Lmao @ Gonky: i think BVR– Mover: –Acronyms! Our viewers…!
Frankly if your viewers cant get common acronyms like bvr, theyre not gonna know what ANY of this means anyhow…
Anyhow… i think as an EARLY training enhancement, maybe? As BVR heads up translating the radar, cool? But i agree with Gonky, within max average visual range, its useless and probably misleading. For any training beyond introductory… yeah, i think this is a cool tech but not really applicable in the bulk of training.
Gonky is absolutely right about the first time merge. The 4477th Red Eagles talked about it and called it Buck Fever back in the 80s. Apparently a lot of Cold War pilots would forget the tactics they briefed the first time they would merge with Migs and Sukhois and then come back for the 2nd set and perform way better.
Something I'm wondering about is how this system will train pilots to focus their eyes. Do we really want pilots to get used to looking for threats by focusing on a visor an inch in front of their eyeballs, when the real threat is way past the visor, miles away?
I'm sure it would be highly advantageous to near-sighted fighter pilots, but how many of those are there? Myopia is disqualifying, right?
At a bare minimum, even if the visual representation is poor, you can put young fighter pilots through motions of highly complicated missions and procedures over and over again without spending to much manpower, money and equipment life. You can add as many variations as you’d like and have young pilots progress through basic procedures at whatever rate or interval they need without worrying as much about timing with available resources and weather. Even if it’s not high fidelity, trainees will at least get used to some of the complications and some decisions will be rote by the time the truly test their skills with massive and complex real life adversaries and red air.
Essentially, you can reduce the chances of a helmet fire occurring at least reduce the initial brain temperature so that any helmet fire will be less severe when complex, real life and expensive training does occur.
You also get an opportunity to test out new ideas, methods or decision trees on many variations of a scenario. There’s a lot of good that can happen with this even if it’s not super quick or high fidelity. If does get extremely realistic then it is even better. I want pilots to get more training because they have the options to make that training work for whatever situation their squadron is in. If they only have the equipment, training or time available for training they don’t really need then adding a virtual layer opens up doors to training they’d rather have.
What you don’t want is a reduction in high quality training because the virtual training is cheaper and deemed ‘good enough’. But I don’t think you should let a fear of that happening stop you from pursuing something that can add even more to our military’s preparedness and give its members the best chance of winning and coming home alive.
Sorry for making anyone cringe by butchering and misusing phrases and terminology.
I was one of the first round of interns at Red 6 in 2021. The way I like to think about it is that AR will take the advantages you have in the sim, and bring those into the real world. Is it quite as good as having a real jet to fly against? Not necessarily, but it allows you to practice things you can't in the real world, like turning with a J-20, or visually defending against SAM launches. And on top of that the number of reps you can get in a single flight on a given problem set with real world stresses, is way more. Stack that up over weeks and years, you have way more experience in that problem set. But you do also need the real thing. Also on top of that, it allows way more analysis of what happened. And they already have AI agents from DARPA's and other AF programs flying against you, and learning.
I worry about how it will be used. We have to tell the accountants it costs as much as actually flying or something.
If it is used to ADD to existing in air training … great. There are a lot of ways they could do that.
Sure, it is not nearly as good as actually being in big exercise, but it's better than flying a 1v0 versus some clouds.
If it is used to REPLACE current training – like if they fly out to fewer Flags because they have "Red Flag at home," that is going to be an overall detriment.
The technology – lag, refresh rate etc. – is a solvable problem. The Apple Vision Pro system promises to deliver real-time imagery. What the proposed system cannot replicate is the possibility of mid-air collisions. When there’s no fear of a big bang collision when training, how applicable is the training when it’s real and a mid-air is a distinct possibility. Will the pilot hold back in the real situation?
Morning coffee with Mover & Gonky! ❤
Now we can have AI pilots with 6 fingers on each hand oh goody.
I've got some hours in F16 "epcot" sim from air force, does that mean I'm 16 qualed?😂
Lmao @
Gonky: i think BVR–
Mover: –Acronyms! Our viewers…!
