, one of the two.

I don’t know that specific answer, but I will tell you be prepared for orders to get cut a day or two before leaving for OTS. Be prepared for orders being delayed to the 11th hour your entire career, regardless of gov shutdowns.

@Chida How does NVG play into the FAA world? I had no idea that was even a thing outside of mil/LEO.

First time at the FSDO? The DMV is full of high speed individuals and provides amazing customer service…compared to a FSDO.

If you can actually get an appointment at a FSDO location you want on a timeline you’re cool with, go for it. If you can’t meet one of those two, then just pay a DPE and be done with it. As far as ease, you can email everything to a DPE (they do need to check your ID). If you go the FSDO route, it’ll be a couple hours of your time sitting there (in my experience). So ease probably mostly depends on how close you are to a FSDO.

What I mean is a physical airplane won’t ever solve the lack of consistent integration training for the CAF. The ability to jump in a sim at your squadron and fly virtually with several other MDS thousands of miles away on a regular basis is a huge training value. The crux of that solution is time/money to mature it to a desirable capes/accuracy level. I would rather have that solution than another aircraft - substantially more bang for the buck (cost-wise and training value-wise). Also the importance of the security piece is rarely talked about - right now only virtual environments solve that problem. I don’t, but I also live in reality where resources are finite and there are also legitimate security barriers to training “full up” in live flight. As much as the “dinosaur” in me emotionally wants 300 hrs a year for every wingman, the current day expert in me knows we have to go a different way, and right now that way is a higher ratio of virtual to live training. The downfall is our procurement process is fucked and it’ll take way longer than it should to make this a reality…but it will be reality some day, just over cost and years behind schedule.

They also know nothing about flying fighters beyond the days of 45 HADBs, scary SA-6s, and MiG-29s with the venerable 10A. GOs and SESs are the fighting force’s worst nightmare more often than not. There are a few good ones, but most can’t put their ego aside to actually follow the advice of current-day experts and instead act like they’ve “still got it” (they don’t) while simul following the lead of industry hawking products (and promising future employment). That’s cool, really. But the cost and timeline (short and long term) for something like that is likely a loser compared to making the sim aspect better and going to a 50/50 fly/sim gameplan. Sims also enable a lot more integration where as scorpions doesn’t help that part. There are also security reasons for sims > live fly.

I get that. Remedial airmanship type stuff would be better spent in a single engine piston than a T-6 (primarily for cost saving and simplicity). @ClearedHot I think it’s a good idea for some MDS, but it’s not going to accomplish much for a fighter. In a fighter, altitudes/airspeeds/maneuverability capabilities are vastly important parts of tactics. They become even more important in 5th gen. Buttonology is irrelevant because that’s what the sim is for (if someone needs that practice). Flying an approach in a T-6 is very different than an F-35 in many ways (other than the rules and the plate is the same). Weather/winds affect flying and decision making way different than they do in a T-6. All of that hypothetical training is invalid from the start, and significant risk of negative transfer for a new guy. See response to Pooter above regarding pure airmanship/ADM. Now, apply this concept to MDS that spend majority of their time going A-B, in orbits, fly at similar airspeed/Alt as a T-6, aren’t very maneuverable/can’t do aerobatics, etc. and there’s a lot of merit to the T-6 concept. Using this concept for IFF to teach basics of “what is TI,” how to fly sensor formations, process data from simulated sensors, etc. is also a good concept. So I am a fan and open minded, but there is a logical end to the utility/good idea, and that shouldn’t surprise anyone.

That’s the issue; for better or worse, we live in an age where things like this make it to people with multiple stars on their shoulders…and the result will not be good for those with any direct involvement downhill of said stars.

What training are you accomplishing in this hypothetical? I literally can’t think of one valid thing you can do in this setup. And if you say admin manipulation of systems/PVI (i.e. ground ops), then that’s a sim, not a T-6. If you say basic airmanship/aerial decision making, then that’s a single engine piston tail wheel and zero need for fighter-relevant displays (if we’re really trying to save money, then even a T-6 would be overkill for this). I completely agree with your assessment of dinosaurs and FHP. But a “cheaper” airplane option is not relevant to fighters, outside of the piston example above. The 50/50 high end sims/fly fighter MDS is the viable solution, it will just take way longer than we’d all like. I can see utility for an official “cheaper” companion aircraft for other MDS.

How so? DAL doesn’t give a shit about anything other than FHR 1 pager.

That’s where we should be, but 5 years is way over-optimistic. I’ve been in and around the acquisitions/test world for a long time and I’ve learned one major thing - double or triple the timelines you’re told (and that’s after you account for half the shit you’re promised doesn’t even make it past power point and bar napkins). The sad reality of our procurement process.

@Standby I’m sure it depends on MWS. For fighters you absolutely must fly the actual airplane to get the training, there is no substitute. More sims/less flights for RAP is a viable solution in theory, HOWEVER, sims are MASSIVELY behind for what they’d need to be to actually make that transition in how we do daily training. Maybe we can reassess in 10 years.

I don’t care for these particular “artistic effects,” but my experience has been pro aviation photogs on the civ side produce much better pictures than the mil photogs. Not saying the mil guys are horrible, but sorry, some E-3/4 with a few years in is not the same as the guy who’s been doing this for 10-20 years professionally.

Even if it was an “out and back” hike, you should never leave someone alone unless in an absolute live or die situation. Even just for a few hours. Technology/social media has driven so many idiots (or at least extremely naive) to have a false sense of backcountry capability/safety. Like the occasional tourist who looks at me sideways when they pass me with a pistol and bear spray on me. Yeah dumbass, there’s grizz everywhere and they will rapidly help you experience an excruciating death.

Calls himself a doctor with a bunch of worthless poli sci degrees under his belt, and flightsuit zipper damn near at top of nametag - tells me all I need to know about this guy…

“MDMP sir? you mean the process that facilitates analysis by paralysis and drowns out critical and adaptive thinking? Yeah sounds great, let’s do that.” Yay PME!

It’s funny because it’s true!

It will not diminish, it will change. Those are different things…words matter. “Better/cheaper/safer being fielded”…dude, you don’t know what you don’t know. Not a spear, but a reality check. Bottom line, cool shit is always developed and changes warfare, but nothing coming is decreasing pilot importance in the future, it will simply change how we do things. Historically you could compare this to WW2 having tons of aces and we’ve got zero actively flying today - that doesn’t mean fighters diminished in relevancy, it means things changed how we used them in concert with other tech. Buffs aren’t carpet bombing the fuck out of things like Nam, but they’re still relevant and important today…things change, but relevancy hasn’t decreased. As a reminder to everyone (including myself), this is about the end of this topic’s discussability on the internet. Don’t fuck it away.

The irony is the products of IDE do not in general meet CQ’s stated requirements in the article. Talk to 99% of staff, they have no fucking clue. The 1% can’t overcome the bureaucratic inertia of the clueless.

There’s the glossy brochure/i’m-not-briefed version, and then there’s reality. Pilots (including fighters) will be very relevant for decades to come.