My Thoughts
It’s completely off topic but I can’t resist giving my thoughts on the syllabus and T1 vs T2 differences.
My credentials? Six tours teaching on Hawks (T1, T2, 115 and 166). Mainly tac weapons with a bit of AFT thrown in for good measure.
All this talk of which is best and whether or not you can get valuable training is overlooking some simple facts. The front line OCUs need competent, flexible pilots who possess the skill to make quick and correct decisions under pressure. That can be taught on any mark of Hawk. You also have to remember their position in the food chain. The Hawk is a stepping stone. Nobody is taking it to war.
Any tactics and procedures should mirror what the frontline does but with the understanding that, where that is not possible, something sensible is taught. Low level evasion is the perfect example. It was never about whether or not it was a valid tactic in the 21st century. It was more about what you were asking of the student. Anyone who could get through that phase was a good pilot. In fact the pilots that graduated 19 Sqn (as it was when I was there as a QFI) with a single seat recommend especially, were bloody good pilots and would cope with anything the frontline could throw at them.
The T1 may not have been great (and although I taught on it I don’t believe we should still be using it for training 21st century fast jet pilots) but it did a great job. The T2 could do an equally, if not better job, if the syllabus was more demanding. There has simply been too much meddling over the last few years from people at the stages beyond Valley who think they know best.
Every front line QWI will be spitting feathers when they read that and will say “what does a Hawk REMF know?”. But let me ask you this. Would you rather have a student starting the Typhoon OCU who can do Medium Altitude Level Bombing (MALB) in VMC or a student who could do low level CCRP deliveries with all the challenges the terrain and weather will provide?
I know I will be shouted down with cries of “what about radar handling?” And “who cares about visual evasion”. To which I would say we managed very well in Oman to teach a hybrid profile whereby we did low level evasion but using radar and GCI SA to ensure it was a step beyond simple visual evasion.
Basically, why did we stop asking the people who taught tac weapons how to produce students to an OCU input standard and just take the word of the end user?
Are there better jets than the Hawk T2? Yes of course. But can we produce excellent students using the Hawk T2? Absolutely.
I realise I’ll be shouted down and told I don’t know what I’m talking about since I’m just a dinosaur but maybe, just maybe, I did learn a thing or two in my 23 years.
BV