STEWART PENNEY / LONDON
Flight International looks, over 15 pages, at changes taking place in military training as more sophisticated but easier-to-fly fighters enter service
Military flying training worldwide is on the brink of a seismic shift as it changes to reflect the last generation of combat aircraft, the "Nintendo generation" of neophyte pilots and ever-shrinking defence budgets.
Kevin Smith, Pilatus managing director strategic projects, says that where combat aircraft once were difficult to fly and easy to manage, now digital flight controls and massive amounts of sensor data mean they are the exact opposite. This has fundamentally shifted the emphasis of the flying training syllabus, he says.
The average training system has changed little in the last 40 years. In theory, NATO nations follow six phases, from Phase I elementary (also known as ab initio or screening) to Phase VI on-squadron training. But there are subtle differences and, outside NATO, there is a variety of systems. Nevertheless, every student still progresses through some form of the elementary-basic-advanced-fighter lead-in approach. Pilots for large aircraft and helicopters will usually be streamed off during Phase II basic training for specialised tuition.
Traditionally, the first three phases have used increasingly higher-performance aircraft. Phase I typically will use a high-performance light aircraft with military specification systems; Phase II is the realm of the turboprop-powered basic trainer, or the occasional jet-powered aircraft; and Phase III the advanced trainerjet. During Phase IV a student will typically continue with the Phase III aircraft, while the final two stages will be flown on a frontline type. The plethora of types increases cost and complexity, and some nations use one aircraft for several phases to reduce expense.
Flying costs
As philosophy has changed little over the past 40 years, more training has tended to be "uploaded" to the operational conversion level. Flying a combat aircraft can cost 10 times as much as an advanced trainer, which in turn is three to six times as expensive as a turboprop.
As a result, companies such as Pilatus market their aircraft as replacements for several types. The PC-21 is offered for screening to advanced training, and to cover the air-to-ground elements of fighter lead-in. Those manufacturers offering ab initio aircraft are attempting to stretch their aircraft's performance towards the advanced trainer, eliminating the need for a basic turboprop. But is 5h of turboprop time worth 1h of advanced jet time?
Affordable training is crucial. Many countries' trainer fleets are approaching senility - around 65% of the world fleet is more than 25 years old. But many in the industry acknowledge that spending money on training aircraft is a harder sell than high-performance combat aircraft.
Air forces need greater cost-effectiveness and are increasingly looking at training systems that are either co-operative, provided by a private contractor or a combination of the two. Regardless of who operates the training system, air force or contractor, both need more efficient assets that fly more hours and require less maintenance.
Canada has embraced industry provision with military instructors. Recognising that it does not require enough pilots to make a training system economically viable, the country has required Bombardier to market the NATO Flying Training in Canada (NFTC) programme to other countries. Bombardier flies its Hawks four times a day, the UK Royal Air Force perhaps manages three, while some air forces fly their aircraft only once a day, requiring a higher number of airframes to complete the same number of sorties.
Sharing training with near neighbours to benefit from high trainee throughputs is the rationale behind the Advanced European Jet Pilot Training - or Eurotraining - effort. But can 12 nations agree on a common programme? There are already signs of division as the EADS home nations support development of the Mako, while Italy is resolutely behind Aermacchi's M346.
Training will have to change to meet the changing shape of the world's air forces. Whether it changes to meet the expectations of those pursuing trainer sales remains to be seen.
Source: Flight International
