Learn to fly at Leeming

[Beancountercymru]

“ A continuing shortage of capacity in its flying training organisation has led the UK's Royal Air Force (RAF) to return to training pilots on Hawk T1 aircraft, three years after it retired the analog cockpit-equipped jet from this role.

Later this year, the RAF will begin training fast jet pilots at RAF Leeming in North Yorkshire using Hawk T1 aircraft from 100 Squadron, which is normally tasked with flying dissimilar or aggressor training missions.

An RAF spokesman told Jane's on 21 January, "100 Squadron is not being re-roled and will continue to deliver operational training and dissimilar air combat training. However, as one of several innovative measures, the RAF is planning to use spare Hawk T1 capacity in the squadron to assist with pilot training. This will maximise throughput to the front line while the Military Flying Training System [MFTS] continues to grow."

An RAF source confirmed to Jane's that approximately six pilots a year would be trained at RAF Leeming from "this summer".

The Hawk T1 variant entered RAF service in 1976 but was retired from the advanced fast jet pilot training role in June 2016 with the disbandment of 206 (Reserve) Squadron at RAF Valley on the Welsh island of Anglesey. All UK advanced pilot training then migrated to the 'glass' cockpit-equipped Hawk T2 at RAF Valley.

Hawk T1s were retained in the dissimilar and operational flying training role with 100 Squadron and 736 Naval Air Squadron at Royal Naval Air Station Culdrose in Cornwall. The RAF Red Arrows aerobatic team also operates the T1.

The UK expects its fleet of some 80 Hawk T1s to be retired by 2030. Just under half of the fleet is used on a daily basis, with the rest held in a spares and maintenance pool.

The RAF source said 100 Squadron's aircraft were being used for fast jet training because of a recent surge in recruitment.”




https://www.janes.com/article/85879/raf-brings-back-fast-jet-training-on-hawk-t1

[unmanned_droid]

'Innovative'.

Utter balls.

[MPN11]

'Innovative'.

Utter balls.
Crisis Management might be a better phrase.

[sharpend]

Well I learnt to fly at Leeming in 1965

[fantom]

Well I learnt to fly at Leeming in 1965

1966 for me and 42 years of pretty good living.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

If only we had access to a large multi-national fast jet training program somewhere in North America, for NATO pilots.....

[camelspyyder]

206(R) Sqn is not correct. They are still currently the Heavy Aircraft Test Sqn, AFAIK.

[andrewn]

206(R) Sqn is not correct. They are still currently the Heavy Aircraft Test Sqn, AFAIK.

Clearly a typo. 208 was the last Hawk T1 training squadron at Valley, disbanded with undue haste not much more than a couple of years ago if I recall.

As for the blurb, replace "innovative" with "desperate" and I suspect you are getting closer to the truth! Really worrying thing is that the day is getting ever closer when the RAF simply wont have the capacity for even these innovative measures.

[Nige321]

Well someone's interested...
Freedom Of Information (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hawk_tmk1_in_the_air_support_rol)

