Canada does not need fighter jets, period - G&M

[FSTO]

Recently the RAN started awarding BWK simulators to their MARS officers based solely on simulator training in a pilot program.  Wasn't able to find out how that turned out yet, but they seemed to be pretty keen on it.

Based on the abuse the ORCAs take and some of the things I've seen BWKs do, a bit more simulator time might not be a bad thing.

.
The simulator is great but you can never get that pucker factor that comes with driving the real thing. If I hit something is sim, it's "oh well, reset and lets try again". Hit something in real life, well its paperwork, BOI's, pissed off Admirals and all sorts of hurt.

 

[SupersonicMax]

There are a lot of things you will not be allowed to do with the real aircraft in training because of OPSEC.  Those things will only be done in a simulator, until you do it for real.

 

[observor 69]

I'm with YZT580:

"So what happens in combat to an F35 driver who hasn't flown that particular exercise in a while and is up against a good pilot with lots of stick time in a more maneuverable, faster airframe that isn't linked to an overhead C & C flight?  If the initial missile shots have either missed or been jammed he will get his *** waxed because his advantage is now gone and he is in an inferior airplane.  The advantage of the F35 is the computers: take away or defeat the linkage and it is 65 million dollars worth of a basically crummy airframe and you can bet that all the potential opponents are busy right now figuring out ways to get inside the computers."

Yes I got the picture, it's total situational awareness and response. But as YZT says what about when this almost too perfect scenario has a hiccup and it's back to may the best jet fighter win.
I'm still with Canada's fiscal reality of a defence budget that won't compute for F35's. Am I missing something ?

 

[PuckChaser]

I'm still with Canada's fiscal reality of a defence budget that won't compute for F35's. Am I missing something ?

Our defense budget gets us biplanes, tugboats, and a 50% reduction in rusted out support vehicles. Doesn't make them the best tools to do the jobs we want them to do, though.

 

[Brasidas]

Our defense budget gets us biplanes, tugboats, and a 50% reduction in rusted out support vehicles. Doesn't make them the best tools to do the jobs we want them to do, though.

When are we replacing the seakings again?

 

[PuckChaser]

When are we replacing the seakings again?

No Cadillac helicopters!  >

 

[MilEME09]

No Cadillac helicopters!  >

Get ready for the happy 75 years of flight anniversary, with the Seaking in the background being held together by duck tape

 

[GreenMarine]

Saw a Facebook post last night entitled Canadian Armed Forces Light! ... I wish I could offer a link.

 

[Loachman]

One can do lots of things in a simulator that one cannot do in the real machine because it's either too dangerous or cannot be done without breaking something in order to create the situation to which one must react. And resetting is a benefit - one can actually do something again to ensure that one recognizes the situation and can react appropriately. Simulator trips are more intensive. Most real flights are uneventful. Simulator trips go from one emergency or other situation to another.

If there are "a whole bunch of real good pilots until something happens that they haven't simulated very much", then there is something wrong with the training programme that is being run, presuming that the simulator itself is not deficient (unlikely).

I'd also posit that the "real good pilots" probably weren't quite as good as they thought, as they'd not be able to practice emergency responses much otherwise. Airlines frown on doing that sort of thing with passengers aboard, as does the CF, hence the increasing use of simulators.

"My biggest issue is the single engine". There are, what, hundreds of fora wherein F16 guys can bemoan their lack of a second engine, right? The only people bitching about the single-engine non-problem seem to be those that will never fly F35, or anything else for that matter.

I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem.

 

[daftandbarmy]

"My biggest issue is the single engine". There are, what, hundreds of fora wherein F16 guys can bemoan their lack of a second engine, right? The only people bitching about the single-engine non-problem seem to be those that will never fly F35, or anything else for that matter.

These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:

 

[The Bread Guy]

These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:

OK if you're looking for a "disposable" solution, I suppose  ;D

 

[Good2Golf]

These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:

Good thing you used Apollo 11 as an example, and not Apollo 1....  :-\

 

[Navy_Pete]

.
The simulator is great but you can never get that pucker factor that comes with driving the real thing. If I hit something is sim, it's "oh well, reset and lets try again". Hit something in real life, well its paperwork, BOI's, pissed off Admirals and all sorts of hurt.

