Dude, with your profile pic...you've got some problems. Maybe it's true what they say about Fighter Attack GuyS
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
T-45's in P-Cola?
- Thread starter hendogg311
- Start date
Dude, with your profile pic...you've got some problems. Maybe it's true what they say about Fighter Attack GuyS
That's a good point, I trained in the venerable T-45A myself. Then I came to the RAG and discovered this wonderful little thing called a velocity vector...
How the hell does a "synthetic radar" work anyway?
That would be pretty damn dumb, I thought there was a lot of value in being taught by NFO's in the T-39. A simulated radar ain't going to domuch to make it up either, how the heck are you supposed to run intercepts?
Maybe one of the NFO Inst's can chime in, I think we got one or two here.
We got the guts and idea from the Israelis. You have the GINA tell the 45 where it is, compares posit & altitude to a ONC/GNC/VFR, geographical data base database. The "I believe" box calculate what a brand X radar would be seeing if it were really there and then the box spits out the calculated radar return to be displayed on the MFD.
Sorta watered-down and basic, but you get the idea.
You have hit on the reason why the AF is not smitten with the idea and still mad at the Navy for letting the T-X fall by the wayside. AF wants the multi-place WSO trainer. Period. They're not keen on the T-45 only approach. I would bet the T-1 will still be in Sherman for the AF, if I were a betting man.
But what the hey, I like brunettes, he likes blondes, you like redheads. We all like women, just different means to the same end.
Inherent in the T-39/T-1 syllabus is NFOs teaching SNFOs. I definitely got alot out of flying the T-6 and the T-2. Interacting with just a pilot in the air is a good teaching tool seeing as how a NFO/WSO in a tactical jet, thats what a decent amount of your job is. However, since some of the tracom instructors come from platforms that are single seat, the experience of working with another guy isn't there. Not knocking the quality of their instruction, just pointing out that there's some insight a F-18F driver will have that a single seat guy won't have.
Having an NFO as an instructor is invaluable because its someone who does the job you're training to do. An NFO know how to be an NFO. Thats why he has two anchors on his wings. They can give some students things that a pilot can't.. mainly instruction on how to be a good NFO. Pilots can't do that as well b/c thats not what the Navy/AF/USMC trained them to do.
Having an NFO as an instructor is invaluable because its someone who does the job you're training to do. An NFO know how to be an NFO. Thats why he has two anchors on his wings. They can give some students things that a pilot can't.. mainly instruction on how to be a good NFO. Pilots can't do that as well b/c thats not what the Navy/AF/USMC trained them to do.
magnetfreezer
Well-Known Member
Had a brief for the AF folks here a couple months ago on the eventual conversion. Right now they are looking at moving to a T-6/T-1 syllabus and leaving the Navy to sort out the T-39/45 issues. The higher up AF brass were apparently very adamant about having INFOs/WSOs teaching a good portion of the curriculum instead of only IPs and canned the idea of using the 45 for AF studs when the -39 goes out.
DangerousDan
I could tell you but I would have to kill you
I always though it was ironic that SNFOs got the most gucci airplane to start (T-6 texan 2) and then slowly worked through older airplanes... (t-1, t-39, t-2). Nothing like training the finest NFOS in 1960s technology.
Rest assured that every snfo is well aware of that fact.
MasterBates
Well-Known Member
Like the Pilots get newer stuff. You got a clue how old the BAe HAWK airframe is? Or the 45A's avionics.
Helo and Prop advanced birds are both 1960s designs.
Helo and Prop advanced birds are both 1960s designs.
Not that we really got to use any of the gucci avionics. DR and Tacan/ point-to-point nav all the way. So nothing really changed.
I can't believe the USAF has got this right, especially since they are so pilot centric. Getting rid of the mutli place NFO trainer (T-1/T-39) is a big mistake. That said, count yourself lucky the synthetic radar training will be done in the T-45. The Naval Aviation Enterprise document promulgated around 4 years ago planned on the T-6 doing that mission. Imagine the T-6 being the hottest ride you had before showing up to the Bug RAG.
Sim City baby!! There is still time to reverse this colossal mistake. I propose a letter writing campaign and petition. Calling Masterbates.
