Red Arrows - Hawk replacement

[A4scooter]

Jets flown by RAF Red Arrows could be built OVERSEAS | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4981406/Jets-flown-RAF-Red-Arrows-built-OVERSEAS.html)

Allegedly a letter signed by 142 MPs has asked Teresa May to order replacement Hawks for the Red Arrows.
If the current Hawks continue until 2030 the replacements will most likely be foreign aircraft and more jobs will be lost at BAe

[grobbling about]

Given the benefits that BAE would gain, and if they want to stay in the business, perhaps a PFI?

[PDR1]

What benefits would those be?

PDR

[Vendee]

Surely any expenditure should be targeted at the front line and supporting/training the front line. I love watching the Red Arrows as much of the next guy but having 10 dedicated display aircraft might have been fine when we had a fast jet fleet of over 1000 aircraft..... not so much now IMO.

[Lima Juliet]

It would make sense to buy more T2s. With only 28 on the books for Valley then there is little reslience for the future if we bend or write some off. However, painting them Red and dedicating them to a 9-ship aerobatic team would seem a little crazy and they would need to be a common pool. Although the Hawk is an old design, the T2 refresh has brought it up to date with a few curious limitations (one of which is the extraordinarily low boarding mass for the T2 bang seats which is roughly 25kgs less than Typhoon, Tornado or Lightning! Even between T1 and T2 there is a 13kg difference (details from AP1269 available on the interrnet)). That said we are still selling - the latest being to Qatar and the Kuwaitis are looking at them as well. Fundamentally a good aircraft.

So if we did buy more T2s - say another 16 - they should probably remain black and we have to turn the Red Arrows clock back 60 years and rename them the Black Arrows. Still it would save money on flying suits! With 100 Sqn/JFACTSU needing to be replaced as well, then putting a bigger fleet of 28 at Leeming would make the ultimate sense with the RAFAT joining them. However, who is going to pay for it? Maybe BAES could part sponsor but the MOD is skint (again) so we would need to cancel/chop another capability to pay for it - crowdfunding anyone? :}:}

[Pontius Navigator]

LJ, the Reds don't like sharing air space.

As for 2030, we had a presentation by the Reds possibly 10 years or more ago, they were unsure of their future then with the prospective 128 buy. I don't think they expected T2 then even.

Maybe the old T1s are available for spares.

[Lima Juliet]

PN, I didn’t say share airspace, I said share airfield. Around Leeming there are plenty of other locations to practice if allocated with a suitable airspace reservation. Topcliffe would be my first suggestion?

[camelspyyder]

Even sharing the airfield is too disruptive for all the other users.

When they were at Cranwell but training in R313 at Scampton, the pain for the all other airfield users was most counter-productive. No-one could start, taxi, take off etc. from the moment the Reds checked in for start until they'd cleared the circuit. Several times every day. It was a happy day when Scampton re-opened.

[Brian W May]

This is the reality of 'The Peace Dividend' and successive governments' policy of decimating the Armed Services.

Get used to it . . . .

[Melchett01]

This is the reality of 'The Peace Dividend' and successive governments' policy of decimating the Armed Services.

Get used to it . . . .

If it was built in the PM's constituency, the ink would be dry on the contract already, along with replacements for 100's aircraft. Politics my dear chap, politics.

[gijoe]

If it was built in the PM's constituency, the ink would be dry on the contract already, along with replacements for 100's aircraft. Politics my dear chap, politics.

If 1000 RM posts are likely to be cut, posts that have delivered lots of military capability over the last 20 years, then it really is time to have a long hard think about whether a replacement is needed.

[ExAscoteer]

Even sharing the airfield is too disruptive for all the other users.

When they were at Cranwell but training in R313 at Scampton, the pain for the all other airfield users was most counter-productive. No-one could start, taxi, take off etc. from the moment the Reds checked in for start until they'd cleared the circuit. Several times every day. It was a happy day when Scampton re-opened.

IIRC the MATZ was 'sterilised' and there were to be no ground movements from 15 mins before the Reds startup to 15 mins after their departure and vice versa for their return from R313.

They often did 2 sorties per day which meant that the other flypros were generally horlicksed. Not so much a problem for us on 55(R) with our 3 hr sorties, but it royally screwed 45(R).