I agree, although with the ORCAs being driven like rentals with zero consequences for damage, at least with simulators you can reset vice sending them for a docking repair.  Also, folks aren't geting anywhere near the seatime they used to get before getting their BWKs, so maybe if the trainers were treated a bit more like real life (ie consequences other then a simple reset) they would be more effective.  As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.

Simulators are only as good as the actual programs; but at least with a trainer you can do all kinds of engine change overs, starts/stops and other things that is generally hard on machinery without wearing things down.  It's the same for doing cert 2/3 training; probably won't grant qualifications on just simulator ever, but you can do a lot more with very little risk for trainees by putting the console in simulation mode and just running through all kinds of drills for things that almost never happen in real life (ie engine fires, total MLO failures, etc). It saves literally millions in extra maintenance, as frequent start/stops is just brutal on machinery over the long term, unless it's specifically built to short cycle.

 

[Privateer]

As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.

Sorry, but I cannot agree with that, and I respectfully suggest that unless you are a ship driver, that you have don't have the experience to say that.  I had the opportunity to drive a HALIFAX class (as 2OOW), and I would have been adrift without my KINGSTON class experience.  Obviously the HALIFAX class has much more going on in terms of weapons, sensors, and helos, but the fundamentals of ship driving (vice fighting) are not much different on a HALIFAX class than an MCDV.  I can't speak to ORCA experience.

 

[FSTO]

I agree, although with the ORCAs being driven like rentals with zero consequences for damage, at least with simulators you can reset vice sending them for a docking repair.  Also, folks aren't getting anywhere near the seatime they used to get before getting their BWKs, so maybe if the trainers were treated a bit more like real life (ie consequences other then a simple reset) they would be more effective.  As well, ORCA/MCDV experience really doesn't seem to really translate well to driving a warship or tanker anyway, as there is more going on on the bridge and they all handle differently anyway.

Simulators are only as good as the actual programs; but at least with a trainer you can do all kinds of engine change overs, starts/stops and other things that is generally hard on machinery without wearing things down.  It's the same for doing cert 2/3 training; probably won't grant qualifications on just simulator ever, but you can do a lot more with very little risk for trainees by putting the console in simulation mode and just running through all kinds of drills for things that almost never happen in real life (ie engine fires, total MLO failures, etc). It saves literally millions in extra maintenance, as frequent start/stops is just brutal on machinery over the long term, unless it's specifically built to short cycle.

I am not advocating getting rid of simulators. Simulators have a ton of advantages over the real thing. But to think you can achieve your training objects solely on simulators is not realistic.

 

[YZT580]

and that is exactly what the non-ops and book addict types will advocate and they are the ones who are listened to because they have the textbook qualifications.

 

[a_majoor]

I've got over 4000 hours on single-engined helicopters by day and night, fair weather or foul, over large expanses of wilderness, water, alligator-infested swamp, major cities, and Liberal-held ridings, and not once, ever, did I see that as a problem.

:rofl:

 

[Good2Golf]

I'm with Loachman, the only engine failures I've had, have been on multi-engined aircraft.  Modern engines are operating at levels of reliability that aircraft manufacturers only dreamed about.  It was the same with commercial airliners when transoceanic certifications were given en masse to twin-engined airliners...ETOPS changed how people looked at reliability of installed power.

I'm not so sure that the learned academics know what 'MTBF' is, let alone what the MTBF is for, say, a F135 engine or the F119 and F100 from which it was developed.

Regards,
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

These guys rocked a single engine 45 years ago. Seemed to work out OK:

Actually, the LM is a "twin" engines: One in the base for landing and another one in the manned module to take off.

 

[daftandbarmy]

Actually, the LM is a "twin" engines: One in the base for landing and another one in the manned module to take off.

You left your hat in your Mom's basement...  ;D