The Mind-Blowing Future of Military Simulators

Ward hosts episode 9 of the Fight's On! podcast live from the Tailhook Convention in Reno and talks to a panel of experts on the concept of "Live, Virtual, and Constructive" - a way to maximize training dollars and tactical proficiency by blending simulators with real flight operations.
Support this channel by using the SUPER THANKS (heart icon above) or by becoming a Patron at / wardcarroll
Buy one or all three of the books in the PUNK'S TRILOGY, Ward's popular first three novels about life a Tomcat squadron, at www.usni.org/punks-trilogy-re.... Use the PUNKYT discount code at checkout for 25% off to KZbin channel subscribers.
Also available in KINDLE format here: www.amazon.com/dp/B09R1MX8SY
And as an audiobook here:
PUNK'S WAR: www.audible.com/pd/Punks-War-...
PUNK'S WING: www.amazon.com/Punks-Wing-Pun...
PUNK'S FIGHT: www.amazon.com/Punks-Fight-Pu...
Get official channel gear at my-store-b7f9c9.creator-sprin...
Follow Ward on Twitch at / moochontwitch

[@garethbarry3825]

As an outsider, I feel I have no right to an opinion, so take my comments as from someone who is totally ignorant. I truly cannot imagine being more terrified than landing a plane on a moving ship, it amazes me that people do it/did it, and at night! Regarding PLA, it seems to me a good thing if it results in fewer fatalities when landing on the ship - Having said that, it does magnify the awe that I have for real F-8, F4, F-14 drivers, - guys like Snort, Slammer, Nasty etc. I guess I can identify more with the 'grey beards,' I am one of those people who idolised the 'Topgun' aura, pilots who had to tame a beast of an airplane by being a good stick. And to US servicemen, please know that there ARE people around the world, non-Americans who truly value the service, force for good that I feel the US armed forces are. I know it's fashionable around the world to bash America, but I for one sleep better at night knowing that the US armed forces are a barrier against evil.

[@tlevans62]

I actually work in the simulation industry, particularly in Aviation Simulation, and it really is the military that drives the biggest innovation, since the civilian markets are often hamstrung by FAA, EASA and CASA regulations which take years to catch up with technology. The military has no such restrictions.

[@lukeingram7655]

I'm consistently impressed with each and every one of Mooch's presentations, no matter the topic, everyone involved is always impeccably professional in demeanor and extremely well spoken.

[@thestardusters7640]

All this PLM stuff. When I went through flight training, EVERY student "hit the boat" before Advanced Training. THAT'S what made us NAVAL AVIATORS! Even the Cadets had bragging rights over the most senior USAF pilot. So much for us grey beards. Take me back to the days when flight decks were made of a wood and men were made of steel!

[@MikePasqqsaPekiM]

…and pilots…died more often? I really do get what you’re saying, and it sounds like this is something the pilots couldn’t do in the worst conditions…so they still have to learn how to land “old school”.

[@pepperjack6421]

I prefer PFM, never lets me down. I’m not a flyer, but I’m 20 years deep and love listening to other Navy smart folks speaking to what our common goals are. I’m an Intel guy, but I value such a depth and breadth of knowledge being applied across the board, it reassures me we are all thinking like warfighters and how to be more lethal when the time comes. Thanks Ward, it was a very interesting discussion.

[@wayneroyal3137]

As a civilian this is just fascinating information, as a pilot it’s fascinating information. Once again, Mooch has brought together a panel of experts to cover a subject that outsiders of the Navy would not know. Brilliantly done.

[@caroleinwv]

Thank you for the education and your service. What a HUGE amount of science and technology surrounding this aspect of preparedness.

[@davidbowidowicz7733]

The value of LVC is when you can integrate the other warfare and joint participation players. There are certain FST-J events that have been integrated. We had this in the LCS program with the HSC, HSM, surface ships and VP communities (many of which were all in sims).

[@mikebridges20]

Mooch, I am constantly amazed and impressed by the glimpses you're providing us dweebs into really top shelf topics concerning military aviation. I think the best part of this conversation was "okay, now we've got this awesome tech, how do we properly use it?" So many times us engineers come up with way cool stuff, that we know is notionally a "force multiplier", but how to get it to translate into the real world can be really, really, hard. Great panel discussion on a way cool stuff called VLC!

