Replacing the Subs

[GR66]

Before the outrage bus gets too revved up- the west coast sqns routinely exercise together.

Part of the issue is that the Cyclone and the Aurora don’t naturally team as well as the Sea King/Aurora did.

There are also multiple targetry limitations.

Finally, the MH fleet has been finding its feet after a long decade of conversion. The CP140 fleet has been airframe constrainted by the block upgrade strategy.

The east coast has the added pressures on aircraft requirements with operational and training sqns co-located. FG tends to default Pri 1 a majority of the time.

Several sig contributors, but the end result is what it is. I’d love to see some funding towards sim capability improvements.

The teaming and SIM issues I'd say are also signs of the CAF not being serious enough in doing what's required to really, fully prepare for possible war. And the aircraft pressures (including airframe conversions and block upgrades) show how woefully small our fleets are for our actual requirements. If we can't do training squadron activities, upgrades to a portion of our fleet, priority missions and regular training all concurrently then that's a sign to me that we don't have enough aircraft and crews.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The GoC would care more if the voters of Canada also cared more (IMO at least).

They don’t. So here we are…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

To get back on the sub topic itself…nuc’s really aren’t that complicated and we could operate them.

 

[KevinB]

To get back on the sub topic itself…nuc’s really aren’t that complicated and we could operate them.

View attachment 77291

Nuke boats require constant monitoring and actual maintenance though.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

To get back on the sub topic itself…nuc’s really aren’t that complicated and we could operate them.

View attachment 77291

Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!
how about we dial back all the “scientificky” talk there, Poindexter?

 

[dapaterson]

The theory is that all RCAF sims are to be interoperable, using common datasets.

But when push comes to shove and projects face cost constraints and timelines start running away at a rapid pace...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Nuke boats require constant monitoring and actual maintenance though.

The Fun Police have entered the building!!

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The theory is that all RCAF sims are to be interoperable, using common datasets.

But when push comes to shove and projects face cost constraints and timelines start running away at a rapid pace...

We managed to link our old, 1960s analog/digital Sea King tactical procedures trainer (to call it a sim was a stretch) with the Hornet sim in Cold Lake, the NCOT in Halifax and with the Aurora sim in Greenwood, circa 2007.

Significantly, we had full IP control and ownership of that trainer. We don’t have the same situation with the Cyclone sim.

 

[dapaterson]

I'm certain that LockMart, new owners of Sikorsky, would be happy to work on such integration for a modest, ten figure fee plus nine figure annual maintenance costs...

 

[OldSolduer]

Nuke boats require constant monitoring and actual maintenance though.

I misread “boats” as “boots”.

First thought was we could have used nuke boots in the infantry

 

[Underway]

France?

Not really part of their strategic profile to go to the Arctic and hunt for Russian bombers, especially as they were out of NATO for such a long time. Might be back on the table. They certainly could do that.

 

[OldSolduer]

Not really part of their strategic profile to go to the Arctic and hunt for Russian bombers, especially as they were out of NATO for such a long time. Might be back on the table. They certainly could do that.

And maybe supply NATO with baguettes, non?

 

[Lumber]

I’d love to see $$ spent on linking of simulation assets.

But they are. Through DMOC we've conducted Sim training linked between the navy's ops room trainers at NFSA, 404 sqn's trainer in Greenwood, the MH trainers in Shearwater, the CF-18 trainer in Bagotville, ships alongside, US trainers and we're working on getting the Aussies linked up as well.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I'm certain that LockMart, new owners of Sikorsky, would be happy to work on such integration for a modest, ten figure fee plus nine figure annual maintenance costs...

I‘m not current, but it looks to me that Lumber has already confirmed that it is a thing that all the sims are linkable. The issue is that we are still stuck in basic FG hell so, moving on to the complex and multi unit stuff can be a challenge…

I don’t disagree with your point about SIK not getting out of bed in the morning for less than 10 decimal places…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

But they are. Through DMOC we've conducted Sim training linked between the navy's ops room trainers at NFSA, 404 sqn's trainer in Greenwood, the MH trainers in Shearwater, the CF-18 trainer in Bagotville, ships alongside, US trainers and we're working on getting the Aussies linked up as well.

