Remember the numerous scenes in the movie Top Gun when teams of naval aviators take to the air in F-14s and engage in mock dogfights? Exciting as those scenes were to watch on the movie screen, they were very much the ÒHollywoodÓ version of training to be a military pilot. LetÕs face it: Any movie showing the real deal (where Goose and Maverick spend hours in a ground-based computerized flight simulator) will not sell overpriced movie tickets or popcorn. Proper combat flight training requires logging hours in the air, but also a lot of time on the ground in computerized flight sims that do their best to mimic the experience of air warfare. IÕm not sure what the ratio of actual flight time to simulated flight time for combat flight training is these days, but during the years of military budget cuts like the United States went through during the 90s, itÕs a safe bet that more time is spent in ground-based flight simulators than ever before.
The reason why is that F-16s, F-18s and stealth fighters cost a lot of money to make and to maintain. It is US militaryÕs goal to have their pilots be the best trained in the world and to achieve that goal with the most efficient methods possible. Flying an F-117 for a couple of hours on a simulated combat mission is a lot more stressful on the aircraft than a daily commute from Alexandria, VA to Washington, DC is on a Chevy Lumina. Granted, a Lumina doesnÕt have twin GE F404 engines, redundant computerized guidance systems, special radar reflecting paint and heat-seeking missiles on it like an F-117 but IÕm sure there have been times that you really thought that GM ought to consider a ÒLimited EditionÓ version that would. Obviously, the stress of driving to work on your car doesnÕt begin to compare with combat flight. This normal wear and tear on combat aircraft in the arsenal of any military force in the world means that there will always be a need for trained pilots and well trained crews of mechanics to support them. It also means that money out of a strained budget must be spent to pay and keep these invaluable support crews.
One way that military leaders working within budgetary constraints have dealt with keeping costs down is to scale back on some of the flight time and have pilots log more hours in the flight simulator. A military combat flight simulator in the early 21st Century is a pretty amazing piece of equipment. No, a flight sim still isnÕt Òvirtual realityÓ and it wonÕt make the pilot believe that if he rams into the side of a computer-generated mountain that he will get a sneak peek at Jesus. What a flight sim is good for is getting the pilot ready to fly the plane without going through the hassles of prepping the aircraft, flight crew, air traffic controllers and other bureaucratic hoops that must be jumped through for a ÒrealÓ training flight. However, you canÕt have pilots that train solely in flight simulators because pilots wonÕt react well to real aerial combat if theyÕre used to playing a big video game ø the first time they pull several gÕs and black out, theyÕll realize that Òvirtual realityÓ isnÕt anywhere near reality. What would help out pilots, their trainers and the people that write up military budgets is a something that would merge the best features of computer flight simulation and actual flight training.
During the Asian Aerospace 2002 conference held at the Changi Airport exhibition site in Singapore, an Israeli company announced that they had a product that just might be the kind of hybrid product that is needed to train combat pilots. BVR Systems told conference attendees they had completed flight tests with the Israeli Air Force of their new In Flight Electronic Warfare Simulator (IFEWS) system. The IFEWS consists of an Intel Pentium-based computerized system and fast data transceiver installed inside an aircraft that links to another PC-based Òdebriefing stationÓ on the ground. A training officer would input various scenarios and potential threats into the ground based system that would then be sent to the airborne system. To the pilot, his radar screens would show multiple ÒhostilesÓ trying to kill him, complete with all the visual and auditory cues that coincide with those hostile threats. The idea is to have a pilot take the IFEWS-equipped plane up for simulated combat training like in Top Gun, but at a fraction of the expense. Right now you have to send up two teams of five planes apiece, with ten different ground crews and ten planes full of expensive jet fuel. With the IFEWS, those numbers could potentially be cut in half. Unlike a ground-based flight sim, pilots would be in the air, actually feel like they are in combat, would hear the sirens and see the threat indicators right in front of them.
BVR SystemsÕ IFEWS is one of those great ideas that you wish you had thought of. The IFEWS is still being evaluated and in an early stage, but that means that BVR will take this great idea and enhance their product before offering it to the global market in a few years. The only bad news is that it is such a great idea that IÕll bet there are plenty of other companies at Asian Aerospace 2002 that will rush home from the conference and try to get their version of IFEWS out first.
Military planners: Start talking to BVR Systems about how to implement the IFEWS now before lawyers are brought into the picture in a couple of years and screw this whole thing up!
Email me with your comments.
<>
