Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
I’ll try to keep it short since I have probably discussed this before.
The Hawk is great at what it does. As a trainer it really is an excellent platform especially in the T2 spec. Good IP visibility from the back seat, great avionics, good endurance and good enough performance for what it needs to do.
The 346 is a beautiful and very agile jet but very fuel limited.
The T-X is also beautiful but obviously I have no first hand experience of it.
The T-50 likewise.
Of all the previous, in service types (T-38, Alphajet etc) I would take the Hawk every day of the week.
As I always say in conversations such as this, if it is a trainer you want then that should be your focus. If you want a light fighter then stick to that. When you try to blend the two you can end up spending more money than it would cost to buy some F16s!
For example, I personally don’t see why students need to learn things like BFM at 6G plus. Teach them the basics at lower G. High G for prolonged periods is very fatiguing and when students are first learning they will struggle to take anything on board if they are just trying to stay awake. You will also break your instructors if they have to do that twice a day every day. The students can do the high G stuff on their next jet once they have a better understanding of the mechanics of air combat.
Lets be honest, the USAF was never going to replace their twin engine after burning trainer (T-38) with a single engine dry power jet. In my cynical view I think the spec (the bit about sustained G at 10000’) was written so as to exclude Hawk.
I also know that the modern way is to use synthetics instead of live flying. There are some very good pieces of kit out there nowadays and, when used properly, they can teach some lessons way better that you ever could in a jet.
It can absolutely work. Up to a point. My personal opinion is that anyone who tells you that simulators can replace live training are either trying to sell one or they have swallowed the loyalty pill that means they have to pretend they believe it.
Simulators should supplement, not replace live flying.
Of course, this is all just my opinion. Others may vary.
BV
Having instructed at AFTS and on an FJ OCU I'm not sure I agree with BV entirely. Whilst students should certainly grasp the basics of BFMs at a lower g level I believe they should then work to achieve ACT at 6g on the Hawk, its far more difficult to think clearly then plan and fly the best next mvr accurately whilst straining to stay awake. How many hours of Hawk flying to achieve this would be funded by only 1 hour in ther next aircraft (Typhoon or F35) ?