[drustsonoferp]

The RAFAT task is as much political for the nation as it is for the RAF. If the nation wishes to have a rapidly deployable, flexible tool for international influence, as well as advertising the current capability of British industry, to the hopeful benefit of the nation, then having them operating a Hawk which represents the current capability of both the platform and British industry would make sense: RAFAT could be using the latest mark of Hawk, with slats and T2-like cockpit and mission computer.

This could increase the performance of the aircraft for air shows, and show potential customers what they could be buying today or tomorrow, not how great a platform was available from 1976 onwards amongst rather different competition of the day.

That there is sufficient FI in the fleet to get the T1 to 2030 isn't really the issue: the ever-recurring question of replacement has merely been kicked further down the road. Other nations with very junior aerospace sectors are pushing hard to develop them, but the UK does not appear to have the political will to push such a strategic industrial capability.

[Lima Juliet]

Camelspyder

The difference between Cranwell with what was elementary and basic flying trg, nav trg, NCA trg and ME trg plus CFS compared to Leeming’s 100 Sqn and weekend-heavy UAS/AEF is hugely differrent. Further, the Reds operated from Kemble for many a year. Everyone will have to put their glass slippers and sequinned handbags away and come up with a plan to work together. It’s a bit like the recent squabbling at Valley over MFTS’s Hawks and Texans - if you can’t operate a maximum of 28 Hawks and 10 Texans on a 5-day a week basis to output ~40 pilots a year then there is something wrong.

Unfortunately, sometimes the RAF forgets what busy used to look like! There used to be 4FTS (25+ Hawks), 74 Sqn (12+ Hawks), 19 Sqn (12+ Hawks) and CFS plus STCAAME (usually a 6 ship detachment of FJs work missile firings) plus SARTU (at least 3 helos) - that was in my time there and we were downsizing!

[Wrathmonk]

If 1000 RM posts are likely to be cut....

...then we should also have a long hard look at the need for military bands, horse drawn guns and any other 'unit' that is solely designed for the 'public attention'.

And before you start on the 'stretcher bearer' argument remember the Reds are all very able front line pilots who could be back doing the front line job with a minimum of an on-type refresher.

Good to see the 'disband the Reds' discussion has started long before the annual SDSR though. Soon be time for the annual 'end the 100 year experiment' early and disband the RAF lunacy (although from what I can gather it is other air arms that seem to be in the process of disbandment and transfer to the RAF - who would have thunk it!)

[ExAscoteer]

Camelspyder

The difference between Cranwell with what was elementary and basic flying trg, nav trg, NCA trg and ME trg plus CFS

Not strictly true. There was no BFTS; EFTS was at Barkston.

Primarily it was 55(R) (Dominies), 45(R) Jetstreams, and CFS Bulldogs / Fireflies.

[Lima Juliet]

EA

Yes, you are correct although with effectively adjoining ATZs (yes the 2nm ones) then when the Reds joined circuit flying at Barkston it all got a bit tight for EFT as well IIRC?

[andrewn]

The T1 fleet must be reaching end of useful life by now. Realise that various parts have been replaced / re-lifed, etc but it really does not owe us anything. I also think it's noticeable that the REDS are finding it more difficult to generate 9 serviceable jets on a consistent basis, plus as raised above it seems counter-productive to conduct "flag waving" and sales tours with a 40yr old jet!

So, yes, for a multitude of reasons the right answer is to cough up for a few more T2's and secure the REDS future for the next 30yrs (hopefully).

I also love the frequent disband the REDS requests, purely from an economic point of view it's nonsense as (1) the annual running cost of them is minute compared to "more front line jets", "more blah, blah, blah", and (2) you can only "save" the money once - so once you've disbanded them and realised that all it gets you is a fifth of one Typhoon, you then have to scrap a full squadron of Typhoon's or something else to meet the Treasurys latest "efficiency saving".

[Melchett01]

If 1000 RM posts are likely to be cut, posts that have delivered lots of military capability over the last 20 years, then it really is time to have a long hard think about whether a replacement is needed.

Given that resource decisions have now been pushed down to the Service Chiefs and HQs, I doubt that any decision on Hawks would read across to resourcing for other Services' capabilities.

FWIW, other than the Reds filling that overseas influence role, I've long wondered whether there wasn't a role for a few sqns of cheaper aircraft such as the Hawk T2 that could flex across a large proportion of the operational spectrum. In which case, the Reds' aircraft would be just one part of the overall deal and could be used as wargoers should the situation demand.

