Aviation

Next-Generation Naval Aviation Training

Categories

Tags

Stick and rudder. “That pilot is a good stick and rudder” used to be true measure of aviation skills. Military flight training has traditionally focused on a pilot’s ability to manipulate an aircraft’s control stick and rudder pedals to outperform the enemy aircraft and achieve victory in the air. However, as flight control systems and aircraft avionics advance in capability and complexity, today’s military aviator is often only a voting member when it comes to flying the aircraft. The result is an aviator’s capacity to manage aircraft systems has become a more vital skill than their stick and rudder abilities.

Today, the key to victory in modern aerial combat is the aircrew’s ability to seamlessly process and analyze the large amount of information provided by the aircraft’s radar, weapons, and datalink systems; radio communications through multiple radios; and the aircraft’s three-dimensional position in the battlespace. The stick and rudder of advanced aircraft have simply become additional keys on the keyboard of what amounts to a flying computer that receives a large amount of data. Aviators must learn the fundamentals of flying, but more important, they must now master operating the aircraft weapons systems to counter constantly advancing threats. The pilot who will achieve success in combat is the one whose superior management of aircraft systems establishes the best situational awareness thus maximizing their lethality and survivability.

To continue the United States’ dominance of the skies, aircrews must be taught to operate and process data from aircraft systems earlier in their training. In January 2019, Air Force General “Mike” Holmes published an article that outlined the future of pilot training in the Air Force. A key proposal in the article changed the training path of Air Force pilots by using the future T-X trainer (now officially designated as the T-7 Red Hawk) as both a training aircraft and adversary platform to expose new aviators to tactical training sooner in their flying career. Naval aviation could also benefit by updating the current training for aircrew flying tactical jet aircraft by adopting a composite training/adversary role in the Fleet Replacement Squadrons (FRS) to begin focus systems management earlier in an aviator’s training as well.1

Training a Naval Aviator Today

The path for a student to receive their “wings of gold” as a tactical jet pilot in the Navy has remained relatively constant over the years. Currently, all aviators begin their training in primary flight school flying in the T-6B Texan II. In primary, new pilots learn basic aviation skills such as instrument flying procedures (i.e. flying in the weather) and flying in a close formation with another aircraft. After primary, if the student is selected for “jets,” they move on to intermediate training in the T-45C Goshawk with more instrument flying procedures (to include becoming an instrument-rated pilot). In addition, the formation flying continues with section (two-ship) and division (four-ship) formation procedures. Most important, student naval aviators begin practicing the skill that separates them from all other aviators: landing on an aircraft carrier. A student develops the muscle memory and scan of controlling “meatball (i.e. glideslope), lineup, AOA (angle of attack)” through the process of hundreds of practice landings simulating a carrier landing on a runway at the end of every training flight.

The final stage for student naval aviators continues in the T-45 aircraft during the advanced phase of training. During advanced, the student flight syllabus includes tactical formation, bombing, air combat maneuvers, and low-level flying. The culmination of flight school is carrier qualification where students must perform ten arrested landings on an operational aircraft carrier.2 The entire syllabus, primary through advanced phases, is the same regardless of the specific follow-on tactical jet aircraft assignment each aviator receives after flight school. Intermediate and advanced is a combined 131 sorties and 152.5 hours of flight time in the T-45.3 Once complete with flight school, the newly winged aviators move on to the FRS for further training in their specific fleet platform.