[@lawrencebohler4099]

Great video. Explains what the us is doing, but how about a similar episode on what our peer rivals are doing and how are we addressing their training. Are they proficient or at our level of training and execution?

[@jameshisself9324]

As just an American who happens to have enough NavAir background to understand much of this, it is very comforting that the security of our nation is in these hands. Our peers may build a super maneuverable stealth fighter, they may build a carrier with their version of EMALS, or other tech that the world can observe and learn about. But THIS is the reason we have the tactical advantage. These seasoned warfighters, working on new tech and the T and R that goes with it, coming up with more effective ways to improve meaningful readiness is awe inspiring and the path to victory against any threat. Very proud of our integrated defensive and training systems and these leaders. Thank you Ward for your helping painting this picture for us. You and your channel are important curative sources for this info for the rest of us.

[@davidpf043]

PLM is mind bending. My pilot (F-4 era) said he had gone through his logbook and calculated that with FCPL/Carquals and normal operations that one third of his flight hours were spent with his landing gear down. That is a lot of hours.

[@gregstovall3079]

We were doing Mode 1 landings with Marine Corps F-4Js back in the early 80's at Pax River using the AN-TPN-22 PAR based on Automatic Carrier Landing System [ACLS] software. I have the beat up knees from the stick to prove it when we were trying to perfect the software as we got closer to the deck and the radar was starting to pick up different points on the A/C that according to the software interpretation was the A/C was moving rapidly in space and trying to make rapid corrections.

[@PJNiteballer]

A little confused with some of the acronyms, at first , but kinda figured it out. Enough about me...GREAT EPISODE!

[@ED-es2qv]

The military even has acronyms of acronyms. It’s cultural, apparently, because I remember lots of guys coming up with acronyms either for jokes or to use for real. It’s an excellent way to take shortcuts in a conversation because if you share acronyms, you probably shared training on the topic and can make some assumptions about what the other person knows (and therefore doesn’t need said).

[@bobwampler3387]

Fascinating discussion.

[@kendalhuestis6072]

I was a SPN-42 ACLS ET on the Carl Vinson. I remember also working on SPN-41 or needles. Mode 1,1A, 2 and 3 I remember only one trap a month in full Mode 1 and Pilots didn't like handing the bird over to the computer.

[@2Oldcoots]

Thank You so much "Mooch" for these insights!!!

[@knotcensored932]

Ward, tip for you: add splainers on acronyms in captions so you can bring all us grunts along without bogging down the brief. Army For The Win, but thanks for all support 😂

[@AlbaAdventures]

Interesting thoughts shared here and for sure another great episode. Thanks Ward for another great episode, a great show and podcast. BFM is fun; more like an adrenaline rush... Looking forward to the home version of these simulators to come out.

[@KRGruner]

I was doing LVC (actually JLVC, just add "joint" in front of it) back in the early 2000s in the Air Force (specifically US Air Forces Europe) as an exercise planner, although at a far more primitive level than is possible today. But it's far from a new idea. Excellent discussion here, these guys are truly experts.

[@petewilliams4965]

Good stuff - thanks Mooch!!

[@W8ASA]

In the early 1980s, I worked on the F-15 simulator domes in St. Louis. It was fun standing just outside of the cockpit on the collapsible walkway UNTIL FIGHT ON!

[@johndonigan7039]

Hi, Ken! Yes, it was.

[@aerodude9903]

I was a civilian aero engineer at WPAFB, I came to McAir in the mid 80s and got to fly in the F-15E dome, the visuals were so bad back then. As I entered the facility an F-15 went vertical off the runway behind the facility.

[@johndonigan7039]

@@aerodude9903 Did we still have the two light bulbs in the painted hemispheres for the horizon?

[@aerodude9903]

@@johndonigan7039 as I recall it was like someone held a flashlight behind objects to project them onto the horizon in the dome, nothing compared to current capability, but to a young engineer it was pretty cool. I haver worked Virtual Simulation & Analysis from the late 1980's to current day. I was a part of the original SIMAF team at WPAFB.

[@johndonigan7039]

@@aerodude9903 Yes. That was therm.\

[@johnmclean6498]

Mooch, all the acronyms used need a glossary in the comments section of this important podcast. Some of the jargon was "carrier folks" only and could be maybe skipped. I could then re-watch it and be much more informed. Thanks.