[Vendee]

The T1 fleet must be reaching end of useful life by now. Realise that various parts have been replaced / re-lifed, etc but it really does not owe us anything. I also think it's noticeable that the REDS are finding it more difficult to generate 9 serviceable jets on a consistent basis, plus as raised above it seems counter-productive to conduct "flag waving" and sales tours with a 40yr old jet!

So, yes, for a multitude of reasons the right answer is to cough up for a few more T2's and secure the REDS future for the next 30yrs (hopefully).

I also love the frequent disband the REDS requests, purely from an economic point of view it's nonsense as (1) the annual running cost of them is minute compared to "more front line jets", "more blah, blah, blah", and (2) you can only "save" the money once - so once you've disbanded them and realised that all it gets you is a fifth of one Typhoon, you then have to scrap a full squadron of Typhoon's or something else to meet the Treasurys latest "efficiency saving".

I disagree. Disbanding the Reds right now might not save a huge amount of money but you were also talking about buying more T2's which will cost a lot. You talk about the savings in relation to the cost of a Typhoon but perhaps you should think about that money being spent on decent accommodation or station facilities or other things which cost less than a new Typhoon.

[rolling20]

The government has an obligation to preserve such things as utilities to make sure we have control of these industries, which supply our basic needs. Unfortunately over the years we have sold off a number of these and we are now no longer in control of a number of them. If Corbyn and his Marxist, Leninist, Feminist, sidekick McConnell ever get in, then the story will be academic really. No defence spending, massive disbanding of the armed forces and withdrawal from NATO. The present government should do what they did in the 30s, drip feed the aircraft industry orders to keep them afloat. Or better still ( and I never thought I would ever say this) nationlise them to preserve our capability.

[chopper2004]

MP's Warn Red Arrows Could Be Flying Foreign Built Jets (http://www.forces.net/news/mps-warn-red-arrows-could-be-flying-foreign-built-jets)

[gijoe]

...then we should also have a long hard look at the need for military bands, horse drawn guns and any other 'unit' that is solely designed for the 'public attention'.

And before you start on the 'stretcher bearer' argument remember the Reds are all very able front line pilots who could be back doing the front line job with a minimum of an on-type refresher.

Good to see the 'disband the Reds' discussion has started long before the annual SDSR though. Soon be time for the annual 'end the 100 year experiment' early and disband the RAF lunacy (although from what I can gather it is other air arms that seem to be in the process of disbandment and transfer to the RAF - who would have thunk it!)

Bands - probably not needed.
Household Division - needs a trimming.
Display teams of other natures cut.
More jointery - there does not need to be 3 separate admin chains that do effectively the same job.

So don't be a bit of a patronising pillo*k if you can help it. And there is plenty, plenty of fat on the RAF that could be liposucked - and I am not talking about SO1 waistlines.

[SASless]

Why must they fly "Jets"....as they fly training airplanes....would not Turbo Props be cheaper?

Or...move up to Typhoons or F-35's and fly frontline FJ's?

[Melchett01]

And there is plenty, plenty of fat on the RAF that could be liposucked - and I am not talking about SO1 waistlines.

Would be interested to see where all this bloating is these days. That so many roles and jobs have been contractorised rather than cut suggests those requirements still exist, but the MOD wants to do it on the cheap. So I assume we are talking cutting entire capabilities here?

[Treble one]

Why must they fly "Jets"....as they fly training airplanes....would not Turbo Props be cheaper?

Or...move up to Typhoons or F-35's and fly frontline FJ's?


The beauty of flying the Hawk, is of course, that all RAF FJ pilots will have flown it in the training system. Easier and cheaper to convert back to from a frontline squadron, than have to convert to something you've never flown before?


The only way to 'move up' and fly a frontline FJ would be to bring back the old squadron display teams? So if someone at the MOD is watching, please feel free to reform the Tremblers and stand them up as one of the new Typhoon AD squadrons.


The 'Black-tailed arrows' anyone?


We will have a few spare Tucanos going soon. Another option?

[drustsonoferp]

@SASless with the politics in mind, which UK-designed and manufactured turboprop did you have in mind?

It might have been arguable with Shorts(Bombardier..) production of Tucano on-going, but now we are closer to the argument of where exactly UK manufacturing capability for military aircraft is going to be in only a few years. With the end of production of both Hawk and Typhoon looming, Taranis(or a production standard progeny) seemingly nowhere, and no other UK procurement other than F35 apparently on the horizon, is it now time for some home stimulus to support a strategic national capability?