Air Force tactical jet student pilots progress through an undergraduate flight training program that is hard-scheduled at 53 weeks.4 Air Force student aviators, like their Navy counterparts, also are being their training flying the T-6, and then, if selected for “jets,” they transition to flying the T-38 Talon for the remainder of flight school. An Air Force pilot receives his or her wings at what is essentially the equivalent of intermediate flight training for a naval aviator (77 sorties and 89.1 hours in the T-38). Once finished with undergraduate flight training, based on follow-on assignments, Air Force pilots go through Introduction to Fighter Fundamentals (IFF) program. The IFF syllabi are based on the follow-on platform, but the pilots still fly the T-38. IFF is broken into three tracks with different sortie/hour requirement: Track A is F-15C/F-22 (14 sorties and 12.7 hours), Track B is F-15E/F-16/F-35 (19 sorties and 17.4 hours), and Track C is the A-10 (15 sorties and 13.8 hours). The focus on air-to-air or air-to-surface training is tailored based on the track and is platform specific.5 A new F-16 pilot shows up to the Formal Training Unit (the Air Force equivalent of the FRS) having flown 96 sorties and 106.5 hours in the T-38 during undergraduate flight training and IFF versus a new F/A-18 pilot who has flown 131 sorties and 152.5 hours in the T-45 during intermediate and advanced.

So why has the Navy continued to train all aviators the same regardless of follow-on platform, instead of using a tailored program like the Air Force? A historic reason is to use those phases to make a more informed decision on what fleet aircraft a student should receive after finishing flight school. For example, a student that performs well in the strike phase should be pushed towards an air-to-surface-centric platform, or a student that does well in carrier qualification should be placed in an aircraft that is more challenging to land on the aircraft carrier. However, with the proliferation of multimission aircraft in the Navy and Marine Corps, naval aviators need to be proficient in all mission sets. In addition, and probably a larger obstacle and sacred cow for naval aviators to overcome is carrier qualification. Traditionally, a student naval aviator needs hundreds of landings to reinforce the skills to land on board the carrier. However, with the inclusion of precision landing modes (PLM) in modern Navy tactical jet aircraft, the training required to land on an aircraft carrier is becoming less of a factor. PLM has been a game changer for carrier operations and minimizes the risk of new aircrews operating in the carrier environment. For these reasons, the current system to train a naval aviator is due for an update.

A Future Way to Train

The Navy could streamline and more effectively train naval aviators the same way proposed by General Holmes in his article by bringing the advanced training aircraft used in flight school to fleet concentration areas for two purposes: continued advanced training of aviators and to provide additional adversary aircraft.6 This idea has three advantages. First, it would improve the quality and flexibility of pilot training prior to their arrival in the fleet. Second, it would provide additional adversary aircraft in fleet concentration areas. Finally, it would provide a more cost-effective usage of all aircraft.

In a hypothetical new syllabus, primary flight training would remain unchanged. After pipeline selection, students would transition to advanced, which would be a bulked up version of the current intermediate syllabus by adding additional tactical flying such as tactical formation and low-level flights.7 Upon completion, the students would become winged naval aviators and proceed to their specific FRS.

On arrival at their new fleet concentration area, instead of transitioning to their new fleet aircraft, aircrew would continue training on the same aircraft from flight school. The FRS would now be a composite squadron with a mix of training and fleet aircraft, with qualified instructors flying both. At the FRS the students would transition from the basic flight skills they focused on in flight school and focus more on tactical flying, primarily learning the skills needed to become proficient systems managers. They would be taught the foundational tactics, techniques and procedures of air-to-surface missions such as close air support as an example, and air-to-air missions starting with basic radar intercepts that more advanced tactics are built on. Through this new syllabus, students would be exposed to tactical systems at a much earlier phase in their flying career and the FRS would now own the entire tactical training continuum for aviators. Both changes would allow for a more efficient tweaking of the syllabus as needed as tactics and aircraft capabilities change and improve.

During their time at the FRS, students can also develop their airborne situational awareness and tactical acumen by flying “red air” as adversary pilots; first as wingmen and eventually as section (two-plane) leads. Red air flights are an outstanding building-block opportunities to use sensors such as radar and data link in a controlled environment. Aviators would gain more flight time and “air sense” through basic tactical training and gain an in depth appreciation of threat aircraft and systems for reference later on in their career.

