Originally Posted by
KrisKringle
I disagree with every statement you make, except the last one in the first para, having been on the receiving end of both the T1 and T2 training systems (as well as some overseas AFT/TW 'equivalents').
The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.
Well I would disagree with everything you wrote too. A 1960s analogue cockpit, hard wing trainer? Righto, that's relevant. Let's keep teaching clock-map/ground and LL IP-TGT missions. Zero ML A-S capability too. 1940s era gunsight, no HUD, no DL. I am berating the platform; not the quality of the training received, nor the standard of graduates. The failure of Valley to provide a worthwhile output was due to Ascent/MFTS's failings. Whether the platform was a T1, T2 or anything else - the result would have been the same.