Could save a lot of money and time if you developed the pilot skills first and then did the commissioning with training afterwards. As for a degree, if either a science stream or an arts stream will suffice than neither is needed. To qualify to join the nuclear programme in the USN a degree in nuclear science is required. It is specific knowledge. What specific knowledge does a BA or a BSC supply to the craft of flying an aircraft other than demonstrating an ability to learn which can be ascertained in less than two weeks on a flight training programme via the very first examination. To add further, a degree programme provides 4 years of general knowledge very little of which (other than perhaps math) is applicable.
The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)
- Thread starter WingsofFury
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 4,429
- Points
- 1,040
Sounds like a degree isn’t needed then. Rather it is a decision they have made to require it and could remove it without any effect on the quality of officer (or ncm if chosen to go down that path). Possibly a dual stream where the officers can advance to higher horizons and the NCMs career is just based on being in the pilots seat.
Most pilots civvy side just go to school to be a pilot (which sounds like the equivalent to our pilot training) and advance from there. I see no reason why that couldn’t be the CAFs path.
- Reaction score
- 14,069
- Points
- 1,160
Could airlines eventually remove pilots from the cockpit?
Explore how AI, automation and aviation safety regulations could shape the future of commercial air travel.
aerospaceglobalnews.com
Wisk: Autonomous Air Taxis & Self-Flying eVTOL Aircraft
The world’s first autonomous, all-electric air taxi service. Wisk’s self-flying eVTOL aircraft are Boeing-backed with 1,750+ safe test flights.
wisk.aero
How much time do you need to train a pilot?
Do you need a pilot? Or a mission commander?
as the story goes you will always need one pilot and a dog. The pilot to monitor the systems and the dog to attack him if he tries to touch anything.Could airlines eventually remove pilots from the cockpit?
Explore how AI, automation and aviation safety regulations could shape the future of commercial air travel.
Wisk: Autonomous Air Taxis & Self-Flying eVTOL Aircraft
The world’s first autonomous, all-electric air taxi service. Wisk’s self-flying eVTOL aircraft are Boeing-backed with 1,750+ safe test flights.
How much time do you need to train a pilot?
Do you need a pilot? Or a mission commander?
- Reaction score
- 14,069
- Points
- 1,160
In First, 2 CCAs Fly Combat Maneuvers Using Autonomy Software
A pair of Collaborative Combat Aircraft flew combat maneuvers in formation controlled by autonomy software for the first time.
www.airandspaceforces.com
- Reaction score
- 2,092
- Points
- 1,240
These timelines are the courses only. There is always some inevitable wait between courses. The USAF is better at streamlining the training pipeline but there is still wait between courses nonetheless. The variability in course lenght has to do with factors like weather, aircraft availability, etc…
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2,521
- Points
- 810
The primary threats to Russian and Ukrainian aircraft (and what is forcing them at to remain at increasingly long ranges) is ground based missile systems and specifically in the case of Ukraine, long range BVR Russian aerial missiles. The F-35's inherent survivability allows them to encroach much further into the enemy threat envelope, where their sensors permits finding and destroying the enemy to a better degree than any 4th generation fighter. In a peer conflict with Russia, NATO will need to disrupt, disable and destroy Russian capabilities to gain air superiority and protect the ground forces, Ukraine shows what happens when neither side can accomplish this and both just flounce against one another. Destroying the systems and people launching these various weapons is the ultimate objective, alongside supporting our forces.
F-35 is the best option for this, it is literally designed exactly for this type of peer to peer, head to head engagement on the frontlines. It is increasingly difficult to defend your ground forces, let alone attacking the enemy and their systems, if you are relegated to sitting back and lobbing munitions from vulnerable platforms.
Last edited:
Totally agree and I said as much. NATO will drive the Russian AF even further back from the lines. But that doesn't answer the question of whether the F35 is the best option for beating down mass drone events and they will be in the air. Again, from Ukraine, one solution doesn't resolve all scenarios: not even close and daily launchings of the F35 to combat drones will quickly degrade the platform. The "all your eggs in one basket" concept seems a little risky.
- Reaction score
- 44,057
- Points
- 1,210
Even if Canada were to embrace a bifurcated fighter fleet, integration between fleets (data sharing) is necessary. Buying a fleet with few users and having to do all the non recurring engineering which in turn drives significant additional sustainment costs and operational risks. Ask the maritime helicopter community how that's going for them.
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2,521
- Points
- 810
And again, a specific part of countering massed drone and missile attacks is finding the sensors, launchers and supply units before destroying them. If you blind the archer, take away his arrows and kill him, the threat decreases significantly. F-35 is the premier option for this, far better than any other platform in service. Other aircraft attempting to operate around or past the frontline do not have the sensors, survivability and payload to undertake this mission or sometimes, even if the enemy is pushed back.
If your idea of countering drones is a massed fighter force firing swaths of missiles and close in gunfire against say Shahed style drones then yes, the F-35 is poorly suited. This is mainly due to lacking access to relevant weapons at the moment and could readily be fixed with the integration of APKWS, JAGM/Hellfire, etc. As has been pointed out by others here however, I question the relevancy of this specific threat as it is more a strategic terror weapon compared to anything else.
No one aircraft is perfect at every single role and I'd argue a full on fighter isn't even the best or most cost effective option for this role. Like defending against any attack, the best approach is a layered system with redundancy. Fighter aircraft, light aircraft, helicopters, ground launched interceptors, hand-held/vehicle mounted systems, etc. Regardless of the specific aircraft picked for the role, they are the most complex and expensive platform to use for this type of role. Advocating for a mixed fleet for this role when it is better tackled by a wider scale integrated system is not an especially good idea imo.
Daily sortie after sortie to lob munitions at huge drone swarms is going to degrade any modern fighter you can field, the F-35 isn't unique in this aspect. If the F-35 had access to the proper weapons, it would be more effective than most fighters outside of say, the F-15EX, at swatting massed drone attacks. The F-35 isn't like the stealth aircraft of old where it needs constant upkeep to remain stealthy and flying, it's a far more robust aircraft much more comparable to 4th gen aircraft.
Halifax Tar
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 21,125
- Points
- 1,260
How much of that has to do with us making a shitty choice in maritime helicopters ?
- Reaction score
- 7,567
- Points
- 1,120
The F-35 is going to fly over the drones, use their onboard Sensor/EW suite to detect the launch sites, destroy the launchers, identify the HQ supporting those launchers, and direct the attacks against those. It's probably got some onboard jamming capability (I don't know, I'm just supposing) that can probably have an impact on the potential drone swarms as well.
A NATO vs Russia battle would likely have NATO owning the sky within a day or two, and with air supremacy in hand, it's a matter of picking the HVTs one after another and bug-smashing them.
Ukraine and Russia have been able to deny each other air superiority and air supremacy.
That won't happen with NATO. (I hope.) So the battlespace will look significantly different if we go to war. (When?)
A NATO vs Russia battle would likely have NATO owning the sky within a day or two, and with air supremacy in hand, it's a matter of picking the HVTs one after another and bug-smashing them.
Ukraine and Russia have been able to deny each other air superiority and air supremacy.
That won't happen with NATO. (I hope.) So the battlespace will look significantly different if we go to war. (When?)