Dear Ministry of Defence,1.
Can the Department confirm its plans for the use of Hawk Tmk1 in the Air Support Role out until the end of FY27/28?
This specifically requests clarity be given wrt the following areas:
736 Naval Air Squadron (NAS),
100 Squadron (Sqn) and The Red Arrows.
Key questions are as follows:
a. Clarify its position wrt any decision to extend 736 NAS operating the Hawk Tmk1 in the Air Support Role for an additional 18 months (iro November 2021).
Please comment on TUPE considerations relating to contractor staff (Babcock), and FTRS aircrew.
Please provide details of any IAC submission placed, including option submitted, in late 2018 along with the findings, recommendations and decisions.
b. What effect, if any, would an extension of 736 NAS have on the Forward Available Fleet (FAF) for 100 Sqn from April 2020, and what risk to the FAF in FY26/27 due to the depth fleet capacity to support requirements?
Response to include the planned depth phase flow by aircraft serial numbers, intended use across the Hawk Tmk1 community and numbers of aircraft at unit level out until the end of FY26/27.
c. What is the latest position on the current HIOS contract with BAE Systems wrt Hawk Tmk1 support?
Please provide aircraft serial numbers, planned maintenance phase flows, airframe hours of ALL remaining aircraft by serial number, and projected end of fatigue life for each airframe.
d. What is the status of the HIOS contract for the period April 2020 onwards?
Please provide all non-commercial in confidence details.
e. What is the current disposition of the Hawk Tmk1 fleet numbers, maintenance phase flows, airframe hours of ALL remaining aircraft by serial number, and projected end of fatigue life for each airframe.
f. What is the funded Annual Flying Task (AFT) position for Hawk Tmk1 for 736 NAS, 100 Sqn and The Red Arrows each year out until the end of FY26/27 or disbandment, if earlier.
g. What is the breakdown of AFT allocated against each Hawk Tmk1 user in sub-para f?
For example, out of 4,200hrs on 100 Sqn, how much is for:
Close Air Support (CAS), Air-to-Air Adversary Training, Refresher Training/Conversion, Crew Continuation Training, Air Exercise Programme and Defence Engagement?
For 736 NAS this could include Maritime Trials, Adversary and Fighter Control Training.
2. Please direct as required through sS staffs, ensuring as a minimum the following areas act as respondents:Navy Comd – DACOS Av Staff
HQ Air – A7 Staff
HQ Air – 1Gp Hawk
DE&S – Hawk Fleet Manager
DE&S – Hawk In-service Delivery Manager Yours faithfully,

Robert Toland

[langleybaston]

Well I learnt to fly at Leeming in 1965

And I was attempting to provide your Met!

[chopper2004]

Well someone's interested...
Freedom Of Information (https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/hawk_tmk1_in_the_air_support_rol)

Rumor mill says that the Textron Airland Scorpion could be 736 NAS next mount.....
cheers

[pr00ne]

Clearly MFTS IS the bag o' nails many on here have been claiming for years.

Has a T-6 flown in mil marks at Valley yet? You know, one of the TEN they think is all they will need

chopper2004,

And an equally strong rumour has NO future at all for 736NAS post 2021...

[BEagle]

So if 6 pilots per annum are going to be trained on the Hawk T1 at Leeming, how/where will they do their weaponeering? Of course it was different when 4FTS was an AFS and all weaponeering was taught at TWU, but ever since the shotgun wedding of 'mirror image' and the ending of traditional TWUs, things are less clear. Particularly since all Valley weaponeering is now merely synthetic in nature.

Are these lucky 6 going to do some fast jet AFS at Leeming on the Hawk T1, then convert to the T2 to meet OCU entry requirements or will there be sufficient exponents of triggernometry to include a weapons phase at Leeming?

'tis indeed a crock - as those with any experience predicted it would be.

And how goes ME pilot training on the Phenom, assuming that there haven't been any more mid-air collisions?

I see MFTS is still trying to recruit BFTS instructors for Valley. What a surprise....:rolleyes:

[MPN11]

Whilst not a former pilot, I understand enough from my years of service to say ... What a bloody FARCE!!

[Warren Peace]

So if 6 pilots per annum are going to be trained on the Hawk T1 at Leeming, how/where will they do their weaponeering? Of course it was different when 4FTS was an AFS and all weaponeering was taught at TWU, but ever since the shotgun wedding of 'mirror image' and the ending of traditional TWUs, things are less clear. Particularly since all Valley weaponeering is now merely synthetic in nature.

Are these lucky 6 going to do some fast jet AFS at Leeming on the Hawk T1, then convert to the T2 to meet OCU entry requirements or will there be sufficient exponents of triggernometry to include a weapons phase at Leeming?

'tis indeed a crock - as those with any experience predicted it would be.

And how goes ME pilot training on the Phenom, assuming that there haven't been any more mid-air collisions?