If not, how comfortable are we that the UK will have a fast jet production capability by the time we decide we need a new fast jet, of otherwise that further foreign purchases of Hawk will be forthcoming if we don't eek out the production run a few years?

This is a separate argument to whether BAE Systems need as much capacity as they have, spread across so many sites.

[drustsonoferp]

The beauty of flying the Hawk, is of course, that all RAF FJ pilots will have flown it in the training system. Easier and cheaper to convert back to from a frontline squadron, than have to convert to something you've never flown before?


Except that no training is now carried out on TMk1, 4FTS using only the TMk2- unless you're advocating a purchase of more new Red Hawks?

[PDR1]

This is a separate argument to whether BAE Systems need as much capacity as they have, spread across so many sites.

How many sites?

BAES air-sector currently has two manufacturing sites (Brough and Samlesbury) and one final assembly and flight-test centre (Warton). Last week's announcement essentially removes Brough as a manufacturing site. You could collapse Samlesbury back to Warton, but it would be expensive and wouldn't achieve much.

If one site is excess capacity how much did you have in mind?

PDR

[andrewn]

I disagree. Disbanding the Reds right now might not save a huge amount of money but you were also talking about buying more T2's which will cost a lot. You talk about the savings in relation to the cost of a Typhoon but perhaps you should think about that money being spent on decent accommodation or station facilities or other things which cost less than a new Typhoon.

It's a good sentiment, and if the system worked that way then I may be tempted to agree with you, but sadly I don't think it does.

Take budgets, at the top level you might typically have 3 "pots", Operational Expenditure (OPEX), Capital Expenditure (CAPEX) and some form of Restructure or other one-off funding (maybe UOR's are a good example?).
Each of those budgetary pots can be sub-divided further, e.g. Facilities, Engineering, Flying Ops, Projects, Procurement, etc. Then remember that many of those budget line items are subject to long term contracts with defence contractors or other civilian companies.

So often (almost always I'd say) there is little or no linkage between the 3 budget sources, so just cos you save money from one pot in a particular year doesnt necessarily mean there's additional funding either for that pot or any others.

Most often a cut is simply that, with the £1, £1M or £1Bn saved most likely being lost to those that need it most (in your example station facilities) and, at best, ending up being used to fill a gaping hole in Defence funding, e.g. related to Trident replacement or Carrier costs or some other monolithic job creation scheme that was under costed and has been poorly managed.

Simplistically, what I'm saying, is that I doubt any money saved from disbanding or not procuring new jets for the REDS would find its way to anything remotely useful.

[SASless]

@SASless with the politics in mind, which UK-designed and manufactured turboprop did you have in mind?

With current state of the UK Design/Build capability....and the fact you already operate a couple of Non-UK Types.....130's, C-17's, F-35's, Chinooks, Apaches, being a few examples....why the need for a UK built aircraft at all?

[Treble one]

Except that no training is now carried out on TMk1, 4FTS using only the TMk2- unless you're advocating a purchase of more new Red Hawks?


I was led to believe that there was at least 10 more years worth of 'life' in the current T1 fleet?

[drustsonoferp]

How many sites?

BAES air-sector currently has two manufacturing sites (Brough and Samlesbury) and one final assembly and flight-test centre (Warton). Last week's announcement essentially removes Brough as a manufacturing site. You could collapse Samlesbury back to Warton, but it would be expensive and wouldn't achieve much.

If one site is excess capacity how much did you have in mind?

PDR

I don't see how all of the 3 current sites can be supported indefinitely. Whether or not there is any real consideration of new RAFAT aircraft, there is going to be another campaign to save Brough. If I advocate anything at all, it's an effort to consider national strategic capabilities, not the propping up a number of manufacturing sites for local, rather than national priorities.

[drustsonoferp]

I was led to believe that there was at least 10 more years worth of 'life' in the current T1 fleet?

T1 OSD is 2030, but current users are 100 Sqn, RAFAT, 736NAS, Boscombe (RAFCAM). Training on T1 stopped when 208 stood down last year, so any 'new' aircrew sent to one of those squadrons will operate a T1 for the first time on their new unit.

[drustsonoferp]

With current state of the UK Design/Build capability....and the fact you already operate a couple of Non-UK Types.....130's, C-17's, F-35's, Chinooks, Apaches, being a few examples....why the need for a UK built aircraft at all?

