This is garbage, DoubleHush. I'm sorry, I don't normally post here, and I'm not keen on changing a system that has worked well for years, but you've pointed your finger at the wrong people, and it's simply not right.
"Not wanting to pay a wage that will induce SQEP aircrew to join their ranks, Ascent cannot deliver a 'world class training system', at least at this highly tactical level."
Whatever they pay, it must be enough because they QWIs that work there are certainly SQEP, with more instructional hours and flying experience in their small group than all of the RAF instructors combined.
"All the syllabus and courseware was designed by the RAF as Ascent did not know the front end of a missile from its back end, let alone how to employ it."
Many of those QIs have fired those very same missiles and dropped those bombs they talk about in their Phase Briefs. The courseware taught was generated collaboratively between the RAF and Ascent-employed SMEs.
"It is still managed and updated by the RAF!"
Both the RAF and the QIs contribute to the courseware. New QFIs come back from the front line. They have the gouge, the older instructors have the teaching experience. Working together works well. The management could be better - Ascent's courseware update process is unwieldy compared to when it was managed by the RAF. That's not the fault of anyone working on IV Sqn though.
"At 4 Sqn, Ascent like to think they run the show but the success of the training is wholly dependant on the calibre and expertise of the (military) instructors, as it always has been."
Again, it's collaborative. The success is dependent on the expertise of both parties. If the students technical knowledge and emergency handling is good, it is not down the the RAF instructors, as over 90% of that is delivered solely by Ascent. Thanks to Ascent QIs, the students arrive at the aircraft better prepared for each sortie than I have seen in any other training system.
"It does beg the question 'what exactly are we paying Ascent for?'. It is in this context you can understand why so many are frustrated with working on 4 as you are beholden to 2 different masters."
This is true. I would agree that we do not need Ascent. Simply bolster the numbers of the RAF from 34k back up to 60k+ and we wouldn't need Ascent.
Of course, those very same QIs would stil be doing the teaching, just wearing green suits and getting paid PAS. Would that be OK? So what's your point?
You're waving your finger at the wrong people.
We have partnered with Ascent due to the 2011 NAO report and the SDSR shrinking of the service. How we shrunk the regular service to the size where we needed to employ ex-military rather than keeping them as existing military is worthy of debate.
Now we are here though, we have partnered to bolster the ranks. Thankfully, the individuals selected to work alongside the RAF instructors are an extremely experienced group of individuals.
"However, despite Ascent, 4 Sqn are turning out front line aircrew who are much better prepared for the front line. They are the product of an aircraft (T2) and (RAF designed) syllabus that has brought TW training bang up to date."
What is your evidence for this statement?