All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
Thread Starter
All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
This may come as no surprise, but with 76 Hawk T1s (The Red Arrows not included) now getting the acetylene torch treatment post 31 March 2022, haste to remove assets seems to be the one thing government wastes no time over. According to Business Live, the work load of 100 Sqn and 736 NAS will be taken up by "synthetic training". I'd have thought that the role of each was very much one which had to be conducted using the real thing!? Also, the Red Arrows get a stay of execution until 2030 only because of a raft of commercial sponsors. Everything one reads today is utterly depressing.
FB
FB
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Worries about jobs at Valley, I hope you are ok in all of this Bob.
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...hreat-21006347
https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...hreat-21006347
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
They should give 100 the Tranche 1 Typhoons and then treat those as an entirely separate fleet. TyTAN makes them cheap to support and operate, and a low level obsolescence removal upgrade should be affordable (perhaps using the Spanish T1 upgrade as a model?) while the lack of commonality or compatability with the T2/3 op fleet would surely then be irrelevant?
Can’t beat real a/c for training IMHO, synthetic is a poor substitute. We could always buy some Goshawks from the US instead, or better still build our own ones like we always used to 👏
Thread Starter
I suppose the depressing unavoidable thinking behind this constant pursuit of the absolute minimum, and then further down still, is avoiding spending money, at all.
FB
FB
Sign of times I suppose and it was always going to happen at some point. Will be nice to see a red/white/grey and a green/grey example again when the go around the country saying farewell. I guess they’ll be a strip program to rob spares to keep the Reds going, like we did for the Lynx to feed Wildcat. Then the next thought = jobs.
Last edited by NIREP reader; 10th Jul 2021 at 09:14.
Very true FB, accountants seem to rule these days sadly. When the proverbial hits the fan we need trained aircrew & aircraft, not accountants spread sheets & rose tinted spec’s 🙈
Thread Starter
Even given the far reaching cuts of the 2010 SDSR, was 28 Hawk T2s ever going to be enough in the long term? Bear in mind my post 10 and old-timer's post 12.
FB
FB
They should give 100 the Tranche 1 Typhoons and then treat those as an entirely separate fleet. TyTAN makes them cheap to support and operate, and a low level obsolescence removal upgrade should be affordable (perhaps using the Spanish T1 upgrade as a model?) while the lack of commonality or compatability with the T2/3 op fleet would surely then be irrelevant?
CAS's public position is clearly that RAF operated aggressors are not necessary. I don't think I need to tell most here that as with all statements by a VVSO, it will support the current Government's line irrespective of personal views.
.
“The reason that we are in a position to retire the very first 30 Eurofighters that came into Royal Air Force service is because those aircraft have got the very first versions of the mission computers, wiring and hardware,” Wigston said on 31 March. “The development of the later batches of Eurofighter have developed far beyond what the [first] airframes were capable of.
“The things I can do with my most modern Eurofighters is unrecognisable compared to what I can do with the Tranche 1. These days I use them predominantly for adversary aggressor flying, to train the rest of my force,” he notes.“I don’t see this as any diminishing of the frontline capability for the Royal Air Force.”
“The things I can do with my most modern Eurofighters is unrecognisable compared to what I can do with the Tranche 1. These days I use them predominantly for adversary aggressor flying, to train the rest of my force,” he notes.“I don’t see this as any diminishing of the frontline capability for the Royal Air Force.”
As I posted on the Qatar/RAF Hawk Sqn thread it was announced in January this year that 736 Naval Air Squadron was to disband on 30 September 2021 with 100 Squadron assuming the Maritime tasking role from 1 October 2021. The allotted annual flying task of 1790 hours will continue and will be provided by 100 Sqn using the Hawk TMK1A aircraft. Does it still make sense to transfer the task for only 6 months?
