https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/
Q165: Sarah Atherton: The Hawk trainer has been successful and has also been a successful export, but the MoD has started a comprehensive capability investigation into the future of combat aircrew training and a future aircraft. Would you like to give me an update on progress?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Sure. Hawk T2 was a derivative of the original Hawk. It came into service over 20 years ago, and right now it continues to meet our needs for fast jet training for Typhoon and F-35. But it was always planned to go out of service around the end of the next decade—2040 is the out-of-service date we describe. We are pretty clear that it will not meet the requirements for a Global Combat Air Programme solution. As a consequence, we need to plan now and start a programme for the replacement of Hawk as an advanced jet trainer.
The analysis is looking at the training system requirements: what is it that we need our pilots to be able to do, and what do we therefore need that aircraft to do? It is also looking at widening it. One potential opportunity that we are exploring is how we might use an aircraft that was principally bought and developed for training to provide what we describe as surrogate training for the in-service GCAP. Instead of flying the all-up combat aircraft every day, for some of those missions you could get all the training that you needed through what we describe as a surrogate platform. The benefits are that it is cheaper to fly and operate, and that it does not give away your tactics or have some of the electromagnetic emissions from the aircraft that GCAP would provide.
The second area where we might use a capability like that is to provide what we describe as “Red Air”, but a capability where we simulate another aircraft trying to attack the GCAP in this case. Thinking about the breadth of that requirement enables us to think through whether there might be a single solution. I know that you had Tristan Crawford from Aeralis in to give evidence. Tristan’s and the team’s model of a modular system would enable you to deliver capability for a number of different scenarios. It is something that we are very interested in.
I would like to bring that capability investigation to a conclusion before we get into the next spending review and defence review, because that would be the point at which we would need to establish a programme. Right now there is no money set aside in the defence budget for a replacement for Hawk, but 2040 is only 16 years away, so we will need to have our evidence gathered and developed to be in a position to make a case for investment as we go through the next spending review and defence review. The more widely that capability can support, the better the argument is. It is quite a complex area where there are quite a lot of trade-offs, but I am confident that we will get to the position where we can lay that out and initiate a programme once we have been through the spending review and defence review.
Q166: Sarah Atherton: We have been told that synthetic training will increase to 80% of the overall training, versus 20% live training.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: There will always be, in my judgment, a space for live training. There is a lot of good evidence from our own experience and from other countries that if you dial back too much on the live training—the interplay of the physiological effects of flying and the opportunity to train in that properly realistic context—you might find that you lose some of the skills, and then when it comes to people being brought into combat they are not as effective.
The 80:20 number is kicked around, but there is no definitive evidence that that is the right answer. Right now, we are looking at 50:50 as a target for live synthetic training at the frontline. We do a bit more training in the simulator at various points in the flying training programme.
It is unquestionable, to my mind, that we will rely on synthetic training for the flying training to get to the frontline, but also at the frontline. It is cheaper, and there are some things that you just cannot do in the live environment without giving away your tactics and your capability, so we have to do that in a synthetic environment. Our thinking around the training system will not be just about the aircraft; it will be about the synthetic solutions that sit alongside it as well.
Q167: Sarah Atherton: On military flight training, how are things going at Valley with Ascent?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Across military flight training, the situation has considerably improved since this time last year. I was at RAF Cranwell on Thursday last week. I sat next to the gentleman who won the sword of honour, who was about to start flying training. He graduated on Thursday and will start flying training in June. He expects, and I expect him, to run through that system, assuming he is good enough in his fast jet, without any breaks. So there is very significant improvement.
James Cartlidge: Can I say something on that? As you know, I was recently in Wales. Part of my visit was to Hightown barracks in your constituency, but I also had the pleasure of going to Valley and discussing these matters there. It was stressed to me that for the first time we were at a stage where the number of people being trained exceeded the number who were on holds. Obviously we would not have wanted to be in that situation anyway, but that is the first time it has been like that for some time. There is still more progress to make, but generally, particularly with improved availability from the Hawk—that itself is improving but still not absolutely where we want it to be—all these factors have led to that improvement. As you know, there was a significant increase in holds, above where we would want it to be.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: On Hawk specifically, we still have problems with engine availability. That constrains aircraft availability, which limits the number of pilots that we can put through that system. I am expecting us, for the next few years, to continue to need to put pilots through international systems, for example the NATO system in the US and Italy. We continue to drive Rolls-Royce, Safran, which is responsible for the components that have failed, and BAE Systems hard to improve the output from Hawk.
Q168: Sarah Atherton: I know that at Valley they have only 60% of the QIs they require. They want 10 QIs; they only have six. That is obviously going to have an impact on flow. What are you doing to monitor Ascent and the progress, as you have highlighted, that has already been made?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: The air and space commander is responsible for oversight of the aircrew pipeline steering group and also chairs a quarterly management board with the most senior people in Ascent. Below that level, there are multiple governance structures around that in order for us to keep absolutely on top of their performance. We have absolutely no question over what their performance is and are able to see precisely how things are going. The drive and determination— actually, on both sides—to improve matters is something that I am very comfortable with.
The fundamental problem we have right now with Hawk is that we do not have the components to build the engines and to put enough of the engines into our aircraft, and that is going to be a problem for at least the next three years and potentially longer. That is why we will have to export some of that training. It is not where I want to be, but we are finding a way through it to ensure that we have enough pilots flowing through the system to get to the frontline. Ultimately, what I want is Hawk to perform to the level that it was originally designed, built and contracted for. If we can do that, we will be back to that position.