What's wrong with the Air Force?

[Danger41]

If the U-28 really does retire in a few years, take those, rip out all the fancy stuff, and spread them around as a companion instrument trainer. Or a weekend XC machine that can fit several Yeti’s full of lobster…

[hindsight2020]

Typical FTU-centering mindset, always trivializing what goes into the undergraduate output, yet never wanting to pay the bill for the deficit they argue they know better about in the first place. 

BL, I still go back to the more neutral, actuarial argument. FTU thinks they got the ab initio code cracked? By all means, slide those first-500 to the uber-expensive right of the PL asset continuum, and fvck around and find out. 

[Boomer6]

40 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Typical FTU-centering mindset, always trivializing what goes into the undergraduate output, yet never wanting to pay the bill for the deficit they argue they know better about in the first place. 

BL, I still go back to the more neutral, actuarial argument. FTU thinks they got the ab initio code cracked? By all means, slide those first-500 to the uber-expensive right of the PL asset continuum, and fvck around and find out. 

 

[LookieRookie]

8 hours ago, Pooter said:

 

I know it's hard to quantify what we're losing, but when we gut the fundamentals it has cascading effects down the line. I'm pretty sure If you get enough timeline obsessed big brain AETC types in a room they could convince themselves landings can be taught only in the sim. 
 

 

They aren’t timeline obsessed. HAF/A3 has provided an order to produce.

Which AETC can’t do anyways because the s-rate for the T-6 and T-38 is in the shitter.

[hindsight2020]

1 hour ago, LookieRookie said:

They aren’t timeline obsessed. HAF/A3 has provided an order to produce.

Which AETC can’t do anyways because the s-rate for the T-6 and T-38 is in the shitter.

Indeed.

Book of Exodus, Chapter V. Still salient.. 2,500 years later.  But inNovAtiOn  🤡s rather "dinosaur" ad hominem everybody who disagrees with their specious arguing, future afterburner consultant shtick, than acknowledge what was already self-evident to illiterate bronze age goat herders.

[Swizzle]

52 minutes ago, hindsight2020 said:

Indeed.

Book of Exodus, Chapter V. Still salient.. 2,500 years later.  But inNovAtiOn  🤡s rather "dinosaur" ad hominem everybody who disagrees with their specious arguing, future afterburner consultant shtick, than acknowledge what was already self-evident to illiterate bronze age goat herders.

So making biblical bricks without straw is akin to making pilots without airplanes!?...nah

AR/VR will work..makes great filler and cohesive-binding substitute, especially when they not a fully rated simulation substitute by their own enterprise standards...on second, but really first thought...double nah

 

[Pooter]

10 hours ago, brabus said:

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.

The point is not: "what F-35 tasks can we accomplish in the T-6?" 

The point is: "how do we set a strong enough foundation we don't have to waste time/money doing remedial T-6 things in an F-35"

[ClearedHot]

17 hours ago, brabus said:

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.

@brabus I think you are looking at this as just a plain Jane T-6. 

ACC has been approach multiple times about dropping a MOSA avionics and mission setup in the T-6.  These systems would look and feel like you are operating an F-22 or F-35.  While the speeds and altitudes would be different you could for a fraction of the cost build muscle memory touch skills for employment while airborne at a fraction of the cost.  Think of it as 90% of the sim in an actual airplane so you are building Airmanship, SA, and buttonology while actually flying.  Finish the stortie with a few approaches to a real runway, dealing with real winds and weather and real comms buffoonery.  There is a LOT of value to be had if you step back and look at the possibilities rather than the limitations.

[brabus]

8 hours ago, Pooter said:

The point is not: "what F-35 tasks can we accomplish in the T-6?" 

The point is: "how do we set a strong enough foundation we don't have to waste time/money doing remedial T-6 things in an F-35"

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.

[ClearedHot]

28 minutes ago, brabus said:

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.

I hear what you are saying, your big bosses felt differently.  For the record I can see some of argument around the AT-6, the project I worked on did it with the Scorpion Jet flying in the low 40's at 400+ knots. 

[brabus]

23 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

your big bosses felt differently. 

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).

 

27 minutes ago, ClearedHot said:

, the project I worked on did it with the Scorpion Jet flying in the low 40's at 400+ knots. 

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.

[ClearedHot]

9 minutes ago, brabus said:

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 never talked to CQ, don't really care for him after having served under him as the WIC Commandant.

I don't think Kelly fit the model you outlined above...I know Sparky, Francis and Baba didn't.

Scorpions CERTAINLY enabled integration...you've never seen the set up. 

Maybe I am a dinosaur, if you prefer a sim over being in the air have at it.  Sim (especially the new ones), always have a place, but I will always choose to be in the air.

[brabus]

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

Scorpions CERTAINLY enabled integration

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.

 

2 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

if you prefer a sim over being in the air have at it

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.

Edited September 24, 2023 by brabus

[di1630]

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.

Sims are superior for training in many ways but you can’t replicate the “skin in the game”for deconfliction, maneuvering in IMC etc.

I take many risks in the sim I wouldn’t while in the MOA.

A companion trainer could bridge the gap. No its not 100%, but if I could get even 50% value at 5% of the cost, it’s still a win.