[@WardCarroll]

Got it. Let me work on it.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

Outstanding!

[@glenn9229]

I left Naval Aviation in the Australian Navy in 2000. At that time they had just about switched on linked land and aviation simulators and ships alongside via a truckbased container of black boxes . The outcome was to be that surface warfare officer trainees, Seahawk aircrew and ships operations teams could all see, talk and interact in a generated scenario. It was embryonic and 1st generation, but it was truly a step ahead in mixed mode training to achieve mission capability. The current fidelity and capacity to do this operationally is a huge step in building confidence, capacity and expertise. I wish (sometimes) I was still out there driving all this cool stuff. Cheers Mooch, I hope to hear and see more about this, Thanks to your guests it was really great to hear their perspectives and benefit from their knowledge

[@roderickcampbell2105]

Awesome. Great pros. I have not caught the entire video yet, but I was struck by some things very quickly. One recalled an a U2. There was about three knots +/-space. Over the three you were screwed. Less, you were screwed. Toss in some mechanical issues, and yeah, you were screwed. Great interview and solid guys.

[@johncashwell1024]

You guys really started talking my language when discussing "data driven" decision making, truth in reporting, etc. and the importance of using these tools to drive the decision making process over gut reaction or gut feeling decisions. In my profession we strive to get past the "fluff" and the important question: What does the data tell me? We select the best remedy a problem because the data led us there and not because that route "looked" or "felt" like the best option. Kaizen Promotion/Performance Officer

[@ED-es2qv]

What I’ve seen of Kaizen events is that you take numbers to put on things, then do the math and see the results. If the results don’t match your gut feeling, you change the weight numbers until the math matches your gut. In my opinion, it’s a system to make your gut decisions look like math and science, but it’s not.

[@fntsmk]

BZ Gentleman! Thanks for the great, informative, discussion!

[@johnhill7429]

I really enjoyed this video. Back in the seventies there was a big discussion about hooking up the simulators in a way that two or more crews could work together in training to hit a target (my A-6 background showing). In the 90's when I was working with the Turkish Air Force (Lockheed Field Service Engineer), the Link people were working on hooking the F-16 sims together so that the TUAF pilots could fly a mission together over landlines. Now it looks that this idea has evolved even greater with "LVC" in which one or more flying aircraft would work with ground based simulator aircrews for mission which would/could engage hostile real or simulated threats that may or may not have a real person behind them. This is a great idea which would (as the gentlemen discussed) save money, wear and tear on airframes. Interesting was the passing comment about also have ship or other participants. Just one minor point, nowhere in the video does anyone say what "LVC" acronym stand for.

[@ED-es2qv]

Live, Virtual, Constructive. I think.

[@tabascoindy5005]

Good interview

[@mrdddeeezzzweldor5039]

Very interesting commentary on the state air war operations as they continue to evolve and include unseated operators as well as assisted carrier landing technologies. Would still have Hultgreen in force if that technology were available during her deployment

[@rand0mn0]

Thanks!

[@WardCarroll]

Thanks for your support!

[@davidwhiteford4936]

Outstanding discussion, very intelligent input from each of you! Bringing the Sim into the cockpit and integrating all the entities of the strike group into training scenarios will literally be a game changer if well implemented. Proper machine learning code will allow the front line systems to develop from the training interactions as well as the human components of a well prepared readiness. It seems to me that having a separate Sim program is an unnecessary redundancy and waste of resources?

[@kintothewind]

Nice video very interesting I would like to try out that flight simulator that you put together the other week that looks really cool.

[@soulmanm12954]

Ah, yes, the ubiquitous Range In A Pod scenario!!! Cubic at its best!!! Nice to hear after twenty plus years after the “concept”!!!! Thanks for the casts!

[@PoiPoi5189]

Any airmen “Hey Grandpa-ing” you around me Ward is gonna get a stiff flick on the ear.

[@ryana1787]

Live = person in a jet Virtual = person in a simulator Constructive = computer generated forces (including possibly a person sitting at a computer console inserting those forces)

[@OldNavyGuy]

Mooch, great video as always. Good to see you with boys having this discussion. However, this was a Navy-only discussion. Would be interesting to see where the technology and TTPs are going with respect to expanding to Joint LVC and incorporating allies like AUS. I’ll bet Lung is interested in that too.