I see MFTS is still trying to recruit BFTS instructors for Valley. What a surprise....:rolleyes:


I reckon that it is just going to be, what used to be called, a "Fast Jet Lead In" course, with Donna Nook or Holbeach for Air to Surface firing and lots of free upper air with Linton closing.

The boys and girls who win the prize of doing this training will be taught be real RAF Fighter Pilots, not pensioners or civvy pilots from a time gone by.

Real, serving, blue suited, current people, with intimate knowledge of what the front line wants, without commercial pressures and more importantly, without the civvy PFI contract to provide a way to hide behind and weasel out of missed (not AWR) targets.

I saw a documentary last week, on the Paras, where the staff pointed out that they chop people on the basis that if they allow a poor or borderline student to pass, they might have to depend on that person in a real fight in a few months time. Their friends on the front line might have to depend on that person much sooner.

How can the instructors look their mates (or bereaved family) in the eye, if a poor quality candidate is allowed to go to battle and subsequently lets the side down?

I think that the same can be said for the current fad of civilian or FTRS(LC) aircrew teaching at 4FTS. Those guys are not going to war with a former student on their wing.

The RAF have a choice here, teach what the students need to know, or have them taught what the lawyers and beancounters agreed that MoD would pay for. Not even close to the same thing.

[Typhoondriver]

It gets better I'm told.....

- The first guy arriving directly on the Typhoon OCU direct from Linton
- The first guy doing the entirety of his pilot trg in the synthetic environment, presumably straight onto Typhoon / F-35

Does make you wonder what desperate state of MFTS affairs is driving this 'innovation'....

Then again, I've heard that some VSOs are privately briefing that the only part of the UK Flying Training System that isn't completely and utterly FUBAR'd is the one that operates a legacy aircraft, at a soon to be extinct riverside location.

National Audit Office report to come, shaming MFTS, some might hope........

[The B Word]

BEagle

To answer your questions.

1. EFTS started last year on the Prefect about a year ago.
2. Rotary training for ab initios started last week (hybrid courses finishing off those that did not get a chance to finish on Squirrell finished just before Christmas on the Jupiter/Juno).
3. Phenom ab intio course starts in February 2019.
4. T2 training has been going on now for several years.
5. Texan got it’s military release to service at the end of 2018 and is still on track to replace Tucano later this year.
6. The T1 training and ENJPTS training are needed for the uplift of Typhoon squadrons announced in SDSR2015 that UK MFTS was not originally supposed to provide for. Plus the build up of Lightning II increases the ‘thirst’ for baby FJ pilots.
7. Some multi pilots have been outsourced to a large commercial provider - again due to the run on of C130J, the purchase of P-8 and possibly some other ISTAR assets needing to grow.

I am the first to agree that the introduction of UK MFTS has been a bit of goat at times, but it is definitely starting to ‘fire on all cylinders’. There are also enhancement options in the pipeline to help cope with the extra demands of the SDSR2015 announcements. New training systems nearly always have teething issues and the introduction of new aircraft from unplanned defence reviews enhance the effect of the teething issues. But, continually sniping at a system I would suggest shows what little you know about capabilities introduced 20 years after you left the Service - Hunters and Gnats with practice bombs, rockets and guns would not prep our people for 4th and 5th generation combat aircraft!!! Also, please give those that are involved in training the next generation of the RAF some credit that they might actually know what they are doing, rise to the challenge and come up with fixes like every person has involved in RAF flying training for the past 100 years.

The B Word

[andrewn]

I am as confused as the next person about this "innovative" solution. Clearly the trend, in both training and operational flying, is for less and less actual flying with the synthetics picking up the slack.

On that basis the decision to bring back Hawk T1 from the dead kind of defies belief! In Beagle's defence it does kind of feel like the RAF IS rolling back the years with this, and as another poster said, just introducing a legacy hoop in the system.

So why are we doing it? Why cant the 28 Hawk T2s at Valley cover this requirement? I dont think the shortage is airframes, so it must be either teaching staff or maintenance issues, or something else?