This makes me feel old, when I remember being excited seeing the newly delivered first few Hawks for 4 FTS & CFS at Valley when I was a child.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Under the Review the T1 Typhoons will only last until 2025. I presume this means 9(B) and 12(B) will follow Tatty Ton onto the retired list unless others are sacrificed instead.
CAS's public position is clearly that RAF operated aggressors are not necessary. I don't think I need to tell most here that as with all statements by a VVSO, it will support the current Government's line irrespective of personal views.
CAS's public position is clearly that RAF operated aggressors are not necessary. I don't think I need to tell most here that as with all statements by a VVSO, it will support the current Government's line irrespective of personal views.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Synthetic won't be the answer given the current state of TFST, GLADIATOR and don't even mention attempting to link Lightning FTDs. If I were a betting man I'd expect an industry engagement session in the coming months with a question of, "what (capability) can you provide, in what volume, at what cost, under what (air worthiness) certification, and by when"?
How rapid could this be given that risk aversion perpetuates throughout the DH construct across the defence aviation environment? What will the airworthiness certification baseline requirement be - UK MAR, UK CAA CAP 632 Permit to Fly or Non Part 21 CofA, 14 CFR Part 91, CAR Part V - 507.03 and Annex F? What suite of regulatory approvals will be required spanning Maintenance Organisations, Design Organisations, Continuing Airworthiness, and Operations? What can be recognised/accepted and off of whom - UK CAA, EASA, FAA, Transport Canada etc? Who will ultimately hold the operating risk?
It will be very interesting to see how defence approaches this, notably the UK MAA's relationships with other regulatory bodies be they civil or military along with industry itself following the millions lost during the ASDOT debacle. How nimble could they actually be given the potential requirement to change not only policy but also legislation?
How rapid could this be given that risk aversion perpetuates throughout the DH construct across the defence aviation environment? What will the airworthiness certification baseline requirement be - UK MAR, UK CAA CAP 632 Permit to Fly or Non Part 21 CofA, 14 CFR Part 91, CAR Part V - 507.03 and Annex F? What suite of regulatory approvals will be required spanning Maintenance Organisations, Design Organisations, Continuing Airworthiness, and Operations? What can be recognised/accepted and off of whom - UK CAA, EASA, FAA, Transport Canada etc? Who will ultimately hold the operating risk?
It will be very interesting to see how defence approaches this, notably the UK MAA's relationships with other regulatory bodies be they civil or military along with industry itself following the millions lost during the ASDOT debacle. How nimble could they actually be given the potential requirement to change not only policy but also legislation?
Although I saw a prototype in October 1975 at RAFC Cranwell when HSA were trying to flog it to the Swedish Air Force (we'd taken a Gnat and Hunter T7 over from Valley for comparison), the first time I saw an RAF Hawk was in late 1976 when one did a PD at RAF Honington. I'm not sure when HS.1182 became 'Hawk', but I heard later that someone in the mad MoD box wanted it to be named 'Tercel'...
The ones I flew were at Valley and Chivenor 1980 - 1981, so had the dreadful pre-AHARS compass system and the smaller fin trailing edge fillet. But were very agile and had superb range. A brilliant little jet, but why-oh-why no offset-TACAN, the Gnat student's friend!
The ones I flew were at Valley and Chivenor 1980 - 1981, so had the dreadful pre-AHARS compass system and the smaller fin trailing edge fillet. But were very agile and had superb range. A brilliant little jet, but why-oh-why no offset-TACAN, the Gnat student's friend!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,051
Received 2,925 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
Would it not make sense to move the Reds now to Valley? Plenty of room to practice, plenty of spare capacity now at the base and set up for the Hawk, sims etc?
I was on the fourth Hawk T1 course through Valley (XX Course) in 1978. We had a long flightline of shiny, new, reIiable airframes and I finished the course a month early (despite having taken two weeks off to go to Bisley for the RAF championships). I flew the final sortie of the first airframe, XX154, in December 2018. Where the hell have the last four+ decades gone ....