[@antoniog9814]

Flounder is the best callsign ever. That's a great reference to one of the best movies ever, lol

[@dragineeztoo61]

Thanks for this guys, you've provided a wealth of intellectual fuel. I like how everyone is concerned about the difference between simulation and the real thing. There's a huge difference between simulated flight and the real thing. I had the pleasure of flying an A6 night carrier landing simulator (zero cockpit experience at Oceana early 90's). I'm quite proud that I got to within 60 feet of a trap on multiple simulations and never crashed the plane. I was proud that I figured out the coolie hat. How do you simulate modern combat? Wow, toy doctor explosion squared! Truth in reporting seems, to me, to be a huge point. The wild inaccuracy of past damage claims seems to me to be a way to improve mission allocation efficiency, agreed. I love how smart these guys are. Did anyone notice they didn't talk about survivability?

[@johnhill7429]

I also like the reference as to what was believed to the the Air-To-Air arena with missiles prior to 1963. The reference underscored the importance of continuation of BFM (Basic Fighter Maneuvering) training, whether this is accomplished by actual 1 v 1, 2 v 2, 2 v4, etc; experience or may be accomplished with the LVC training or both is still a necessity (in my lowly opinion)! We should make the Ault Report mandatory reading for all decision/policy makers in the Air Combat Arena.

[@marcjohnson4884]

I recently took a job as a Beech 1900 single pilot CA into and out of Hartsfield. No autopilot, Or FD. Biggest challenge at the end of my career. I would love to try simulated traps on DCS. I bet E2 crews got some skills.

[@kennethward9530]

I learn so much watching your material, thank you. For a future topic, can you discuss with a similarly knowledgeable panel the state of the art for naval air operations for other countries, both allies and not so friendly countries. Would be interested in knowing in particular China's current level, and maybe a 5 year outlook. Thanks.

[@richardrodriguez6354]

Mooch Great channel, USAF vet, could you go back and add captions to all the Navy acronyms? Best channel ever!

[@rgscomputers1]

the merge is one of my favorite things

[@texhaines9957]

Thanks Mooch.

[@buddyschnaars851]

have been reading Dale Brown for 20plus years and love to see the reality in todays tech as described in a book 20 years old!!

[@Name-ps9fx]

Only concern I thought about was when the one guy said "PLM will never fail, if it fails it's because one of the other systems fail (flight controls, etc). PLM (as I understand it) is the integration of a number of other system's data, but it itself is a system. You could (in theory) have a 100% FMC aircraft, but have a short/open circuit in the portion that moves the indicator symbology (whether it's mechanical or electronic/programming), or another oopsie that renders inoperable the display. I would ask what is it about the PLM system that makes it impervious to any internal system failure? The idea that "oh it'll never fail!" could become a "famous last words" trope. Not a pilot, former USAF radar tech, just asking a question.

[@Solathoan]

My understanding, completely from the outside as a civilian, is that PLM is a Flight Computer Input mode, so it changes the FCS output just like dropping the gear on an F-16, it's integral to the flight computer and if you have a failure that would prevent it from engaging when you dirty up into landing configuration then you have some form of FCS failure and are operating on some backup system or less than full FCS channels.

[@charlesberlemann8831]

These discussions would be MUCH more understandable if we had a glossary of these ever-changing acronyms.

[@kyleknebel6409]

yeah, civie hear and I'm lost! hahahaha

[@TR4Ajim]

Could there be a condition on the aircraft (ie battle damage) that would make PLM unusable, and the pilot had to land “old school”?

[@reddeserted13]

My 10 yo loved the simulators on the USS Midway.

[@simtaylor61]