Or are the naysayers on here right, is the quality of throughput from the highly synthetic training just not up to scratch and the RAF is effectively running a side by side trial??

[Warren Peace]

It gets better I'm told.....

- The first guy arriving directly on the Typhoon OCU direct from Linton
- The first guy doing the entirety of his pilot trg in the synthetic environment, presumably straight onto Typhoon / F-35

.

That's nonsense.

The Typhoon OCU would not accept a student who has not flown enough hours in a Hawk or similar type. I can see how our (non typhoon) NATO Allies might be able to send a Pilot to learn how to fly the Typhoon, without having gone to Valley, but only if they have been flying something else with similar performance. Without having flown either, I think I am on safe ground to declare that the Tucano is not of similar performance to a Typhoon.

No fast jet OCU would accept a trainee Pilot who has not left the ground under his own control.

[pr00ne]

Warren Peace,

Whilst in no way wishing to defend the bag 'o ****e that MFTS has clearly turned out to be, I think your rather hysterical rant is rather deflated by the fact that 75% of the instructors at 4 FTS RAF Valley ARE real, serving, blue suited current people....

[pr00ne]

The B Word,

All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?"

[The B Word]

The B Word,

All fine and dandy, but how does your spin of positivity deal with the fact that IOT intake of pilots has been decreased from 120 to 20 a year to "cope with MFTS flow through?"

it wasn’t 120 it was more than that (not including RPAS Pilots) and for the next 12-24 months intakes have been halved - not the 20 you quote. The reason for slowing the intake is because there are quite a few holding at various points in the pipeline. Think of the pipeline as a sausage machine producing various types of sausages - if you keep putting in the sausage meat and the various sausage finishing facilities are all not delivering 90% or more then the sausage meat hopper starts to build up. That is what has happened. As we all know the various parts of the new MFTS pipeline has had challenges in starting on time and delvering the planned capacity (that is thankfully now changing), but the effect has meant the hoppers are full for now so reducing to about 50% is the right thing to do - we would rightly be highly critical if the RAF didn’t.

As for the T1 I believe they are going to use the slots for creamies, skimmies and GR4 WSOs on crossovers to pilot. If that is correct, then again it is the right thing to do.

Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.

[Onceapilot]

there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.

Yep. From the outside, the fake news is that the RAF has a flying training system! :eek:

OAP

[Typhoondriver]

Sorry to sound a bit ‘preachy’ but there is a lot of fake news on this thread which is unhelpful.


Is it fake news that the system at Valley have introduced a process which has colloquially become known as 'zero'ing'? My understanding is that 'zero'ing' allows MFTS to continue to graduate courses on time, in order to get paid. The fact that these courses, I am told, have 'zero' students on them, yet the company still gets paid, is quite frankly astonishing.

Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds?

Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard?

[The B Word]

Typhoondriver

Sounds like fake news, or half-truth, to me within a variety of your questions. For instance I know there are changes to the T2 syllabus upcoming that the FL asked for...:cool:

Look, I’m not saying MFTS is sweetness and light, but it is what it is and it is unlikely to change - so we can either all carp about “the good old days” (which in my experience had some big plus points but some significant negatives as well), or we can just move along and get it working. Don’t forget that MFTS was designed around 2006ish and then there was SDSR2010 that axed a load of capability and aircrew trg requirement (MRA4, Harrier, some Tornados, early draw downs of other types as well), then, for the first time in my lengthy time in the service a growth under SDSR2015 plus also Typhoon/Hawk sales with training requirements thrown into the mix. Here is SDSR2015 in brief:

Typhoon. We will create two additional front-line squadrons from our existing fleet and extend Typhoon in service to 2040.

F-35 Lightning. We will buy 138 F-35 Lightning aircraft over the life of the programme. We will buy some of these aircraft more quickly than previously planned, creating an additional front-line squadron by 2023.

