Sigs wrote:MaxxQ wrote:When I was in the Air Force, I was a bomb loader on F-111s (D and F models) for seven years. About 5 years in, I tested for promotion to Staff Sergeant. In the testing process, some of the questions pertained to loading bombs (and or guns, in some cases) on B-52s, B-1s, F-4s, F-16s, F-15s, and A-10s. This also included electronics questions, since we also have to test weapons delivery electronics in the process of loading.
I never did make SSGT, because all I had ever worked on were the 'Varks, and I missed many of the questions regarding other aircraft weapons systems. Never had the training. Had I ever gone on to work on a different aircraft, then I would have gotten the training, and it would have taken another 3-6 months (the same amount of time to be trained on the F-111 - and there were differences between the F model and the D model that I had to learn when I changed bases).
The point is that even though all the aircraft listed above did similar things (drop bombs, shoot rotary cannon, etc.), the maintenance and procedures for actually doing the job on the different "classes" of aircraft were vastly different, even on aircraft from similar time periods (F-111, F-4, B-52). So, just because one has had training on one type of thing, it doesn't always follow that it would be easy to switch to a similar, but different type of the same thing.
I bet it would have been much easier for you to get trained to do the same job on a new aircraft than for me to learn that job in the new aircraft from scratch. The point is that it would be easier to retrain someone to do a new aircraft than to train someone from scratch.
Nope. Same amount of time, at least it was when I was going through tech school in 1984.
This is the way it works/worked back then: Basic training - 6 weeks of learning to make beds, wax floors (even when the buffer is broken), wear a uniform, march, eat, sleep, and polish boots. After that, it was off to tech school for 3 months to actually learn my job, except it was on an F-111A, a model which was retired shortly after Vietnam. B's were supposed to be for the Navy - they cancelled the program because the F-14 was going to be better, once built (I agree with that assessment). C's went to Australia. D's, E's, and F's went to New Mexico, RAF Upper Heyford, and RAF Lakenheath, respectively. FB-111's went to Strategic Air Command.
Every single model of the F-111 was different from the other, and as I mentioned above, I was trained on an A model. Once I got to Lankenheath after tech school, I spent three months training to do my job on the F model. After that three years in England, I went to New Mexico to spend my first three month there training to do my job on the D model. Six months after that, I got transferred to the Weapons Maintenance shop to spend 6 months training to repair and maintain the actual mechanical and electronic parts of the weapons systems. A year after that (by now, it's 1990, with only a year left before I got out), I was transferred BACK to flightline loading, and still needed to pull six weeks of refresher training.
I went through all that to get the idea across that even training on different models of the same aircraft takes time - more or less the same amount as learning on an aircraft from scratch (as you mentioned), or transferring to a completely different aircraft (because they would treat my training on the new aircraft as "learning from scratch", since the systems are completely different). I'll grant that some parts are similar - A MAU-12 bomb rack works on the same principles on an F-111 as does whatever the designation is for the rack on an F-16. The problem is that they are completely different in internals, mechanically and electronically.
Now, to relate all this back to the topic, my real-world examples above and in my previous post related to aircraft from the US Air Force, which is run by the U.S. Imagine the issues I would have if I were suddenly transferred to Russia to learn to arm MiG-2x's. Completely different kettle of fish, despite the -2x being a similar type of aircraft (fighter/bomber) to what I had already been trained on. Sure, many of the principles would be similar enough that I wouldn't be scratching my head too much, but I would still need as much training (if not more) as I had had learning what I already knew.
Another reason that I can relate to the topic in my real-world experience is spare parts. Do you think those support ships carry enough spares for 70-odd ships for several years? Manticore (or the GA in general) sure isn't going to waste time and money building facilities to reverse-engineer and manufacture new parts for 150 year-old ships when they're trying to get their own infrastructure rebuilt (Manticore and Grayson) or modernized (Haven).
Going back to my life on F-111's, here's a nice story about spare parts: One day, a clumsy crew chief knocked over a crew ladder, which fell on and damaged a weapons bay door on an F-111D. The damage was irreparable - the door was going to have to be scrapped. Problem is, this was in 1990, fifteen or twenty years after the last F-111 rolled off the assembly line. The spares supply of upper port-side bay doors was completely nonexistent, and making new ones would cost WAY too much, as the old equipment for doing that was gone as well.
So, what are we to do? Easy! Pull one off another aircraft and put it on this one. Problem? Bay doors are individually fitted to the opening. Despite the best equipment at the time the F-111 was being built, no two aircraft were EXACTLY the same as far as weapons bay door fit. That meant that moving a door from one aircraft to the other meant that it would have to be trimmed to fit, thereby rendering it completely unusable for the aircraft it was pulled from, in case a spare could eventually be found. Chances are, the spare would have been pulled from a decommissioned aircraft, which means it may not fit right either. If it was too big, then sure, no problem - trim it and we're golden. If it was too small...
Guess what? Yeah, too small.
Couldn't take any from F-111E or F models because those aircraft had been refitted with Pave Tack pods or ECM gear (for the EF-111E models - EW aircraft, affectionately known as The SparkVark). The refit required completely removing the lower bay door, and cutting the upper doors in half lengthwise to fit the new equipment (remember, it was an upper door that was damaged). Couldn't get a new door from the A models because those were just gone - half lost in Nam and the rest in the boneyard. B's never existed, and the Aussies sure as hell weren't going to give up any of theirs, as they were having the same issues. Don't even try to ask SAC to 'fess one up from their FB-111's - SAC was the darling of the Air Force, and they didn't give up nuthin' - kinda like the "rivalry" between Battle Fleet and Frontier Fleet - SAC=BF, TAC=FF.
"But wait", I hear you say. "These ships are just for training. They won't break down as much." I hate to break it to you, but training can be just as hard on equipment as real-world usage. In some cases, worse, as inept or newbie students can accidentally screw things up.
Have you read the Travis Long books yet? There's issues in there about spares that are similar to what I had to deal with on F-111's and what anyone getting these damn, stupid, useless, waste-of-time captured Sollie ships will have to deal with, and much sooner than you might expect, considering those ships are, in some cases, 150 years old or more.