Putting students through an adversary syllabus while they are in the FRS would also have an added advantage of providing a more polished product once they arrive to the fleet. Currently, a new aviator spends the first year in their first squadron still learning the basics of being a wingman focusing on the mantra of “formation, sensor, communication.” For a new aviator, prioritizing formation, takes up a lot of brain power, reducing their ability to focus on tactical employment. Ten years ago, the tactics only required a wingman to maintain visual formation with their flight lead and follow them to the merge or target area. To counter advancing threats, tactics have changed and the ability for junior wingmen to successfully employ those tactics is becoming harder and harder. Wingman must operate autonomously and are required to make tactical decisions on their own. They can no longer rely on their flight lead to get them to the right position for employment. A pilot that joins the squadron with more hours of flying formation both as a wingman and as a flight lead is going to be able to dedicate more brain power to tactics and will start at higher baseline of situational awareness. This will also allow for a more effective use of precious flight hours in fleet aircraft.

Using training aircraft as adversary platforms would also minimize the need to fly high-end fleet aircraft in that role, reducing cost of training, and more importantly, preserving the flight hours of those aircraft. Currently, Lemoore and Whidbey Island do not have dedicated adversary aircraft for use by the fleet. Squadrons have to either depend on other fleet squadrons to provide red air, or conduct training detachments to Fallon, Nevada, or Key West, Florida, to use the adversary squadrons based at those locations. As an illustrative data point, during fiscal year 2019, fleet aircraft flew 4,820 hours and 3,167 sorties hours/sorties in a red air support role in Lemoore.9 Those are 3,167 sorties that could have been dedicated to training to friendly tactics which are the centerpiece of a tactical jet aircrew’s skillset.

With the Navy’s increasing usage of live, virtual, and constructive (LVC) training, a future training aircraft could be used as an adversary aircraft at a much lower cost per flight hour than fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft. The use of fleet aircraft is still available in limited red air presentations when more advanced flight profiles (i.e. high/fast flyer) are required. With the added capability of an aircraft that can fly with a radar, data link, or electronic attack pods, a training aircraft still has the ability to provide a robust red air platform.

Another consideration is whether the Navy decides to purchase the T-7 as the T-45 follow-on. Aligning the training and acquisition of a common platform with the Air Force would have obvious cost benefits. Although the T-7 is not a carrier capable, the continued refining of PLM for the Super Hornet, Growler, and Lighting II has made the training of a tactical jet carrier aviator a simpler proposition. As this technology proliferates and advances, a pilot’s first exposure to landing on the carrier occurring in their fleet aircraft at the FRS, vice in the training command is becoming much more of a reality.

Conclusion

Threats and tactics are continually evolving, but Navy flight training has remained relatively unchanged. The ability to fly an aircraft is certainly an important skill, but the stick-and-rudder skills needed pale in comparison to the skill required between the ears. The modern aerial battlefield is an extremely dynamic environment with information coming from multiple sources and multiple directions. Newer generation aircraft are being designed with this in mind and present the information received in a more concise manner. However, the human brain still requires training to process the information. The sooner an aviator learns to process and apply the information they receive inside the cockpit and apply the correct tactical decision the better. Higher-end tactics requires a higher-end aviator with superior training and evolving the training for naval aviators is the next logical step.

 

Endnotes

  1. For this article Navy tactical jet aircraft is defined as the F/A-18 E/F, EA-18 G, and F-35 B/C
  2. CNATRAINST 1542.167B, 18 Nov 2019
  3. Intermediate is 59 sorties and 74.2 hours and advanced is 72 sorties and 78.3 hours.
  4. AETC Syllabus P-V4A-A, October 2019
  5. AETC / ENJJPT Syllabus B / F-V5A-L, April 2020
  6. For this article defined as Naval Air Station Lemoore, California; Naval Air Station Oceana, Virginia; and Naval Air Station Whidbey Island, Washington.
  7. Updated syllabus would be 76 sorties and 94.2 hours just by moving low-level and tactical formation flights from the current advanced syllabus to intermediate.
  8. Data compiled by Strike Fighter Wing Pacific.
Back To Top