I’ve flown trainers with built in simulation and was very impressed.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[Clark Griswold]

If you could build a fighter sim using this platform, with some other technology to enhance the physical strain of the modest g generation capability of this full motion sim system you might be able to get a bit of the visceral feel real flight

https://desdemona.eu
 

3.3 Gs is modest but something; if you had dynamic resistance systems to add weight / breathing resistance on to the aircrew during simulation of high g maneuvers you probably could get a better effect

Not cheap I’m sure but if you wanna have the best air to air simulator, an amp’d up version of this networked to other stations with good real and AI opponents might be worth the coin

Edited September 25, 2023 by Clark Griswold

[di1630]

If you could build a fighter sim using this platform, with some other technology to enhance the physical strain of the modest g generation capability of this full motion sim system you might be able to get a bit of the visceral feel real flight
https://desdemona.eu
 
3.3 Gs is modest but something; if you had dynamic resistance systems to add weight / breathing resistance on to the aircrew during simulation of high g maneuvers you probably could get a better effect
Not cheap I’m sure but if you wanna have the best air to air simulator, an amp’d up version of this networked to other stations with good real and AI opponents might be worth the coin

Motion/g’s wouldn’t be where I’d spend any effort.

We have the sim tech already, we’d just rather spend it on flying hours than invest because that’s how we’ve always done it.




Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

[HossHarris]

9 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

If you could build a fighter sim using this platform, with some other technology to enhance the physical strain of the modest g generation capability of this full motion sim system you might be able to get a bit of the visceral feel real flight

https://desdemona.eu
 

3.3 Gs is modest but something; if you had dynamic resistance systems to add weight / breathing resistance on to the aircrew during simulation of high g maneuvers you probably could get a better effect

Not cheap I’m sure but if you wanna have the best air to air simulator, an amp’d up version of this networked to other stations with good real and AI opponents might be worth the coin

That thing looks like an inner ear / spatial D nightmare. 
 

fly it just like you would the real plane. But whatever you do, don’t turn your cranium left or right.

[Clark Griswold]

Motion/g’s wouldn’t be where I’d spend any effort.

We have the sim tech already, we’d just rather spend it on flying hours than invest because that’s how we’ve always done it.

Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Gotcha, just my hunch that the Bobs might go for something like this as it could be a one or two off facilities vs a new fleet type
Methinks you could sell them on that easier than buying new jets, I’d prefer a new purposefully purchased plane for better CT and small complex, integrated exercises but a high end sim facility seems more in tune with the current environment

That thing looks like an inner ear / spatial D nightmare. 
 
fly it just like you would the real plane. But whatever you do, don’t turn your cranium left or right.

No doubt it not perfect, to get the g’s to feel more uniform the rotational arm could be longer, small rotational arms lead to the head and feet experiencing different g’s but the longer the arm the less its effect is, as to the inner ear problems copy, not perfect but could give a physical stress to induce the psychological response desired to make the training more effective


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Biff_T]

10 hours ago, HossHarris said:

That thing looks like an inner ear / spatial D nightmare. 
 

fly it just like you would the real plane. But whatever you do, don’t turn your cranium left or right.

The trick is to slow to around 70 KIAS, push the nose down and pull yourself around with a little collective.  You only pull about 1.3 Gs.  Lol 

[artvandelay43201]

RIP Altus Crashpads 

[HuggyU2]

It's always been this way... even if it went unenforced for a few years. 

Is having to stay on base that big of a deal?

There's a lot of big shit wrong in the AF.  This is unnecessary noise.  

 

Edited September 30, 2023 by HuggyU2

[Swizzle]

53 minutes ago, artvandelay43201 said:

RIP Altus Crashpads 

"The Per Diem Committee ensures that uniform travel and transportation regulations are issued for members of the Uniformed Services and DoD civilian employees."

Pretty sure DTS is an approved method, and specified as such. The Per Diem Committee gets to set these policies and gets the final $ say. 

https://www.dfas.mil/MilitaryMembers/travelpay/regulations/

[jice]

3 hours ago, HuggyU2 said:

It's always been this way... even if it went unenforced for a few years. 

Is having to stay on base that big of a deal?

There's a lot of big shit wrong in the AF.  This is unnecessary noise.  

 

You’re right. Unnecessary noise… what’s the valid mission need for making life less convenient/pleasant for families?

ETA: if there is a valid need: Great. If not, just follow the rules and let these folks figure out the definition of “suitable” on their own. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by jice

[Boomer6]

“It’s always been that way” is the main response most of us have heard when we’ve questioned some archaic non-sensical policy required by the AF. Usually, it’s offered up by some schlubby TSgt at finance explaining why my voucher wasn’t paid out on time.

Reasons I’ve not been required to use base lodging in the past: it’s full of asbestos (x2), bedbug infestation (x3), the building was condemned (x3), the water is brown, black mold etc. All of these items were of course promptly fixed, followed by an almost identical memo above, before once again another memo was issued stating the opposite, because aforementioned issues weren’t in fact fixed. No idea where that $50 mil repair budget went though..

It’s unnecessary to pay Hilton nightly rates for Red Roof Inn levels of accommodation, especially when I can use the same money to stay somewhere that won’t add to my VA claim. All of this so DoD can get a kickback.

Apologies for the diatribe. I’ll get off your lawn now, although your lawn is probably a cleaner place to stay than base lodging.. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by Boomer6

[Bigred]

"DoD Lodging Adequacy Standards"

It's the key to getting a non-A at (almost) every military base.