First off. Would like to ask you what you do with your raw interview footage after you've finished with it. It seems to me, that the Navy in general and Naval Aviation in PARTICULAR is really in a state of flux right now, with technology pushing one way and bean counters pulling the other. I hope you are archiving your interviews somehow with a Navy agency of some sort for future historical reference. 20 to 50 years from now, you're interviews, with people ON THE SCENE WHILE THESE CHANGES ARE HAPPENING, is going to be VERY important for scholars to study in the future, I believe. Two. This interview with these folks, along with your previous video when you have Nasty (I'm horrible, I can't remember his full name), fly your F14, and how he kept saying other than the controls feeling a little different, the sim was a spot on match for an F14. Fast forward to this video. I was struck by one gentlemans comment about simulating a war-game with an AEGIS missile cruiser tied up to the dock participating in a simulated war game. Wondered if anybody had tried to do a simulated CAX or RIMPAC on DCS? Since the aircraft (with some exceptions) aren't considered "state of the art" anymore, and a lot of them, sadly, retired. But I was thinking perhaps the Navy could organize this, on a volunteer basis, with REDFOR and BLUEFOR, and study the results. A lot of questions were asked "who is the end customer". Organize a virtual RIMPAC 90, and have the Navy study not the units, per se, but the hardware, software, and end user results. Perhaps it could be useful as a potential planning tool, or a design tool to help the Navy design in house simulations of operations, with real people in the loop, and see how they turn out. Simulated invasion of "Redforistan" go well at 29 Palms, lets say? No go try it for real and see how it works out. Just an idea

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

"You're not going to war in a simulator." Until, of course, you do. In the future, some simulators will simulate what it is like to remotely pilot a real combat aircraft, after which, students will graduate to doing almost the exact same thing, but they really will be remotely piloting an aircraft. They will still not experience the G-forces, or the stress levels, but they will have real world malfunctions they will have to troubleshoot, and they will have to do it remotely. They will also really be able to go to war from their simulator, and be shot down, and then respawn in a new aircraft to fight another day (though at substantial real-world cost, and with limited aircraft supplies).

[@orlock20]

Isn't drone flying like flying in a simulator? That guy in Nevada is sitting at a desk while his drone is in some other part of the world. Those 6 gen jets can be pilotless so operating them in simulation may make that conversion easier.

[@Gabriel_McMillan]

@@orlock20 That's essentially what I mean. In some cases, rather than an office in Nevada, for something like an unmanned fighter, you might need lower latency, so you might still have to be in the air, but perhaps your office could be in a C-130 150 miles behind the frontline fighters. My understanding is the B-21 itself can be un-manned, but it is also supposed to be a central node in these 6th gen networks, so your might have a situation where a co-pilot in the B-21 is flying one or more other aircraft from a "simulator", of sorts, controlling a swarm of Loyal Wingman drones. In that case, you might not feel the Gs of the aircraft you are flying, but you could feel Gs from another aircraft you are in while flying an aircraft you are not in. Or perhaps the drone you are flying is actually an orbital system traveling Mach 20 with only thrusters for flight control, while you are flying in an AWACS or a JSTARS or something like that, or maybe from a ship in the Pacific. Flying a supersonic, highly maneuverable jet in air to air combat, remotely, is very different from flying a Predator over ground targets, though, I'm sure, and would require a very different sort of training, more like that which manned fighter pilots would receive. The good news is, with Ai flight control assistance, and without all those G-forces on the body, perhaps even old greybeards can still pilot an aircraft! Imagine trying to troubleshoot an aircraft in flight remotely, though. Maybe it will be easier, if they put all the senors in the right place, so you know immediately what is wrong, and the computer starts fixing it. Nice thing about that is, there's no limit to how many people you could have "in" the aircraft with you. You could have an NGAD fighter with an 8 foot wingspan, and then have an electrical failure, and suddenly you could have 5 engineers in there working on the problem while the pilot is trying not to crash...

[@bigearsandnoddy1]

Hiya mooch excellent video job good job so please keep them coming GL&HF coming from Dulwich London England(✌peace✌)

[@RocketToTheMoose]

What happens if PLM is working fine but the HUD itself is not? Can they land using a HUD repeater on one of the MFD's?

[@sichere]

I think the Elephant in the room is the leaps and bounds being made by AI and it's ability to "learn" from the input and scenarios it is exposed to and AI drone aircraft will out perform manned aircraft.

[@V2catapults]

The Lex was AVT-16 not CVT in your days Mooch. CVT was 60's

[@michaels.chupka9411]

tying some earlier episodes together with this one raises a question or two. prior, a guest maintained that, to counter Chinese build ups of the islands surrounding their mainland and creating stand off missile platforms, we should be building more carriers (and all that that entails-not only aircraft and personnel, but escorts and so on). and here, one of the guests mentions how we have limited work space for scheduled maintenance for those that we have. something tells me that the pentagon needs to come up with solutions which do not bankrupt the nation like we did to the Soviet Union.