I think the LRP trainer is the PCT vice the OMS isn’t it? The MH one, the last I knew (2020ish) was not their MS either but a step-down one. It wasn’t much better than the MH piece of the BMWC sim was…

The LRP PCT is “ok”, the one I saw at 12 Wing a few years ago was “not as ok”.

 

[Lumber]

I think the LRP trainer is the PCT vice the OMS isn’t it? The MH one, the last I knew (2020ish) was not their MS either but a step-down one. It wasn’t much better than the MH piece of the BMWC sim was…

The LRP PCT is “ok”, the one I saw at 12 Wing a few years ago was “not as ok”.

Yes, which is funny because the 404 guys are always wanting to do sim trg with us and get PISSED when we either candle the trg or change the scope such that the MPA aspect is less important.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Yes, which is funny because the 404 guys are always wanting to do sim trg with us and get PISSED when we either candle the trg or change the scope such that the MPA aspect is less important.

The OMS folks really like to push the sim trg beyond what it is/has been.

It would be nice to get our and Allied sub sims linked in next. And expand the length of the ex. It’s a limited event for LRP crews…not everyone gets to partake each rendition. I’m hoping this presses forward and a JOINTSIMEX becomes part of our semi or annual currency requirements.

* I’ve been using some acronyms without consideration for those not familiar with them

PCT - Aurora simulator that “simulates” the tactical tube layout but is compromised of tables, screens, a PEP and mouse as the OMI.

OMS - operational mission simulator is the Aurora simulator that replicates the Aurora Tac tub and, to a certain extent, flight deck. It looks like the inside of an Aurora and is decently capable of

The Aurora has separate sims for dedicated flight deck training.

The MH world has a similar setup where their MS can operate “back end only” or linked with the flight deck for full crew interaction.

The linked simulator system used for the jointsimex is not their MS one.

 

[FSTO]

The OMS folks really like to push the sim trg beyond what it is/has been.

It would be nice to get our and Allied sub sims linked in next. And expand the length of the ex. It’s a limited event for LRP crews…not everyone gets to partake each rendition. I’m hoping this presses forward and a JOINTSIMEX becomes part of our semi or annual currency requirements.

* I’ve been using some acronyms without consideration for those not familiar with them

PCT - Aurora simulator that “simulates” the tactical tube layout but is compromised of tables, screens, a PEP and mouse as the OMI.

OMS - operational mission simulator is the Aurora simulator that replicates the Aurora Tac tub and, to a certain extent, flight deck. It looks like the inside of an Aurora and is decently capable of

The Aurora has separate sims for dedicated flight deck training.

The MH world has a similar setup where their MS can operate “back end only” or linked with the flight deck for full crew interaction.

The linked simulator system used for the jointsimex is not their MS one.

Is there a way to link the actual aircraft without them flying? Just spitballing here but let’s say an AC was in an engine maintenance period can the operations deck still be used as a simulator or is the whole AC ripped apart to get at the engines? (Both FW and RW)

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Is there a way to link the actual aircraft without them flying? Just spitballing here but let’s say an AC was in an engine maintenance period can the operations deck still be used as a simulator or is the whole AC ripped apart to get at the engines? (Both FW and RW)

Technically, yes. But it would be a bugger…

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is there a way to link the actual aircraft without them flying? Just spitballing here but let’s say an AC was in an engine maintenance period can the operations deck still be used as a simulator or is the whole AC ripped apart to get at the engines? (Both FW and RW)

I can’t say I honestly know if it’s possible for LRP. We have on-aircraft simulator training on the mission system but I’m not sure if it can be linked. Our OMS is Block 4, not all our aircraft are.

There are double-digit OMS sessions available on any given week, without using weekends. OMS availability isn’t usually a major issue itself.