And there is the strategic question: do we need the capability; do we have the will to push for it; can we be guaranteed of getting what we want/need operationally in future without a domestic capability?

Would the UK be a tier one F-35 partner without the extant capabilities of UK industry, the BAE Systems Replica, research on automated control of V/STOL ac.?

My answer is that we should be very, very wary of letting go of the capability to build military aircraft. How strong the political will is to support the capability we may find out in the next few years. The UK now has a strong reliance on service industries, and has watched heavier industry dwindle for a very long time. Even without considering military operations, over reliance on any one sector comes with some national risks. I would like to think that the banking crisis opened some eyes, and that national priorities would look favourably upon the aerospace sector.

Military operations make a parallel argument, and amplify the politics of dependence on friends and exports etc.

If the expertise of fast jet production is at risk, though could be retained by a domestic push to replace RAFAT aircraft a few years early, that sounds like a reasonable plan to me-but that places us back into the standard SDSR continuance of RAFAT question.

[Vendee]

It's a good sentiment, and if the system worked that way then I may be tempted to agree with you, but sadly I don't think it does.

[snip]

Simplistically, what I'm saying, is that I doubt any money saved from disbanding or not procuring new jets for the REDS would find its way to anything remotely useful.

I agree that the system does not work that way. There is no way of ensuring that any money saved from one department can be utilised by another but the Reds do cost money to operate and that money does come from the overall defence budget.

I think that an argument could be made for keeping the Reds going for as long as they can keep the T1's going but I don't think there can be any justification for purchasing new aircraft just for the display team.

Perhaps a couple of Typhoon squadrons could have a handful of qualified display pilots and maybe 4 or 5 aircraft with special tail art (which could be quickly covered up in theatre) to cover flying display duties. I think that in these difficult financial times, a dedicated display team with new aircraft is a luxury we can't afford.

[SASless]

A very valid argument but one does have to factor in the issue of "scale"....can you support that kind of capability with such very few numbers of aircraft to be built?

The Unit cost would tremendous due to the lack of numbers built....unless you came up with Foreign Sales to underwrite the RAF/RN acquisitions.

With the competition from the France, Russia, the USA, China, and India....could you compete successfully?

[Treble one]

T1 OSD is 2030, but current users are 100 Sqn, RAFAT, 736NAS, Boscombe (RAFCAM). Training on T1 stopped when 208 stood down last year, so any 'new' aircrew sent to one of those squadrons will operate a T1 for the first time on their new unit.


Fair point-however, you need to have 1500hrs and have completed a front line tour before you can be selected for the Reds?


That means that for 5 or 6 years at least that won't matter? All the guys and gals eligible will have flown the T1?

[Wrathmonk]

So don't be a bit of a patronising pillo*k if you can help it.

Always find it helpful to be patronising when confronted with those who are single minded and think anything military is spelt A-R-M-Y. ;):E

More jointery - there does not need to be 3 separate admin chains that do effectively the same job.

Nor does there need to be all those different regiments, with all their different uniforms, badges, insignia, job titles (and spelling - Lance Corporal of the Horse, Serjeant....FFS) not forgetting their different chains of command, that do effectively the same job.:ugh:

[dagenham]

Given ten years to effective out of service date and the dangerous world we live in, which makes supply chain integrity vital to war fighting. I.e. you can’t build replacements aircraft without importing parts from half the known world. Does it not make sense, Business, militarily etc for bae to start planning for son of hawk or are we just going to get Boeing TX?

[Brian W May]

Perhaps Bombardier need to quickly build a trainer eh?

[JFZ90]

How much is a T2?

Seems like the right answer for all the wider reasons to have the Reds showcasing the UK.

Surely the delta costs of supporting 10 more T2 on top of the current fleet would be far less than introducing a whole new aircraft?

Is it easy to give the T2 smoke?

[drustsonoferp]

That means that for 5 or 6 years at least that won't matter? All the guys and gals eligible will have flown the T1?

I don't know. New pilots coming out of the sausage machine from 2012, so perhaps it's not at all long now. There are T2-trained pilots on 100 Sqn flying T1s for a living already.

[drustsonoferp]

How much is a T2?

Seems like the right answer for all the wider reasons to have the Reds showcasing the UK.

