Jump to content


Photo

Luftwaffe Pilot Training Issues


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,598 posts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 1922 PM

Accurate or exaggerated?

 

https://www.yahoo.co...-134159610.html


  • 0

#2 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 05 August 2019 - 2007 PM

Sounds 100% reasonable. Our planes don't fly, our ships don't sail, our Leo IIs have serviceability rates like Panthers at Kursk. And jokes aside, our pilots were short of NATO standard even before Merkel.
  • 0

#3 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 05 August 2019 - 2011 PM

So the Luftwaffe is being historically consistent with the last years of the third Reich?  


  • 0

#4 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0159 AM

A lot of NATO air forces are having a problem with meeting commitments. The RAF at the moment is doing well, but even they admit they cant get enough bums to sit on seats. Airlines are too lucrative compared to an air force career I guess.


  • 0

#5 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0446 AM

The USAF occasionally gives info about flying hours of F-22s and F-22 pilots that tell a story of sub-NATO standard (which is 165 flying hrs per annum) as well.

And then part of those hours are transit flyign hours, which have marginal training value (only take-off, landing and mid-air refuelling unless there's an interesting malfunction).

 

The longevity of F-15s and F-16s in Israeli service tells the story of them either not having enough pilots or their pilots not flying enough, either.

 

Some Russian aviators were down to 60 flying hours per annum for years, and now save for the really big birds they still don't fly much.

 

Simulator hours aren't used in great quantity to compensate - they are in part a fig leaf to excuse too few actual flying hours. Sometimes the public learns about simulator hours, and they're not many. A couple dozen per year, I suppose they use simulators mostly to learn very specific scenarios, I suppose emergency situations.

Simulators are cheap by comparison, but to maintain them costs, and as usually, the armed bureaucracies appear to allocate much money for simulator places or maintenance.

 

----------------------------------

 

BTW, the Yahoo author is too ignorant to understand that two different NATO commitments / requirements are meant.

For flying hours of combat pilots it's 165 hours/yr minimum and 180 hours/yr target AFAIK.

For spending there's a faux fake "commitment" by people without authority to commit (executive branch gets to spend -not to determine- the budget) for a budget of 2% GDP p.a..


Edited by lastdingo, 06 August 2019 - 0453 AM.

  • 0

#6 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0504 AM

During sequestration, all USAF pilots were flying less hours than the RUAF. I found that particularly shocking.


  • 0

#7 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 14,135 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0524 AM

The lack of flying hours has long been an issue for Luftwaffe as well as Heer (and probably Marine, too) aviation, and a major problem for pilot retention. Lots of aircrew quit in recent years due to this and other grievances, like their special flying duty contracts going to 41 years of age being unilaterally changed to standard lifer terms by the Bundeswehr and them being shunted into desk jobs, flying UAVs etc.

Edited by BansheeOne, 06 August 2019 - 0524 AM.

  • 0

#8 GARGEAN

GARGEAN

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,122 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 August 2019 - 0949 AM

 
Some Russian aviators were down to 60 flying hours per annum for years, and now save for the really big birds they still don't fly much.
 

120 minimal in 2016, no fallings since then.

Edited by GARGEAN, 06 August 2019 - 0950 AM.

  • 0

#9 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1206 PM

A force that has no reason to exist ,does not need to train.


  • 0

#10 Colin

Colin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,871 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, Canada
  • Interests:tanks, old and new AFV's, Landrovers, diving, hovercrafts

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1241 PM

The lack of flying hours has long been an issue for Luftwaffe as well as Heer (and probably Marine, too) aviation, and a major problem for pilot retention. Lots of aircrew quit in recent years due to this and other grievances, like their special flying duty contracts going to 41 years of age being unilaterally changed to standard lifer terms by the Bundeswehr and them being shunted into desk jobs, flying UAVs etc.

 

Similar issues with the RCAF, coupled with postings to places spouses do not want to be at. Throw in aging fighters, not enough spare parts, maintainers, a government going in circles with the new fighter procurement program.


  • 0

#11 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 06 August 2019 - 1701 PM

A force that has no reason to exist ,does not need to train.


That should be motto of the Bundeswehr.
  • 0

#12 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0705 AM

This senseless Bundeswehr bashing is overshooting. We already mentioned many examples of other air forces having similar issues.