[@wingtip1000]

THANKYOU GENTELMEN ; SHARING LIFE AMEN

[@timme9206]

Hey Mooch...being a F-14 driver in DCS I'm a little confused. You said the Tomcat didn't have anything like PLM but as far as I know the Tomcat did have ACLS ( Automated Carrier Landing System) didn't it? I use it in Case III recovery situations. You need to hit a couple parameters but when you engage it in adition with the Automatic Throttle Control you can land literally hands free and should catch some wire . That is something like PLM or am I mistaken? Or is DCS just off on that system? 🤔 Thanks for your great content. Try to watch every episode you air.

[@WardCarroll]

ACLS seldom worked in the Tomcat, and the technology wasn’t close to PLM.

[@timme9206]

@@WardCarroll roger that, sir. 🙂

[@r47168411]

I’m detecting a notable increase in spam in the can mentality. One more angle that drone rangers are chipping away at aviators perhaps?

[@saffakanera]

12:35 Guy in the middle stares into my soul.

[@hlynnkeith9334]

Ward, 27:47 PK cites a video on your channel from 'a couple of weeks ago'. The man follows your channel. Color me impressed.

[@richardmarcroft6534]

I was born to pretend to be a fighter pilot .

[@davidsyes5970]

WRT "PLM never not working"... ~"If PLM is not engageable, you've got other problems... Stuff were not seeing iut there..." Does rhat account for the plane being hit by survivable shrapnel or over-stress maneuvers knocking out certain components (whatever such components may be, I've no knowledge/idea of)?

[@JZainbear]

I think the use of PLM is also a cost saving measure. Bolters eat fuel.

[@knotcensored932]

Oops, belay my last...just saw the SSC prompt...tyvm. /salute

[@garethroberts9223]

PLM makes me sad! 'Growler Jams' said the on the 'Burning Dinosaurs for Proficiency - T-45C FCLP episode "The last manual passes that jet pilots can fly in the Navy! It’s tough, but it’s fun". Perhaps Dylan said it best 'For the times they are a-changin'.

[@knotcensored932]

OK, just completed and here's my thoughts: That was a lot about process and coping with the implications, next to nothing about innovation trajectory over the horizon. The PLM thread typifies what will be a generational experience going forward - grey beard - with the next major hurdles being found at the AI, Loitering and recoverable munitions thresholds. All concepts bordering on fantasy now, but all the technology exists except the AI, meaning adaptation will be application and procedure driven. Example, it is possible NOW to load out a strike group with remotely pilotable munitions, and pass the con on launch to a remote WSO, say half a world away, who can then dog fight an adversary - keep him on D while the IRL pilot engages for the kill shot. In fact, that first "chaser" could be WAY less expensive especially if it doesn't contain all the guts and glory of a live munitions, just enough to grab and keep an adversary's attention. Point being, AI will not be an acceptable option for many technological generations to come, so remotely piloted munitions keeps a human in the loop while reducing the burden inherent in "mothership" operations. Which brings us to recoverable munitions. Those things are expensive so, while not necessarily economic in all cases, it should be possible to put a munitions into a circuit long enough to allow the mothership to grab it and secure it. The obvious in flight interface would be akin to in flight refueling, blah, blah, blah. You get the point. Pilot can QB the engagement and, on select munitions, pass controls on the Fox1 to a supporting WSO remote.

[@jimcallahan448]

live, virtual and constructive (LVC)

[@jimallen8186]

When discussion training and why spend on certain items, consider that training to one item may have knock on effects to other items. For example, why do we train manual bombing and road recce in the VTs? Neither seems particularly tactically relevant though they seem to be there for once having been so. Yet both teach dynamic thinking with rapidly changing energy states, inside outside scans, differing spatial relationships. Manual bombing probably vastly improved CQ training as well as formation flying, tacform, and helped the road recce which in turn likely helped the BFM, the SEM, and therefore the BVR stuff later. A problem here is trying to digest these syllabi as engineered solutions to training. This is a problem because our learning isn’t Complicated, it is Complex. We should not treat these courses in a reverse engineering manner, rather we need to appreciate that they are Complex Adaptive in nature. See Rick Nason with It;s Not That Complicated. See Dave Snowden with Cynefin. See Ben Zweibelson with Design. We should be careful when cutting out as we may not appreciate all the gains of the things we cut. Glad to hear there were trial groups in parallel with and without cuts so as to hopefully see the knock on effects, but realize how poorly “children of the magenta” actually fly. Believe Pepper McCoy said “BFM and low levels makes for good pilots.” You have to be a good pilot with the flying thing second nature before you’ll have spare mental capacity for more tactically complicated situations.

