Replies

A comparison could be an Air Force pilot learning how to fly through use of a flight simulator without ever actually flying the plane. Yet be expected to know its limitations and capabilities when used to conduct a real world mission.

I would not underestimate the value of simulator training in the high tech world of aviation. It can save many hours in learning emergency procedures, normal procedures and limitations. I was in the first test class to receive the complete syllabus of CH-47 transition training in the first CH-47 simulator. All training was done in the simulator. My first "hands on" on the real aircraft was a checkride which was exactly the same as the rides given to a control group who flew nothing but the real aircraft. I passed the ride easily and was amazed at my own proficiency in the aircraft. So the simulator can save a good deal of money and even equipment in training up flight crews. Money that can be better spent in other areas such as R&D and procurement.

I’ll be interested in the opinions of people who are currently serving, or have recently served.

But one thing that is different now is that almost all of our soldiers are getting hands-on experience. This is not a peace-time military anymore.

And I see units being sent to places like Mauretania for joint ops with the local gendarmes. This has to be excellent training for the real thing, since the possibility exists on these exercises that they may turn into the real thing.

“...every Marine a rifleman...”

The Marine Corps has been in the process of adjusting training to a more realistic process. Known Distance (KD) marksmanship ranges are being suplimented with more realistic scenario based training. Don’t know what the Army ground pounders are up to, but one can hope that it is moving in a similar direction.

High tech simulators are great as a supplement to hard-nosed, in the dirt training, not as a replacement. Nothing beats accurate rifle fire, delivered by disciplined men, over the effective range of the rifle.

Semper Fidelis,
Top sends,
(leg)

I’m not quite sure what point you’re trying to make.

Are you saying simulators are bad? I was a Mech infantryman for 8 years, but I’ve been out for five years now. The Bradley gunnery simulators were excellent to sharpen your skills before you went to the live-fire gunnery range. The multiple simulators (SIMNET) was a great way to practice command and control, fire control, issuing platoon and company fire commands, etc., SIMNET had the HUGE added bonus that if you screwed up, you could tell the computer guys to reset the simulation to just prior to where you screwed up.

We still went to the field PLENTY. Sure, there was an intensive pre-deployment trainup, but you can’t maintain that level of intensity for an extended period of time anyway.

As far as the Army adapting its doctrine, the current doctrine is changing as fast as they can print out new stuff. General Petraeus wrote a new manual on counterinsurgency. The Army has different doctrine for high intensity conflict (fighting another country’s army like we did in the invasion of Iraq) and low intensity conflict (what we’ve been doing since then).

My Personnel changes (Just some ideas I have):

• Don’t fixate on end strength. Recruit only the best. Become more selective but also better for the recruit, placing the right type of recruit in the right job.
• Expand basic and make what we call infantry training common across all MOS’s.
• Increase basic training length and allow this to be more of a weed out point, don’t make units have to deal with trash everyone knows won’t “hack it.”
• Roll back some of the social experiments and social engineering efforts within the DoD.
• Longer service contracts for officers and enlisted going into 6 or 8 years active, which allows for a much greater investment in the soldier and increases the average experience level.
• All combat arms officers do 3 years enlisted time in the MOS they will lead in on an accelerated promotion system to learn the jobs and gain the experience of a team/squad leader.
• Invest more in training the “individual” not just collective training with multi-million dollar contraptions. This may include foreign languages but also includes in house schools that have established programs, like sniper, airborne, ranger etc.
• Allow people to homestead, it saves money and allows specialization on top of making life semi normal for families.
• Phase in skills testing for enlisted (like in the USAF) E1-E7.
• Kill the officer evaluation system which breeds “kiss asses.” Make the officer evaluation system more objective and quantifiable like the enlisted system.
• Slow down officer rotations through PLT, CO, BN, and BDE command. By the time they figure out what the hell to do they are on their way out replaced by someone else who needs to punch a ticket as having been “in command.”
• Drastically reduce the officer corps size. Less people stepping on each others toes, less made up jobs while in holding patterns for commands etc. The few that remain stay in command longer, get repeat commands, and are more selectively chosen in the first place and better trained.

I was in the .mil when a sea-change happened with respect to military reservations and the endangered species, OSHA, EPA, and that kind of thing was applied to the military.

In my job I noticed that certain solvents, in this case electrical contact cleaners and various chemicals used to treat aviation components were delisted and reformulated. The replacements were yet even more expensive and did not work, or not very well.

Now I was just a helicopter crew-chief but my theory illustrates the crap that’s going on. Remember the explosion of the space shuttle? NASA, even Feinman blamed the O-rings and cold weather on the solid rocket booster failure.

O-rings are called “packings” in the vernacular. Made of rubber, while they seal pretty good they aren’t going to take direct heat from any kind of propellent. That isn’t their function. What really sealed off the boosters was asbestos putty, not a rubber o-ring! Could be totally wrong on this, but it makes more sense than the official line?

Asbestos products were apparently, outlawed at some point. At least iirc the government contractor was enjoined from making it, or probably they voluntarily stopped because of impending litigation. I think by that point there may have only been one company left that actually made it. So, something INFERIOR was swapped in as ersatz.