The RCAF's Next Generation Fighter (CF-188 Replacement)

[YZT580]

They still haven’t convinced me a officer needs a degree. Nor have they convinced me a pilot needs to be a officer…

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.

 

[Eaglelord17]

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.

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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?

 

[YZT580]

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.

 

[Kirkhill]

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

 

[SupersonicMax]

ISH...
Canada had had a Gold Plated Individual Training System* for years regardless of branch of service.
* credit to @Infanteer for the term

The USAF Fighter Pilot timeline is similar to the RCAF depending on initial platform but a little shorter, and the timeline includes mission ready as a formation member.
UnderGraduate Flying Training is 52-62 weeks. So lets just say 1year
Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals is 8 to 12 weeks depending on platform (@SupersonicMax they all fly T-38 for this so I can’t understand the difference in timelines? ) . So ~2-3 months.
Formal Unit Training is on the actual platform jet: 6-9 Months (the F-22 and F-35 taking longer than F-16, and the F-15 appears to be a bit shorter than 9 months.
Mission Qualification Training at the Operational unit: 3-6 months (no idea if that range is platform or individual pilot based on how well they adapt).

So from just under 2 years to maybe 2 and half years to make an operational Pilot who is mission ready in a Wing.

But when you consider that it requires a 4 year degree before hand, it isn’t really that off what the RCAF does in terms of overall time.
Best case scenario seems to be someone who joins with a degree already going through the 2 month Officer Training School and then into fighters you could have a mission ready pilot at the 2yr mark.

It has been suggested by the USAF if there was a significant need that they could have a competent pilot inside 1 year but there would be a fair amount of washout (I don’t have a clue as to what they mean as far as percentage dropped, or program cost implications - I am sure that due to the number of preserved airframes in the Boneyard that there is likely a Rand Study on it - but I have never dug for it).

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]

Ukraine has confronted the Russian Airforce and forced it to stay clear of their airspace. Russia delivers their ordinance from long range. With the aircraft and systems available to NATO it would seem to be a safe bet that Russia would fare no better going toe to toe. I can certainly appreciate the potential for the F35 to force them back even further but Ukraine's primary opponent in the air are drones and missiles. Is the F35 really the weapon of choice to guard ground forces against this type of attack?

The primary threats to Russian and Ukrainian aircraft (and what is forcing them at to remain at increasingly long ranges) is ground based missile based 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 permits. 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.