Frankly if your viewers cant get common acronyms like bvr, theyre not gonna know what ANY of this means anyhow…
Anyhow… i think as an EARLY training enhancement, maybe?
As BVR heads up translating the radar, cool? But i agree with Gonky, within max average visual range, its useless and probably misleading.
For any training beyond introductory… yeah, i think this is a cool tech but not really applicable in the bulk of training.
Many years ago at a major aircraft manufacturer we proposed a system like this but it was quite before its time.
Gonky is absolutely right about the first time merge. The 4477th Red Eagles talked about it and called it Buck Fever back in the 80s. Apparently a lot of Cold War pilots would forget the tactics they briefed the first time they would merge with Migs and Sukhois and then come back for the 2nd set and perform way better.
I know it's a currently accurate description, but I'm old enough that the phrase "Boeing F-15" makes me uncomfortable.
Woah! That is cool!
Something I'm wondering about is how this system will train pilots to focus their eyes. Do we really want pilots to get used to looking for threats by focusing on a visor an inch in front of their eyeballs, when the real threat is way past the visor, miles away?
I'm sure it would be highly advantageous to near-sighted fighter pilots, but how many of those are there? Myopia is disqualifying, right?
At a bare minimum, even if the visual representation is poor, you can put young fighter pilots through motions of highly complicated missions and procedures over and over again without spending to much manpower, money and equipment life. You can add as many variations as you’d like and have young pilots progress through basic procedures at whatever rate or interval they need without worrying as much about timing with available resources and weather. Even if it’s not high fidelity, trainees will at least get used to some of the complications and some decisions will be rote by the time the truly test their skills with massive and complex real life adversaries and red air.
Essentially, you can reduce the chances of a helmet fire occurring at least reduce the initial brain temperature so that any helmet fire will be less severe when complex, real life and expensive training does occur.
You also get an opportunity to test out new ideas, methods or decision trees on many variations of a scenario. There’s a lot of good that can happen with this even if it’s not super quick or high fidelity. If does get extremely realistic then it is even better. I want pilots to get more training because they have the options to make that training work for whatever situation their squadron is in. If they only have the equipment, training or time available for training they don’t really need then adding a virtual layer opens up doors to training they’d rather have.
What you don’t want is a reduction in high quality training because the virtual training is cheaper and deemed ‘good enough’. But I don’t think you should let a fear of that happening stop you from pursuing something that can add even more to our military’s preparedness and give its members the best chance of winning and coming home alive.
Sorry for making anyone cringe by butchering and misusing phrases and terminology.
I was one of the first round of interns at Red 6 in 2021. The way I like to think about it is that AR will take the advantages you have in the sim, and bring those into the real world. Is it quite as good as having a real jet to fly against? Not necessarily, but it allows you to practice things you can't in the real world, like turning with a J-20, or visually defending against SAM launches. And on top of that the number of reps you can get in a single flight on a given problem set with real world stresses, is way more. Stack that up over weeks and years, you have way more experience in that problem set. But you do also need the real thing. Also on top of that, it allows way more analysis of what happened. And they already have AI agents from DARPA's and other AF programs flying against you, and learning.
This technology is amazing 100%.
I worry about how it will be used. We have to tell the accountants it costs as much as actually flying or something.
If it is used to ADD to existing in air training … great. There are a lot of ways they could do that.
Sure, it is not nearly as good as actually being in big exercise, but it's better than flying a 1v0 versus some clouds.
If it is used to REPLACE current training – like if they fly out to fewer Flags because they have "Red Flag at home," that is going to be an overall detriment.
Wish you guys explained the jargon more. What’s red air?
The technology – lag, refresh rate etc. – is a solvable problem. The Apple Vision Pro system promises to deliver real-time imagery. What the proposed system cannot replicate is the possibility of mid-air collisions. When there’s no fear of a big bang collision when training, how applicable is the training when it’s real and a mid-air is a distinct possibility. Will the pilot hold back in the real situation?