ISTAR. More than doubling the number of armed remotely piloted air systems and increasing the number of crews under the Protector programme to replace Reaper. Investing in a fleet of nine Boeing P-8 Maritime Patrol Aircraft with an overland surveillance capability. Extending Sentinel in service until 2021. Upgrading E-3D Sentry, extending it in service until 2035, and increasing the number of crews. Expanding the Shadow fleet, with a corresponding uplift in the number of crews, and extending it in service until at least 2030. Extending Rivet Joint in service until 2035 and increasing the number of crews.

Air Mobility. Completing the introduction to service of 22 A400M Atlas tactical and heavy lift aircraft and 14 Voyager air-to-air refuelling and transport aircraft. Upgrading 14 C-130J Hercules aircraft and extending them in service. Upgrading the Chinook battlefield helicopter.

Military Flying Training. We will expand the capacity of the Military Flying Training System to meet the demands of the increased training demand.


Now the last bit of SDSR2015 is the interesting bit for this thread. There has been no enhancement so far to the UKMFTS fleet and what is currently being rolled out is still the same numbers for the requirement set for SDSR2010 - ie. 23x Prefect, 10x Texan, 5x Phenom, 28x EC135 Juno, 3x EC145 Jupiter and the previous 28x T2s. I am unaware of any addition so far to the fleet, but I understand the SDSR2015 increase is under starters orders (a bit late in my humble opinion) that will see additional numbers of airframes added to the extant ones. There is also the CPL/IR outsource activity that is helping increase capacity plus now we have 100 Sqn T1s and ENJJPT T-38Cs helping with that capacity. All this extra activity is broadening the output and feeding the demands of the OCUs and the FL for the SDSR2015 growth; as I said before, were the activity not going on then I would agree that something should be done, but it is, and a lot more than what people are bemoaning about on here.

As ever, everything needs to be looked at with a little less myopia and “Daily Mail” outrage then the challenges, issues and ways-ahead make a bit more sense!

[Warren Peace]

Is it fake news that the system at Valley have introduced a process which has colloquially become known as 'zero'ing'? My understanding is that 'zero'ing' allows MFTS to continue to graduate courses on time, in order to get paid. The fact that these courses, I am told, have 'zero' students on them, yet the company still gets paid, is quite frankly astonishing.

Is it fake news that the syllabus at Valley cannot be changed by the military staff, since the 'courseware' is 'owned' by the company? Meaning, hypothetically of course, that should one of the Frontline OCUs request a minor Hawk syllabus change iot better prepare students for the demands of their FL conversion, that it can be denied on commercial grounds?

Is it fake news that students who are assessed not to have met Valley 'end of course' standard by their experienced military IPs, can no longer be chopped due to the small print in the commercial contract? Has the military lost control of it's flying training standards, resulting in individuals arriving on the FL OCUs being well below the desired course entry standard?

I would add to that list of questions:


How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe?

Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making.

How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have?

Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway.

[Warren Peace]

Warren Peace,

Whilst in no way wishing to defend the bag 'o ****e that MFTS has clearly turned out to be, I think your rather hysterical rant is rather deflated by the fact that 75% of the instructors at 4 FTS RAF Valley ARE real, serving, blue suited current people.... I'm not hysterical, except with laughter. Let's take away the limited commitment guys, and the senior officers who just write reports and oversee (joke) the ascent process. Count the number of people actually teaching, who would be expected to go to Typhoon or F35 after they complete their current tour as a QFI at Valley.

You seem to be in the know, what is the ratio of instructors who are going somewhere : instructors who will never do operational flying again?

[The B Word]

I would add to that list of questions:


How many actual (real people) student pilots (not QFIs for internal 4FTS/Ascent use0 have graduated from Valley since this contract began? How many were supposed to have graduated in that timeframe?

Since we are dealing with a civvy business, lets use their terminology. This is about making Widgets, not making desks for Widget makers to sit at, not making tools for Widget making.

How many students have they sent to Coningsby, and how many should they have?

Zero Loaded courses sounds like the operation was a success, but the patient died anyway.