Surely the delta costs of supporting 10 more T2 on top of the current fleet would be far less than introducing a whole new aircraft?

Is it easy to give the T2 smoke?

Giving a T2 smoke would be cunningly similar to the mod to turn a black T1 into a red one, at least as far as the pipework goes. There would need to be some new work for suitable switching in the cockpit, and presumably they'd want an engine control system mod like the current red engine. The T2 flies with a centreline tank for range as standard fit: without that, assuming it's lost for a smoke pod, range might be a bit more of an issue.

Assuming that a significant part of the logic to sustain a new red fleet would be to lend national support to industry, there may be some parts which industry could be invited to contribute towards.

[walbut]

I have probably been involved with the Hawk as long as anyone. I wrote the production test schedule for the flying controls in the wing and was involved in testing the first wing at Brough early in 1974. I finally retired from Brough (probably for the last time) in February this year.

I am as sad as anyone to see the end of a project that has played a large part in my career and probably the end of the Brough site, which is the longest standing aircraft manufacturing plant in the world. However while the current T2 is undoubtedly still a very capable trainer I think the airframe is showing its age and this has been apparent for some time. In many potential customers eyes the aircraft is seen as 'old' and this outweighs the advantages of its mature and well developed capability.

There has been a noticeable slowing down of orders over the last 10 years after the T Mk 2 and Mk 132. I find it very disappointing that BAE Systems have never, to my knowledge, really started to develop a follow on aircraft. I am sure in this day and age, using modern materials and technology it would be possible to design a trainer that is easier and cheaper to build, easier and cheaper to maintain, lighter and capable of better flight performance. Had this exercise started 10 years ago we would have been in the position to offer current Hawk customers operating 50, 60 and 100 series aircraft a more attractive proposition than the T2 variants. I think it would be better to invest some company and possibly government money in developing a new trainer now rather than delaying even longer in order to build a few more aircraft for the Red Arrows.

If there is still 13 years life left in the Red Arrows Hawks, maybe there is still time to develop a new aircraft that they could showcase. However I could understand that their high profile operation might not want to take on the risk of using a new and relatively unknown aircraft. Some of the risk could be mitigated by using a development of the relatively new and capable T2 mission system in a new airframe, a route that was being considered by Northrop Grumman for the USAF TX programme,

Unfortunately BAE Systems is probably now too big, bureaucratic and risk averse to go down this route. However some companies do seem to have successfully taken bolder steps along this path, notably Pilatus who over a similar time period have developed the PC 7, PC 9 and PC 21 trainers which have provided significant steps in airframe capability alongside developing the training capability of their products. If we are going to make a success of Brexit we need to be bold and be prepared to develop engineering technology and capability to compete with the rest of the world. If I am still around when (if?) the Red Arrows ever get a replacement aircraft I will be particularly disappointed, but not surprised, if it turn out to be a USAF TX variant. I just hope we don't try and put our own engine in it like we did with the Phantom.

Walbut

[Heathrow Harry]

"I find it very disappointing that BAE Systems have never, to my knowledge, really started to develop a follow on aircraft"

It's always amazed me - you have a great best selling product and then you make no plans to replace it . Presumably the problem is they'd have had to put in their own money rather than the tax-payers......................

[PDR1]

Pretty well all military aeroplanes are developed using customer money, for the simple reason that thge development costs are so huge that the risk/return equation just doesn't add up. Then you have the detail that every air farce has different requirements for everything from the shape of the stick to the rubber in the tyres (never mind details like the weights, ranges, runway performance, cockpit type, tool and part standardisation, mainetenance philosophy etc) which means that developing a private venture essentially just guaranteeing that the wrong aeroplane has been developed.

In the UK the government also restricts profits on MoD contracts to a level that just about services the contract risk and doesn't allow any capital recovery (it's called "QMAC" and typically restricts profit to 7-10%). This is a very different environment to (say) the USA where the customer will not only pay for development, but even funds multiple protoypes to be evaluated in fly-offs. But I don't think anyone operating in the western-world business environment develops military jet trainers as a private venture.

PDR

[tucumseh]

PDR1

Well said.

"QMAC" and typically restricts profit to 7-10%

Yes, those who say companies make huge profits from MoD work should have a quick look at a typical QMAC schedule. In my experience, companies (and Westland were a good example) keep a close eye on projected profit on a job, as they don't want post-costing to reveal, say, 11%. Typically, they will have a quiet word and ask what nice-to-haves remain on the the shopping list, and do them for nowt. In this case, my gut tells me walbut is right - BAeS have missed a trick. But I also don't like international collaborative projects, so accept it is a difficult call.