 

I don't even dispute that the Luftwaffe isn't necessary and I myself have declared the German navy to be a pointless waste of budget, but the German army has a very solid raison d'être. Attention should be focused on its value for deterrence & defence in the Baltic surprise invasion scenario.


  • 0

#13 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0854 AM

Oh I dont know, a German navy would be really useful in the Persian Gulf right now.


  • 0

#14 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0919 AM

Oh I dont know, a German navy would be really useful in the Persian Gulf right now.

 

No, it wouldn't. We already discussed this.

The problem in the Gulf if of political nature, not of military nature.

Besides, there are no practically no German tankers or cargo ships crusiing in those waters and those waters are not part of the defined areas of collective self-defence in any of the two alliance treaties of Germany.

 

Moreover, the German navy DOES exist and the government DOES NOT intend to send any ship to the Gulf. (Maybe you should reality check your opinions once in a while.)

We're no lap dogs.


Edited by lastdingo, 07 August 2019 - 0922 AM.

  • 0

#15 sunday

sunday

    Bronze-age right-wing delusional retard

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,964 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Badalona, Spain
  • Interests:Technology, History

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0921 AM

Oh I dont know, a German navy would be really useful in the Persian Gulf right now.

 

Better Portuguese. They have more historical knowledge of the area.


Edited by sunday, 07 August 2019 - 0922 AM.

  • 0

#16 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 07 August 2019 - 0956 AM

 

A force that has no reason to exist ,does not need to train.


That should be motto of the Bundeswehr.

 

 

At least since the end of the Cold War.


  • 0

#17 Markus Becker

Markus Becker

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,877 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westphalia, Germany

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1032 AM

No, it wouldn't. We already discussed this.
The problem in the Gulf if of political nature, not of military nature.


The effects of the political conflict is one that can be contained with military force.



Besides, there are no practically no German tankers or cargo ships crusiing in those waters and those waters are not part of the defined areas of collective self-defence in any of the two alliance treaties of Germany.


Few german ships are not no german ships. And if we decline to help others, the others might not help us in the future. Say when Iran goes after a german ship.
  • 0

#18 Stuart Galbraith

Stuart Galbraith

    Just Another Salisbury Tourist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 53,893 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eloiland

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1040 AM

Oh I dont know, a German navy would be really useful in the Persian Gulf right now.

 
No, it wouldn't. We already discussed this.
The problem in the Gulf if of political nature, not of military nature.
Besides, there are no practically no German tankers or cargo ships crusiing in those waters and those waters are not part of the defined areas of collective self-defence in any of the two alliance treaties of Germany.
 
Moreover, the German navy DOES exist and the government DOES NOT intend to send any ship to the Gulf. (Maybe you should reality check your opinions once in a while.)
We're no lap dogs.
Fine, tell that to a German crewman when he is shot at or kidnapped by the IRGC. Don't kid yourself they appreciate neutrality.

Nobody accused you of being lap dogs, but responsible members of the international community would be no bad thing.

Edited by Stuart Galbraith, 07 August 2019 - 1043 AM.

  • 0

#19 lastdingo

lastdingo

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,654 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Germany

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1122 AM

Fine, tell that to a German crewman when he is shot at or kidnapped by the IRGC. Don't kid yourself they appreciate neutrality.

 

Tell that to the navy sailor who gets captured and raped every day for three years of captivity.

See? I can trade in totally fictional arguments as well.

 

Here's a non-fictional argument: A deployment for a year would cost millions ADDITIONAL government expenses. We could save an additional  life for certain with that kind of money.

Ethically, to send a ship there is the equivalent of a human sacrifice.

Opportunity costs are the only kind of fiction that matters.

 

@Markus Becker; full disclosure; I think we should do something if that crap happens in the North Sea or Baltic Sea. (We wouldn't need a navy for that, though.)

 

I don't think all seven seas are our responsibility. That's the kind of warped perception Americans have become captive of.


  • 0

#20 seahawk

seahawk

    military loving leftist peace monkey

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,810 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The land where time stands still

Posted 07 August 2019 - 1241 PM

Oh I dont know, a German navy would be really useful in the Persian Gulf right now.

 

You think? I think having no vessel would be less useless than having a German vessel. Do you expect the Germans would do anything but look unhappy when the Iranians capture a ship? Can you imagine them shooting down a helicopter or sinking a boat because it might intend to capture a ship?


  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users