FlightGlobal.com
Home
Premium
Archive
Video
Images
Forum
Atlas
Blogs
Jobs
Shop
RSS
Email Newsletters
You are in:
Home
Aviation History
1980
1980 - 0040.PDF
FLIGHT international, 5 January 1980 Left An F-I5B landing with the air-brake in the extended position mented by much ground work, stretch ing it to a total of 80 days. The F-15 course, while it embodies transitional sorties and basic fighter manoeuvres, has in addition, six intercept missions, six sessions of dissimilar air-combat tactics, and more emphasis on basic fighter and air combat manoeuvres. The heaviest programme of all is that taken by the German students on the F-104 Starfighter. The German students fly 89 sorties and their pro gramme runs for a total of 135 days, during which they get seven sorties on formation practice, five sorties practising nuclear weapons delivery, and 11 more sorties on navigation exercises. The F-5 course runs for 119 days, during which 81 sorties are flown, mainly from Williams AFB, which is 20 miles from Luke. While the awesome power of the Eagle puts it head and shoulders above the other aircraft at Luke, at least in so far as the high altitude interceptor is concerned, one quickly becomes aware that the F-4 Phantom is still the back bone of Tactical Air Command. This old workhorse—and Luke's Phantoms are well worn veterans—is still a versatile per former, capable of doing a workman like job on either high-level intercep tion or ground strike. Accordingly, most of the incoming trainees are streamed on to the Phantoms, the others, apart from the German students, will convert onto F-5s or Eagles. The F-4 course is long, lasting 97 days, and encompassing 53 flying sorties, a good portion of the lengthier period is attributable to the Phantom's broader role. The F-4 Operational Training Course incorporates, as noted, 53 flying sorties, 15 sorties (totalling 29hr) in the simulator, and a full 200hr of academic studies. The 53 flying sorties break down into six phases: 13 sorties devoted to transi tion, eight to basic fighter manoeuvres, four to air-combat manoeuvres, five to the use of the ground-attack radar, 15 sorties practising ground Attack (both day and night) and eight sorties focusing on ground-attack tactical. Current low-level tactics entail plenty of practice in "com-out" formation flying, that is in radio silence. When the formation leader decides to execute turns, he signals his wing man, silently, in a variety of ways. Sometimes he simply initiates a turn away, at other times he raises or lowers the aircraft's nose. Formation flying imposes heavy demands on pilots at any time; "com-out" turns the screws a little tighter, particularly when grafted on to the strain of low- level close formation. Underlying this sort of practice is the knowledge that fighter elements may be called upon to operate in an ECM environment, where enemy jam ming may obliterate radio contact between them. Alternatively, radio silence may be chosen by the pilots Below A Luke F-4D rolls-out after landing pits a pilot in a MiG-21 aircraft against a pilot in an F^—was installed by Singer at a cost of approximately $17 million. Maintenance and operat ing costs run to another $1 million annually. Based on average usage, the cost estimate for simulator time is $300 an hour. To put an F-15 Eagle in the air for one costs a minimum of $2,100. The economic advantages of simulator time are therefore easy to demonstrate, although one has first to validate the basic assumption that the simulator is realistic enough to provide worthwhile experience to novices. Some flying instructors are guarded in their assessments of the simulator's usefulness if it is suggested that it should be possible to increase use of simulators, to reduce flying time. All of them, however, will concede that, as a supplement to existing training schedules, the simulator serves a useful function. They agree that a few sessions in a simulator give the pupils on their own initiative, to maintain tactical surprise and not betray a low- level approach. The realism of the tactical training at Luke, exacts its price, inevitably, in occasional casual ties. The same applies to the even more demanding exercises of Red Flag, flown from Nellis. My curiosity had been piqued by the substantial amount of simulator time shown in the syllabus. The degree of realism imported by the F-4 and the MiG-21 "one on one" simulator has to be experienced to be believed. The man responsible for bringing this highly sophisticated air-to-air simulator to Luke was Gen R. J. Dixon, who was the Commander of Tactical Air Command until his retire ment on April 20, 1978. Dixon, typically, had the foresight to install it in the category of a research and development project so as to facilitate the incorporation of desired improve ments and modifications as experience showed their need. The particular machine we were inspecting—which a background that enables them to get more benefit from an hour's air time, particularly in the early stages of the course. Despite the realism of the simulator, instructors emphasise that a pilot actually flying an aircraft experiences more stress and discomfort than one in the simulator, and that it is there fore not possible to equate the two performances. Those inclined to criti cise also point out that the radar images in the simulator are not realistic. Under flight conditions radar seldom presents the clear and unvary ing signals normally reproduced in a simulator. Frequently, the real air craft's radar images are much less definite. Various degrees of unservice- ability and atmospheric conditions can transform the airborne radar display into a pale and flickering imitation of the bright and reliable pictures generated in the simulator. But the simulator has its good points, too. Head-on attacks can be practised in the simulator. In air train-
Sign up to
Flight Digital Magazine
Flight Print Magazine
Airline Business Magazine
E-newsletters
RSS
Events