Warren

The Valley output is, as I understand it, about what was planned for SDSR2010 - as I said above, the SDSR2015 increase in capacity is still to deliver. However, you are right that the numbers going to Typhoon and Lightning is not enough, but you need to go and have a look at how many RAF pilots there are on the average course size of 8 pilots - I’ll give you a clue, it’s normally less than half! Lots of other colours of uniform in the photos. Is that a fault of the RAF or its commercial partners - I would suggest it is not? :cool:

The fact that not enough are going to Typhoon and Lightning for the SDSR2015 increase in squadron numbers is exactly why measures like using the 100 Sqn T1 for more experienced pilots is being undertaken and the other measures like ENJJPT. Don’t get me wrong, the output from IV and 25 Sqns are not delivering 100% to plan (because real life is never perfect) but they are not far off from the statement of requirement demanded from SDSR2010 that is now working towards the requirement of SDSR2015 - being a pessimist myself they probably just about make that output for SDSR2020! :hmm:

Again, why the delay in getting spun up for a new output requirement? So let’s look at SDSR2015:

SDSR 2015 - released in Nov 15
Budget plan for any SDSR cannot start in the Financial Year (FY) so that means...
SDSR15 Budget - releases budget lines earliest Apr 16
However, the manpower requirements need to be worked out and recruited for as well so you start recruiting/ training...
SDSR15 Manpower Plan - releases in FY16/17.
If you start recruiting against SDSR 2015 the earliest you will see output from IOT (a 6 month course) against that requirement set in say mid-2016 is the first quarter of 2017.
You then need to start them on Flying Training - but hang on, 2017 is the year of the big MFTS changeover. So you can’t manage to train everyone because of early ‘teething troubles’. Delays, holds and backlogs start in the system as the system is not configured to deliver the numbers needed.
So you have to adjust your recruiting numbers in 2018 as the backlog has built up and the previous year’s training plan has not delivered 100%. You don’t want to cease recruiting like you did in 2011 as that leaves demographic issues and also making “on/off/on” decisions in recruiting is bad for any organisation.
Now you are in 2019, the extra equipment that you have ordered in 2017 is starting to be delivered (things like spare engines, etc...) and the early issues are ironed out then the system starts to give you a better output. However, the new aircraft needed are still some way off as they aren’t sitting around ‘on the shelf’, so these don’t come for a couple of years yet.
New solutions needed to assist - Outsourced training, use of other in-service assets and spare capacity with our Allies all help.
Then SDSR2020 changes the requirement all over again...:ugh:

Oh, and then BREXIT delivers ‘Global Britain’ requirements in the middle of this and we start selling Typhoons/Hawks to people that want training places to go with it. That further adds complexity and takes training places.

To me, this is the problem - the OODA loop of Defence Reviews, Procurement Cycles, Budget Cycles, Recruiting Timescales, Training Pipelines, Outflow Rates (end of engagement, medical and voluntary) and Political Shenanigans are so horribly mismatched that this becomes a classic ‘Penrose Staircase’:


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x375/image_c97142914487478e2b58fdd558327a1cfd08a960.jpeg


Then your Lords and Masters give you 31,750 people to manage all of this and more doing a similar amount of tasking and other stuff that you used to do with 40,000-odd. Then we wonder why things aren’t perfect!

[Timelord]

I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are.

I worked for a company providing a PFI service and I can honestly say that everyone that I worked with had the best interests of the RAF, not the company, at heart. Can that be said of MFTS?

[pr00ne]

The B word,

No need to apologise. If we are being suckered in with fake doom and gloom then it is good to have the other side explained.

Thanks for update on numbers.

[The B Word]

I think we are getting to the route of the problem here. Defence requirements change. Sometimes quite rapidly and drastically. Flying training pipeline is not rapid even when working perfectly. Add the time taken to change a commercial contract to the inertia in the pipeline and you have the situation in which we find ourselves. The only answer would be to have enough people and aircraft in the service to provide slack which can be taken up when things change but those days are long gone. As someone said, we are where we are.