[walbut]

Undoubtedly one of the main reasons a Hawk replacement was not pursued by BAE Systems was that after the initial RAF Hawk order there was never another potentially winnable order that was big enough in its own right to justify the investment. The T2 and the Mk 132 together might have been big enough but it had taken so long to get the Indian AF on board, changing the spec of the aircraft they understood was a non starter.

There are no doubt other reasons for holding back on a replacement, including wanting to get the maximum return on the existing investment and not wanting to prejudice potential sales by the prospect of something better coming along.

Speaking as a confirmed 'Broughie' I also feel there were organisational reasons why it never happened. The BAE Systems aircraft division has always been very Warton centric. They have lots of expertise in expensive, complicated multi national projects but the hierarchy recognised that a similar approach was not going to be practical or cost effective with a jet trainer. Unfortunately they never had the confidence to delegate a much smaller new project in its entirety to another site on the other side of the Pennines.

The main reason I think a Hawk replacement could have been justified was that we have a big customer base who, most of the time were happy with the performance of the Hawk and the support that they got from the manufacturers. Usually, its easier to sell something to an existing customer than to a completely new one - unless of course your product or support is awful.

Despite having our differences of opinion with HSA Kingston in the 1970's I have to say that one of the main reasons for the Hawk's success was that they got the original design concept right from the start, with one or two minor exceptions, and also they were prepared to build into the design the potential capabilities that export customers would want, i.e. they took a risk by designing something beyond the RAF spec aircraft, not the absolute minimum capability (and therefore cost) required by the RAF. Probably the engineers had more influence than the bean counters in those days.

Walbut

[Linedog]

There used to be quite a few hawks in storage at Shawbury. I wonder if they are still there?

RAF Shawbury ? Storage and DHFS « Air Base Photography « Fast Air Photography (http://www.fast-air.co.uk/raf-shawbury-photography-100129/)

[Buster15]

"I find it very disappointing that BAE Systems have never, to my knowledge, really started to develop a follow on aircraft"

It's always amazed me - you have a great best selling product and then you make no plans to replace it . Presumably the problem is they'd have had to put in their own money rather than the tax-payers......................

Completely agree with your points. It seems the norm that BAE acquired assets then in effect asset strips them and then shuts them down rather than having a long term plan to develop and enhance their product line.
They also have a reputation of being highly arrogant with potential customers. Added to that they have a reputation of being extremely expensive.
It is no wonder that they are experiencing a rapid slow down in aircraft orders and as usual it is their workers who bear the brunt with their jobs.

[Heathrow Harry]

I ssupectthey'd like to get out of thee aircraft development & building business long-term. The big profits in the aerospace business are in studies, R&D and making bits for other people

Just look at the annual "Flight" numbers on large companies - people in avionics make 20% a year, airframers about 7%

[Nige321]

How much is a T2?

Seems like the right answer for all the wider reasons to have the Reds showcasing the UK.

Surely the delta costs of supporting 10 more T2 on top of the current fleet would be far less than introducing a whole new aircraft?

Is it easy to give the T2 smoke?

So how much is a Hawk?

Chatter elsewhere about the likes of the Daily Fail setting up a Buy British fund and financing them publicly...
Would you get 12 for the price of 10?

I also remember a story in Flight(?) ages ago at BAe looking at a Hawk T1.5 for another countries aerobatic team, (Saudi?) a T2 airframe without some of the unused avionics?

[Just This Once...]

Pretty well all military aeroplanes are developed using customer money, for the simple reason that thge development costs are so huge that the risk/return equation just doesn't add up.

Which is an interesting point when discussing the Hawk as, in many ways, it was an aircraft developed by the company rather than with/for first-customer money. I would argue the the Hawk's success was built on this forward-thinking premise rather than the RAF writing a brilliant requirements set. Whilst meeting the RAF requirements was clearly in mind (although in truth the customer was not sure what it wanted) the company chose to design, manufacture and support a far more capable aircraft at an attractive price.

Even with hindsight there is very little I would change about the Hawk, other than the engine. I understand why they went with the 'safe' option but the aircraft would have been better served with the 199. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Designing something ahead of customer demand still lives on (just) and has given us Predator & Reaper.