[@jimallen8186]

Another Complex Adaptive System view, “all these things are coming together but I don’t know if they’re coming together purposefully.” They’re going to co-evolve. Trying to force them together on a plan will slow such co-evolution. Purpose driven planning is for Complicated environments not Complex. Once they’ve evolved to acceptable points so as to be ready to exploit, then you can shift to looking for intent and purpose. Not before. If you try to drive the tech too early, you won’t get what you want and you won’t get best product. Better to sit back a bit and wait and let it develop. See Simon Wardley of Wardley mapping when he talked explorer, pioneer, mayor as well as Cyenfin’s Dave Snowden with Flexuous Curves. You can push some things from Complex to ordered Complicated but doing so too early will wreck your development and will lead to program failures and droppings.

[@knotcensored932]

One Last Thought on the PLM: Same conversation occurring with gamers re SIMS. We're talking easy mode, DCS distinctions here. I am a US Army tank crewman, so not a city here, but I always wanted to be a pilot. Shortsighted, which makes me a perfect tank crewman as nothing inside a turret is BVR. I have thousands of hours in Falcon 1.0 -F22 Lightning, and just downloaded DCS. I am flying a Spitfire, if I can call it flying. It is more like not dying than flying. So, I get the argument over easy mode obscuring essential skills needed for survival: BUT, you must admit software is not just catching up, but over taking humans in strictly procedural loops. As for flight controls, why would I NOT want to pilot an aircraft that refuses to allow me to fly "outside the envelope"? Actual pilots do need to have the complete skill sets in order to cope with contingencies, but the requirements of RPV operators will be far less demanding. Take a good look at the fly by wire being developed for Blackfly and you cannot deny an easy mode interface for controlling loitering munitions may be preferable to the full envelope. What I amtrying to say is that is the only way a guy like me is going to ever be an asset in air combat. And don't think for a minute RPV operators will not be the next thing. The time is rapidly approaching when Naval Aviators and gamers on their computers are cooperating. If nothing else, the DCS community is a great recruiting pool for talented drone and RPV operators. Over.

[@cattdaddyncornflake3122]

Meowy Catmus Mooch, from your feline Tomcatters, have good n safe one sir!..🫡

[@ryanhlavaty3680]

I always want to know the stories behind pilots' call signs. Like Sonic sounds pretty rad, but I know there's got to be an embarrassing backstory to it. And Flounder I imagine is an Animal House reference.

[@ryanhlavaty3680]

@Ari GSD lol

[@jollygreen4662]

Nice polo, a saber and a feather pen?

[@WardCarroll]

US Naval Institute logo.

[@rmattbill]

What is blue air vs red air?

[@SDsc0rch]

**groannnn**

[@vincentmazzola7230]

Now the airline brass is pushing hard for a single pilot cockpit. Glad I will have gone west by then 😎

[@jimcallahan448]

bfm = Basic Fighter Maneuvering

[@TexasGreed]

Am I wrong to assume that in a real large scale war between NATO and RU/CH there would be plenty of merges? Just so many factors

[@weltraumaffe4155]

Soon, children will train on sims in their own homes starting at age seven. Everyone will be a potential drone pilot.

[@jonnie106]

Been doing that for some time already. Similarities between some video game controllers and certain modern weapons systems is not a coincidence! There are already some obscenely young drone operators in Ukraine. Calling in artillery.

[@steveyoung7669]

Even Chair Force can do it 😉

[@jollygreen4662]

What if PFM doesn’t turn on?

[@nycshelbygt500]

Billion $$$ Idea. You know the awesome F-35 HMD Helmet with the 360 View? Take that idea and put it into VR Goggles and use it in a Flight Sim Game. Add a VR Glove. Yes, you can dogfight anywhere you go, Bath Room, Train, Plane, Buses, etc. Your Welcome.

[@lesshelton2114]

Thinking that if there's a problem the pilot will just divert to a bingo field just crazy. Sounds like a way to end up wet.

[@rgloria40]

The US NAVY should capture that data into a digital format for future use. Can the Navy do it? Maybe and Maybe not. Simulators can capture data already. I wonder if the data becomes more refined by actually fly Unmanned Combat Vehicle for real....with the man in the loop on the "ground simulator." PS...Probably need a dedicated Drone carrier.

[@starfleethastanks]

DCS players are drooling with envy.

[@jonathanperry8331]

I wish during their introduction they would tell how they earned their call signs. Each one has an interesting story.

[@paulgardetto2202]

Navy shouldnt be the customer defining requirements. Has to be a joint requirement so Raptor, AWACS, U2, Patriots etc are all dialed in.

[@gregstovall3079]

Unless you're getting a God's-eye-view of the battlespace before your engagement you are just going to be guessing, until you meet the enemy.

[@TurboHappyCar]

In 2025, the Top Gun final exercise will be a 1v1 BFM fox-2 fight against DCS player Growling Sidewinder. 🤣

[@benjaminperez7328]

OR invite GS to Fallon, strap him in a backseat, and see how badass he REALLY is.

[@TurboHappyCar]

@@benjaminperez7328 😂I don't get the impression that DCS players (and GS specifically) think they're better than real pilots. In fact GS has mentioned before that there's no one more dangerous in the game than actual pilots once they get used to the peculiarities of DCS. I saw a video with Cap from Grim Reapers flying in the back seat of some prop aircraft and he was having a good old time until the motion sickness got him. But if there was some future where a loyal wingman drone could be commanded remotely, would there be any difference between a real pilot and a sim gamer? 🤔

[@benjaminperez7328]

@@TurboHappyCar I don’t think the concept of loyal wingmen would be remote controlled by a flesh & blood human. The idea AFAIK is one human piloted plane leads AI flown sections or elements of wingman drones. If I was a pilot, I wouldn’t want a bunch of gamers who can’t get shot down with me as my partners.

[@gappprs]

TOPGUN classes final exercise will take place in a LVC environment called JSE against a large, bearded man in a black flight suit that they call Reaper.

[@4harps753]

How far from full Ender’s Game level control are we?

[@johnbuchman4854]

Well, unless quantum entanglement communication is practical for fighter drones, we still need an Ansible.

[@JFG3D]

Thanks! Cool video. I’m an old it guy so I got the data thing. Happy Holidays

[@pyroscot]

Hmm mixed emotions about this as it seems like dumbing down of the elite ability of naval aviators to land on a rolling hardtop. I agree let's make it easier where possible but I can't help thinking any self respecting F14/F18 guy would see this as almost nanny type flying. If i were involved I would want my crew landing in manual and plm mode alternating so as not to lose such a unique skill.

[@Native_love]

LOTS of acronyms. Lol!

[@gregstovall3079]

It was the soviet/russian bean counters that decided that their pilots did not need to train as much so they could save some rubles. Guess what, they get their asses kicked. So, when our bean counters get to control the message I wonder what will happen? Rhetorical question.

[@hernzo9798]

I watched this from start to finish still have no idea what they are talking about. I have to compile the information given.

[@johnmclean6498]

In the comments section, I think a glossary of the acronyms used would have been more helpful than those "screen texts" moving across. You could quickly go to the comments, or have them on a second screen and never miss the audio. Some of the jargon was for "carrier folks" only though.

[@bristolsteve6970]

LVC appears like a defence contractor, stimulator systems providers hammer looking for a nail. Please spend a load of money and we'll develop you this fantastic hammer. Only Cubic and their ilk will ever benefit from LVC. That's if they can convince the customer that the nail actually exists first though. Salesmen earn their corn making the nail believable.

[@gappprs]

You couldn’t be more wrong. The govt has a very large interest in LVC because it works. I know because I work with a very complex LVC simulation environment. We’ve had TOPGUN, USAF Weapons School and USMC units use our sim and they love it. The warfighter benefits from it and it is going to train them to the best of their ability in a denied environment.

[@bristolsteve6970]

@@gappprs colour me intrigued. What benefit is the 'live' element in the three way fusion? I currently can't see the benefit of the three elements, simultaneously in a single fused simulation.

[@flyingsword135]

When China brings down the GPS constellation and jams EW you are going to be sad 😞

[@icebluecuda1]

As a fellow salty aviator…The middle guy looks constipated.