Timelord, I think you have hit the nail on the head with that post. I have taken the liberty to highlight the most important word in my opinion. The rot set in when we tried to run our services as businesses since the late 90s. Look at the frequency of UK Defence Reviews since 1945:

1957 Defence White Paper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1957_Defence_White_Paper)
1966 Defence White Paper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1966_Defence_White_Paper)
1974 Defence White Paper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Defence_White_Paper) (also known as the Mason (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Mason) review)
1981 Defence White Paper (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_Paper) (also known as the John Nott (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Nott) review)
1990 Options for Change (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Options_for_Change)
Thanks to RAFEngO - DCS ‘94 to ‘96**
1998 Strategic Defence Review (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_Review)
Strategic Defence and Security Review 2010 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2010)
Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015 (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Defence_and_Security_Review_2015)
We went from 12 years down to 5 years without changing our processes and ways of working. Also, all the idiots that tried to use their MBAs in our Service have seen to systematically destroy things with an insane desire for efficiency and ‘lean’ (which has ripped out any flexibility and resilience we ever had). Also the rustication of Gps into FHQs have totally fragmented the Command function. So I’m really not that surprised that things have been bad in the Flying Training world in recent years - I don’t blame the commercial partners, who are businesses, I blame those that forgot we are a service and failed to make the case to remain so...politicians and senior leaders alike.

Gosh, that’s a bit bleak for a Sunday afternoon!

[RAFEngO74to09]

There were also the Defence Cost Studies "Mini-Reviews" of 1993-1996 which made sweeping changes in an ill-considered manner. Serving in MOD / HQ LC / HQ STC throughout that period, we never seemed to fully implement one plan before being told to move onto the next !
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199798/cmselect/cmdfence/138/13806.htm
I totally agree with the "it all started to go wrong when we tried to run a military service as a business" school of thought. I saw this at first hand when the MOD AMSO organization was destroyed to form HQ LC and people started talking about the "Chief Executive", "Line Managers" and "Budget Managers".

[The B Word]

EngO - I agree and we’re back to the ‘impossible staircase’ again!

[Timelord]

B Word and RAFEngo, I quite agree on the harm done by the misguided application of business thinking and processes to a military organisation. In my opinion more harm has been done by those in uniform pretending they are a business than by businesses providing a service that used to be in uniform!

[beardy]

Why cant the 28 Hawk T2s at Valley cover this requirement?

I understand there are fewer engines than airframes.

[Bigpants]

Does the RAF need more than 6 pilots this year?

Perhaps they should just bin 4FTS and Ascent and let 100 Sqn do all the fast jet training?

[drustsonoferp]

I understand there are fewer engines than airframes.
No. More engines than airframes in the fleet, though how many are physically at Valley and available is a slightly different question, KPI and more.

Engines are not really the issue.

[2 Fly]

The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.

The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week.

[Warren Peace]

The first two 'creamies' start T1 ground school at Valley later this month then onto the simulator in early March. A second pair of 'ab initios' will follow in the autumn. Only 4 students per year will be trained on the T1 stream initially and they will all go to the Typhoon force upon completion of flight training with 100 Sqn. I would have thought this would be a popular route with the students as they won't have to compete with pilots of partner nations for flying hours or suffer T2 availability issues. They will get to train on an operational Squadron.

The current system cannot generate enough T2s due to various issues. For example there were only 4 available one day this week.

In that case, why do we, did we, ever need the T2 if the Typhoon OCU can take people from T1 training?

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Err, Typhoon was taking people well before we had T2? Doesn't mean T2 doesn't better prepare them (not in a position to comment on that) but T1 students have managed plenty well enough in the past!

[just another jocky]

Then again, I've heard that some VSOs are privately briefing that the only part of the UK Flying Training System that isn't completely and utterly FUBAR'd is the one that operates a legacy aircraft, at a soon to be extinct riverside location.
.

Hmmm....Wittering isn't by a river nor soon to be extinct. :ugh: