ASDOT Contract chopped?

[air pig]

Looks as if the plan has been dropped for dis-similar ACT for the RAF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/19/defence-chiefs-ditch-contract-private-airforce-raf-train-against/

[Evalu8ter]

ASDOT was a lot more than just DACT; EW training for the RAF/RN and a lot of other facilities were "rolled up" to replace legacy capabilities such as 100 Sqn, 736 NAS and the Cobham Falcon 20s. There has been, IMHO, some very poor behaviours and dreadful requirements management from MoD. Doubtless "the conspiracy of optimism" has served a few individuals well in getting promoted and bailing out before this stage, but the ever moving goalposts and uncertainty about funding has dogged this project nearly from the start, with numerous revisions/recasts. The notion was sound, but the requirements ill-conceived (some would say bloated) and the credibility of some of the bidders to deliver what was required within the budget was being stretched mighty thin. Wait now for panic contract extensions to Cobham and, perhaps, a nice little contract to BAES for another tranche of Hawk T2s to replace 100, 736 and the Reds (and slip a few more in for MFTS perhaps to ease that clusterf*ck)…..A sad indictment all round of MoD's inability to contract out for complex services, and a blow to the concept of "Whole Force Approach".

[air pig]

ASDOT was a lot more than just DACT; EW training for the RAF/RN and a lot of other facilities were "rolled up" to replace legacy capabilities such as 100 Sqn, 736 NAS and the Cobham Falcon 20s. There has been, IMHO, some very poor behaviours and dreadful requirements management from MoD. Doubtless "the conspiracy of optimism" has served a few individuals well in getting promoted and bailing out before this stage, but the ever moving goalposts and uncertainty about funding has dogged this project nearly from the start, with numerous revisions/recasts. The notion was sound, but the requirements ill-conceived (some would say bloated) and the credibility of some of the bidders to deliver what was required within the budget was being stretched mighty thin. Wait now for panic contract extensions to Cobham and, perhaps, a nice little contract to BAES for another tranche of Hawk T2s to replace 100, 736 and the Reds (and slip a few more in for MFTS perhaps to ease that clusterf*ck)…..A sad indictment all round of MoD's inability to contract out for complex services, and a blow to the concept of "Whole Force Approach".

Twas ever thus when it comes to the MoD and contracting.

[Rheinstorff]

Twas ever thus when it comes to the MoD and contracting.

All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMG’s contracts of this scale. That’s not to say the requirement setting doesn’t rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. That’s how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I don’t agree with it, but it seems we’re stuck with it.

I know it’s fashionable to trot out the ‘MOD can’t contract for toffee’ mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) can’t contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if that’s even a thing) where it is due?

[Chris Kebab]

All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMG’s contracts of this scale. That’s not to say the requirement setting doesn’t rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. That’s how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I don’t agree with it, but it seems we’re stuck with it.

I know it’s fashionable to trot out the ‘MOD can’t contract for toffee’ mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) can’t contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if that’s even a thing) where it is due?
You sure? What are all those hundreds and hundreds (literally) of Commercial Officers doing at Abbey Wood then?

So at what value is a contract handed over from the MoD to the Cabinet Office, assuming you are correct.

[Just This Once...]

Even frontline commands are handcuffed to HMT - their delegated authority is capped at £100k. Even amounts below this may still have to be referred to HMT if they meet the ever-widening 'novel or contentious' limitations.

The big ticket items are all at the whim of HMT. Even when funded and approved HMT reserves the right to arbitrarily cut funding or delay programmes, even if this attracts additional costs down the line. HMT-induced delays are the biggest additional cost burden on the MoD (I guess they must have a similar death-grip on other government departments, but I have no direct knowledge). HMT-induced costs are always attributed to the MoD and, dutifully, the press follows the usual lines and heaps scorn on the MoD with an artificial belief that there are bunch of senior people in the MoD are moving money around as they see fit within a fixed budget. Even Urgent Operational Requirements have to laid before the Treasury and they don't even have to write a justification piece if they decide not to fund a requirement; a simple rejection will suffice with the operational risk remaining with operational commander.

None of this is new, it just gets overlooked.

[Warren Peace]

Even frontline commands are handcuffed to HMT - their delegated authority is capped at £100k. Even amounts below this may still have to be referred to HMT if they meet the ever-widening 'novel or contentious' limitations.

The big ticket items are all at the whim of HMT. Even when funded and approved HMT reserves the right to arbitrarily cut funding or delay programmes, even if this attracts additional costs down the line. HMT-induced delays are the biggest additional cost burden on the MoD (I guess they must have a similar death-grip on other government departments, but I have no direct knowledge). HMT-induced costs are always attributed to the MoD and, dutifully, the press follows the usual lines and heaps scorn on the MoD with an artificial belief that there are bunch of senior people in the MoD are moving money around as they see fit within a fixed budget. Even Urgent Operational Requirements have to laid before the Treasury and they don't even have to write a justification piece if they decide not to fund a requirement; a simple rejection will suffice with the operational risk remaining with operational commander.

None of this is new, it just gets overlooked.


While there may well be, probably is, truth in your comments, let's not rush to absolve everyone downstream from the repercussions of their decision making.

In the old world, there was much to be gained by sticking to the adage of look after the pennies etc.

Nowadays, we see so much waste that we become conditioned to it. I doubt that HM Treasury dictated the issue of wiggly greens and a Kevlar hat for everyone at basic training. That's more likely to have cost the service money as a result of awarding a supply contract to a former supplier, than to have enhanced operational capability through flexibility.

With such evidence of a reluctance to be prudent with the small change, it's no surprise that the Mandarins think that senior RAF Officers are unable to look after a large budget.

The farce of trainee aircrew holding for years, must be the best example of waste.

The RAF should take a lesson from the commercial world. Establish when (if) Valley will (might) be ready for students, recruit accordingly, and bin everyone in a hold, asap.

Curtail flying pay for people who have not flown for weeks, never mind months/years. Ensure that active aircrew are getting the hours they need to be really current, not just the minimum. Allocate enough staff to sections to be able to support the flying program, instead of this slash and burn approach to being the next guy who deserves a promotion for instigating cost savings by having people doing less.

[Rheinstorff]

You sure? What are all those hundreds and hundreds (literally) of Commercial Officers doing at Abbey Wood then?

So at what value is a contract handed over from the MoD to the Cabinet Office, assuming you are correct.
Just because they’re at Abbey Wood doesn’t mean they are owned by MOD. All commercial officers, who are the only ones with the delegations to sign contracts, are part of Crown Commercial Services.

[Just This Once...]

Curtail flying pay for those who have not flown for weeks?

I'd like to see your maths. Training pilots is expensive and we don't pay them particularly highly so retention is always a challenge. Pay them less and more will walk and your training bill soars. The entire cost of pilot RRP(Flying) is covered by the cost of training just 2 replacement pilots.

As for the 'waste' associated with the PFI for aircrew training, well just what made you think that any of the services thought that any of the costly PFIs were a good idea? Again, look towards the Treasury.

[Bob Viking]

I’m not going to address everything you said but I do have two points.

Firstly, flying pay has been called Recruitment and Retention Pay for years now. The powers that be are doing their level best to get rid of it but soon enough they may find the true meaning of the saying ‘no bucks, no Buck Rogers’. Maybe the RAF need to accept that pilots are a specialisation that need to be paid more than others of the same rank. There I said it.

Secondly, the RAF (and the Navy in their own way) got rid of loads of students back in 2010. Aside from the poor students that had their dreams crushed the whole episode left a very bitter taste across a far broader spectrum of people. It also left a bubble that worked its way through the system.

Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.

BV

[Rheinstorff]

The RAF should take a lesson from the commercial world.

Which bit? Carillion? Patisserie Valerie? HMV? Lehman Brothers? I could go on, but I imagine you get the point.

The ‘commerce is always right idea’ is wrong. I wish the world were as simple as it is in the minds of those who say ‘if only they just did this...’. Regrettably, much of our world is replete with interactive, not systematic complexity.

This will come as a blow to those who believe they know all of the factors that obtain, and also to those who believe all the factors are knowable. It just ain’t so. There is no simple binary cause-effect relationship in a lot of things, no algorithm that just requires a couple of numbers to be applied to it to get the invariably right answer.

That’s not to excuse waste, which people should be rightly concerned about and which does require people to be incentivised to avoid and sanctioned when they make an egregious mistake (Just Culture anyone?). However, don’t assume that just because something hasn’t worked well that the outcome was predictable at the point the decision was made.

[Warren Peace]

However, don’t assume that just because something hasn’t worked well that the outcome was predictable at the point the decision was made.

As the pages of pprune will show, this current farce at Valley not only could have been seen coming, it was discussed here.

[Pontius Navigator]

BV, noted.

FP is not the only specialist pay where people not directly in the appropriate billet continue to receive the pay. Addressing only the remark 'weeks ' would you remove pay from submarine crews for instance?

[Warren Peace]

BV, noted.

FP is not the only specialist pay where people not directly in the appropriate billet continue to receive the pay. Addressing only the remark 'weeks ' would you remove pay from submarine crews for instance?

When they are not at sea in a submarine, or about to go, yes.

[Warren Peace]

I’m not going to address everything you said but I do have two points.

Firstly, flying pay has been called Recruitment and Retention Pay for years now. The powers that be are doing their level best to get rid of it but soon enough they may find the true meaning of the saying ‘no bucks, no Buck Rogers’. Maybe the RAF need to accept that pilots are a specialisation that need to be paid more than others of the same rank. There I said it.

Secondly, the RAF (and the Navy in their own way) got rid of loads of students back in 2010. Aside from the poor students that had their dreams crushed the whole episode left a very bitter taste across a far broader spectrum of people. It also left a bubble that worked its way through the system.

Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.

BV




Bob, I quite agree that a Flt Lt Pilot should be paid more than a scribbly, or even an ATCO, but only while he's a Pilot. Not when he or she is doing an Ops job for 18 months, or holding while they get to try out for some other role having been chopped, or carrying a bag for some senior Thruster at High Wycombe.

As for the bubble working through the system, that's what's wrong just now. A cull is the best cure for that. I don't think those guys would actually have been ready to be QFIs, having done two tours, as they would not in fact have been trained, that's part of why they were culled.

The shortfall that will happen, will happen anyway. You can't go back and train people five years ago, so that you have their experience now.

So instead of letting the held up students work their way to the front line and be at a leaving point (in terms of time served or emotionally) after only one tour, why not train, in a reasonable timescale, the recent joiners, so that there is potential for getting a useful return of service from them?

[typerated]

I get the part of DACT where the opposition use bad guy tactics.
But For the 'D' part of DACT could the RAF save a few bob and write the phone number of Lakenheath and Leeuwarden on the Ops room desk address book?

[Davef68]

Is it any coincidence that we have faced a pilot and particularly a QFI shortage over the last few years? Those pilots would all have been well into their second and third tours by now.
Or just finished their pre-OCU hold!! :-)

[Davef68]

Looks as if the plan has been dropped for dis-similar ACT for the RAF.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2019/03/19/defence-chiefs-ditch-contract-private-airforce-raf-train-against/

Chopped or gone back to look for cheaper alternatives?

[frodo_monkey]

I get the part of DACT where the opposition use bad guy tactics.
But For the 'D' part of DACT could the RAF save a few bob and write the phone number of Lakenheath and Leeuwarden on the Ops room desk address book?

You think that doesn’t happen anyway?! Unfortunately you then have to give back sorties flying red air for the benefit of those you’re flying against (= less time rehearsing your own tactics in a climate of reduced flying hours). Unless you’re suggesting that our standard threats should be AMRAAM-firing US-made F-jets?

[typerated]

You think that doesn’t happen anyway?! Unfortunately you then have to give back sorties flying red air for the benefit of those you’re flying against (= less time rehearsing your own tactics in a climate of reduced flying hours). Unless you’re suggesting that our standard threats should be AMRAAM-firing US-made F-jets?

Who Knows? Might be Mirage 2000's MDBA MICA from next month!

No I appreciate the problem of simulating Red Air - and was being slightly tongue in cheek.

But also, replicating Red Air you do get flying time and also get to see the picture from the other side - bit like instructing.

Cheapest to just invite the Poles over to play!

[frodo_monkey]

Cheapest to just invite the Poles over to play!

With their Block 52 F16s?

[typerated]

Fair Call -You got me!

Was thinking Migs of course!

[Bob Viking]

I mean this in the most polite way possible but thank God you’re not in charge of manning!

Let’s say your plan of only paying flying pay whilst in a flying role came to fruition. How would you persuade any pilot to fulfil a ground based role if to do so would cause him/her an enormous pay cut?

Aside from promotion which requires, rightly or wrongly the need to complete ‘broadening’ jobs outside of the normal flying routine there are some ground based jobs that need the input of a pilot.

If an OC PSF (just an example that everyone can relate to) were able to deliver simulator training, provide aircraft SME inputs or teach ground school (as a few quick examples off the top of my head) then maybe your plan would have merit. I think the reverse is probably true but let’s not get into that right now.

Doctors who become consultants step away from the day to day routine of ward rounds etc to focus on the bigger picture. Would you pay them less because they spend less time in the ward? I hope you can understand my analogy.

Also, once again, it is not ‘flying pay’ and hasn’t been for years. RAF pilots do not get sector pay like an airline pilot based on the number of flights they partake in. Pilots receive RRP. A Flt Lt salary without RRP would not retain anybody who is a qualified pilot. Even the lowliest airline can beat that.

I’m sure I am coming across as precious to some people but since you brought up the civilian sector then think how the civilian sector treats pay. Individuals are paid appropriately for their experience. If there is demand then pay is good. Pilots are currently in huge demand in the RAF.

I know it is anathema to some but an individual who has received years of expensive training and possesses the unique skill sets of a military pilot needs to be remunerated correctly.

Before I get the ‘me, me, me’ banter I know that every trade can argue their own worth (ATC’ers are a great example) but I am a FJ pilot. I’ll stick to fighting my own battles for now.

BV

[orca]

A point raised earlier does warrant further investigation.

If one were to imaginatively and collaboratively amass all the DACT / affil requests from neighbouring Air Forces plus USAFE - you might find that mutual provision of Red Air would work. Savings made by not tasking F-5, early F-16 or (woeful) Hawk to do the job may even allow for a small uplift in CFT.

Of course - it would rely on everyone pulling their weight and adopting good behaviours.

I don’t subscribe to the view that providing Red Air is inherently bad. I agree that you need a fair share of Blue but with a bit of imagination you can get a lot out of a Red Air sortie.

Perhaps Air just needs to set up a Combat Air dating agency using the EAG which is a good 12metres from the front door.

[Warren Peace]

Bob Viking:

Pilots are currently in huge demand in the RAF.

Well maybe, just maybe if the omni-shambles of Ascent and all the others with a finger in that pie, hadn't made such a pig's ear of producing them in recent years...


When you eat the seedcorn, you are going to be hungry soon.

[GeeRam]

Which bit? Carillion? Patisserie Valerie? HMV? Lehman Brothers? I could go on, but I imagine you get the point.

Indeed.
I would go as far as to say, that the RAF should indeed take a lesson from the commercial world, and that is don't blindly follow it!

[tucumseh]

Bob V

Good posts.

20+ years ago I was on a course. Guest speaker was DG (Finance). He called for debate on the latest proposal from the Treasury that unless one was 'current' in one's chosen profession, then you should be out on your ear. All 24 of us had to argue the case, one way or the other.

To his surprise, 23 thought it bollix, the only disenter being a Naval Architect. ('Nuff said). Many were pilots, and I recall one making your point. He'd been a Commander RN for a couple of years, no longer flew regularly (but often enough), and had been posted to Merlin to provide piloty expertise. And very good he was too. I was a bum airframe/electrical fitter trained on thermionic valves, and wasn't up to date on digital circuit design, but that didn't make me a bad project manager. And so on. The last guy was Director Special Projects, a Brigadier and lately CO Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment). He agreed with us, but added, 'I'm just a grunt infantryman, trained to kill. I'm current'. DG(Fin) went quiet and said goodbye. Never heard any more about it. But you do get these beancounter-esque suggestions now and again.

[orca]

Wonderful bit of logic.

We acknowledge that only folk with your skill set can do your job - we should know, we wrote the spec. However, because you’re adding value, but not doing the specific activity that made you valuable, we are going to reduce your package. Based on single digit millions to train you and a saving of approx £20 a day we will plan on saving siro 0.1% of the cost to train you per annum. There is a risk that some will outflow but so long as this is below 1 in a thousand our maths stands. We expect you to be happy and remain in the organisation until pension point which we’ve just moved further away.

[BVRAAM]

ASDOT was a lot more than just DACT; EW training for the RAF/RN and a lot of other facilities were "rolled up" to replace legacy capabilities such as 100 Sqn, 736 NAS and the Cobham Falcon 20s. There has been, IMHO, some very poor behaviours and dreadful requirements management from MoD. Doubtless "the conspiracy of optimism" has served a few individuals well in getting promoted and bailing out before this stage, but the ever moving goalposts and uncertainty about funding has dogged this project nearly from the start, with numerous revisions/recasts. The notion was sound, but the requirements ill-conceived (some would say bloated) and the credibility of some of the bidders to deliver what was required within the budget was being stretched mighty thin. Wait now for panic contract extensions to Cobham and, perhaps, a nice little contract to BAES for another tranche of Hawk T2s to replace 100, 736 and the Reds (and slip a few more in for MFTS perhaps to ease that clusterf*ck)…..A sad indictment all round of MoD's inability to contract out for complex services, and a blow to the concept of "Whole Force Approach".


Hey mate,

I discussed this with TD when he was then the T1/T2 Requirements Manager (I think I remember telling you?) and he said the T2 wasn't suitable for the kind of flying the Reds do - it's not aerobatic enough, apparently. Perhaps because it's considerably heavier? I don't know.

I quite like the jet AERALIS are designing and that might be more attractive for the Reds in 2035.

[Evalu8ter]

BVRAAM,
Maybe, but beggars can’t be choosers. An amended display is better than no display, and bean counters would doubtless resist another type on the books purely to display (unless it was very cheap........).

[Lima Juliet]

Hey mate,

I discussed this with TD when he was then the T1/T2 Requirements Manager (I think I remember telling you?) and he said the T2 wasn't suitable for the kind of flying the Reds do - it's not aerobatic enough, apparently. Perhaps because it's considerably heavier? I don't know.

I quite like the jet AERALIS are designing and that might be more attractive for the Reds in 2035.

Nothing to do with TD now working for Aeralis, surely? :ok:

[Harley Quinn]

The AERALIS thing looks rather like an ugly duckling, it's going to need a lot of treasure to become a swan.

[BVRAAM]

I just can't see how it's going to make any sense whatsoever to kit out three squadrons with T2's when there are the wrong end of 400 pilots in various stages of holding, due to a lack of assets, simulators and staff.......

The ultimate kick in the teeth and as taxpayers we shouldn't support it.

[orca]

Does anyone know how much of a factor RAFAT was/ is in the ASDOT story?

[Evalu8ter]

BVRAAM,
The "sense" is that unless those aircraft are replaced, there will be a significant capability gap. Only a fraction of the 100/736 task is DACT; much of it is in providing specialist training to maritime and army units - ie JFAC / Thursday War training. They already cannot cope with demand, and elements are contracted out to civil companies operating surrogate aircraft through a number of somewhat ad hoc arrangements. If 100/736 and Cobham 2020 are not replaced by ASDOT then something will need to be purchased by MoD or a de-scoped "ASDOT-lite" will need to be worked up - quickly. Assumptions about Hawk T1 airframe life will have been made, no doubt, with ASDOT as a key factor. Buying a second batch of T2s is good industrially for the UK (one reason why, as taxpayers, we should support it), and another, say, 40 or so jets should be enough to re-equip 100/736 and RAFAT (again, showcasing the current jet for potential exports) - probably leaving a small number that could be used to surge MFTS if required (assuming they can get enough RAF QFIs to stay or enough civvies to move to Valley). That would leave a small, specialised, Gen 4 / 4.5 DACT task which could be re-competed at a later date with T1 Typhoons filling the gap.

[NutLoose]

Firstly, flying pay has been called Recruitment and Retention Pay for years now. The powers that be are doing their level best to get rid of it but soon enough they may find the true meaning of the saying ‘no bucks, no Buck Rogers’. Maybe the RAF need to accept that pilots are a specialisation that need to be paid more than others of the same rank. There I said it.

BV

Hi Bob


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/440x550/gil_gerard_buck_rogers_in_the_25th_century_u_l_pjt5wc0_1a869 abb929349df9df6a96b13a8ec7928481233.jpg

[BVRAAM]

What will be the exact role of the newly formed 12(B) Sqn and soon to be formed IX Squadron at Coningsby and Lossie, respectively?

I read on Faceache just now that apparently they are both going to be Red Air Squadrons, with 12 having the additional commitment of providing support to the Qataris while they get established with the Typhoon.

When SDSR15 was published, and it was announced that Tranche 1 Typhoons would be retained for air defence, I was under the impression this would be for QRA purposes, since they don't possess any A-G kit that I know of.
I don't remember reading they would be used as Red Air assets for the Typhoon frontline.

Will they be deployable or are they home commitment only?

[kkbuk]

When they are not at sea in a submarine, or about to go, yes.

Then in a very small period of time you would have submarines but no crews for them.

[Rhino power]

When SDSR15 was published, and it was announced that Tranche 1 Typhoons would be retained for air defence, I was under the impression this would be for QRA purposes, since they don't possess any A-G kit that I know of.

All Typhoons have air-to-ground capability, with the Tranche 1 Typhoons it was introduced at Block 5 and was the 'austere' capability which included integration of Litening III and Paveway II / Enhanced Paveway II, the later Tranche 2/3 jets had additional weapons integration and improved capabilities which were not available to the Tranche 1 jets...

-RP

[pr00ne]

All commercial officers belong to the Cabinet Office and it is they, not MOD, that let HMG’s contracts of this scale. That’s not to say the requirement setting doesn’t rest with MOD, but even that has to be agreed by the commercial types and can be changed by them. That’s how you exert central fiscal authority in the UK these days. I don’t agree with it, but it seems we’re stuck with it.

I know it’s fashionable to trot out the ‘MOD can’t contract for toffee’ mantra, but in truth MOD (literally) can’t contract at all in this case.

Credit (or discredit if that’s even a thing) where it is due?


Rheinstorff,

You are wrong in your understanding of how Commercial Officers operate in Government. The element of the Cabinet Office that you refer to, the Crown Commercial Service or Government Commercial Office does not "take over" procurement contracts, it merely acts as a sort of licensing authority for Commercially qualified staff, this has been at SCS and Grade 6 up until now and is now being extended down to Grade 7. All this means is that to continue to operate you must have passed a Cabinet office assessment day. Once you have passed this you are permanently allocated to a Government Department or Ministry in the relevant Commercial Directorate, which ALL Government Departments have, over 300 alone in the Home Office and the same number in the MoJ for instance. These Commercial Directorates then have Commercial Officers embedded in the various operating divisions and functional areas who carry out normal commercial functions, procurements, competitions and contract management being the main areas of operation. These folk have delegated authority of up to £100m and a lot higher in some areas. They carry out ALL aspects of procurement, the Cabinet Office does not, it merely provides a series of Framework Contracts through which usually quite small procurements are carried out, the bulk of Government procurements being under £5m. Anything strategically sensitive or of the multi Billion range is managed by the same process but with a sign off by Ministers, if it is particular sensitive then it will have the PM as sign off, after the Secretary of State for the Department has signed it off.

[andrewn]

What will be the exact role of the newly formed 12(B) Sqn and soon to be formed IX Squadron at Coningsby and Lossie, respectively?

I read on Faceache just now that apparently they are both going to be Red Air Squadrons, with 12 having the additional commitment of providing support to the Qataris while they get established with the Typhoon.

When SDSR15 was published, and it was announced that Tranche 1 Typhoons would be retained for air defence, I was under the impression this would be for QRA purposes, since they don't possess any A-G kit that I know of.
I don't remember reading they would be used as Red Air assets for the Typhoon frontline.

Will they be deployable or are they home commitment only?

RP is correct about the T1 Typhoons. Regards your other Q's I'd say the situation regards numbers of additional Typhoon squadrons and the role(s) of each of those sqn's is still "fluid". For example there has been talk of 3 additional Typhoon sqn's - the two Red Air / QRA sqns (IX + 1) as well as 12 Sqn (Qatar), however that seems to have been scaled back more recently to being just IX (Lossie) and 12 (Coningsby), with 12 being a joint RAF/Qatar unit, in the early days at least.

I'm not "in the know" at all, but I'd imagine the current levels of overall manning, Typhoon Force manning and the training pipeline issues will all be impacting how quickly these additional sqns stand up (or if at all in the case of the 3rd Sqn), though on a positive note IX is clearly forming at Lossie as jets have been noted in the Sqn markings.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

So, what is happening now that ASDOT has been cancelled? Surely there’s a requirement to provide the capabilities that Cobham jets produce?

[pr00ne]

Extend the existing Cobham contract?

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Are they able to extend the contract? I’d have thought that the MOD would have wanted some fast air platforms to reduce the reliance/burden on Hawk and Typhoon doing it.

[Onceapilot]

Hi Bob


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/440x550/gil_gerard_buck_rogers_in_the_25th_century_u_l_pjt5wc0_1a869 abb929349df9df6a96b13a8ec7928481233.jpg

Hi NUTTY! I will have you know, my old mate, the real Buck Rogers tired of the RAF clusterfcuk and went to where the Buck$ are ages ago! :ok:

OAP

[Onceapilot]

BV. If I may say, some good posts earlier about specialist pay. :ok: Unfortunately, Military employment terms are soulless, and that extends to your employment at minimum cost, as much as your total expendability as circumstances dictate! :sad: I never found a branch that completely avoided the expendability bit but, the minimum cost thing is only really overcome by those joining within powerful cabales, such as Lawyers, Doctors, Dentists and Religious leaders! Cheers

OAP

[Lima Juliet]

I’m pretty sure that the Lawyers are paid the standard officer rates without any RRP. Just sayin’ :cool:

[Lima Juliet]

Warren Peace

When you eat the seedcorn, you are going to be hungry soon.

If you are referring to the WSO/WSOp for Poseidon, Protector and other ISTAR types then I fear you may be correct...:sad:

As ever the focus is always around the pilots when their brothers/sisters of the Aircrew gang are also starting to suffer the very same problems.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Given the parlous state of the training system, wasting assets on red air profiles doesn’t make much sense, especially when those assets can be used for actual training.

I think the USAF, USMC and USN have all gone down the route of contract red air especially in the form of fast jets.

[Bob Viking]

I’m not sure what you mean. Red Air profiles are training.

With regard to contracting out, it’s the same guys you need to fly your red air whoever they work for.

BV

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Flying Red Air is not training. It’s flying, yes, it’s not training. Moreover, if you use mostly contract Red Air then you aren’t using RAF pilots, who in turn can be flying blue air sorties or training students on the OCU (Typhoon).

[Bob Viking]

Please reread what I wrote. If you take the time I’m sure you’ll see what I mean.

Can you name any civilian red air provider who has not drawn from the ranks of the Air Force it supports?

If you can name me a company that trains red air pilots from scratch then I will gladly withdraw my criticism.

BV

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You are correct, there are no contract red air fast jet companies that train pilots from day 1. However, the number of pilots required for contract red air is probably not as many as you or I may think.

Equally, there are quite a number of pilots that have recently left or about to leave that are more than capable of filling these seats that the Service is losing anyway. This, coupled with the amount of money and assets thrown at providing Red Air I am sure it makes more economical sense to have contract Red Air.

[Bob Viking]

I’m not saying I disagree with the concept of a civilian red air provider. On the face of it, it seems to work In Canada with Top Aces. I just don’t think you should pretend that it will solve any manning issues.

BV

[flighthappens]

You are correct, there are no contract red air fast jet companies that train pilots from day 1. However, the number of pilots required for contract red air is probably not as many as you or I may think.

Equally, there are quite a number of pilots that have recently left or about to leave that are more than capable of filling these seats that the Service is losing anyway. This, coupled with the amount of money and assets thrown at providing Red Air I am sure it makes more economical sense to have contract Red Air.

it does to an extent. And whilst Cobham jets are pretty solid at some aspects of red air they are only going so fast and so high. They and 100Sqn should make up numbers not be primary red.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

BV,

I didn’t pretend in anyway that it was a solution to the manning issues. If you reread my comment slower then you’d understand. What I said was why waste a pilot and MDS providing RAF Fast Jet (FJ) Red Air when that pilot and MDS can be used on Blue Air or, in the case of an OCU, used to generate more training sorties. I found it quite a surprise that the Treasury/DE&S decided to pull the contract when the RAF is trying to grow its combat mass which attracts a concomitant increase in FJ Red Air requirement. This doesn’t even consider the RN whom also require this sort of service.

[Bob Viking]

I am very tired and have been traveling a long time. I feel like we are arguing the same point and I am confused.

Lets just agree to disagree. Or agree to agree. I really don’t know any more!

BV

[orca]

I disagree with the concept that a uniformed pilot RN or RAF in the Red Air role is ‘wasted’ and they could be flying Blue.

I know that you’ll always get the puddles of folk who don’t seem to move on - but circulation is on the whole healthy and probably aids retention; so long as it’s well managed, doesn’t foul your career and quarters are good...

If your Red Air people are uniformed you have the opportunity to keep them vibrant and fresh in roles other than the frontline (or whatever we’re calling constant QRA and Simulator time these days!!) If your Red Air work for a contractor - expect to lose folk to the contractor.

[BEagle]

The 527th at Alconbury did a pretty good job of 'Red Air' aggressor work back in the early '80s. Their F5s were hard to spot and very nimble - who remembers hearing "Tracking...tracking...Atoll...Atoll!". Tried to pull one up in the vertical once - and ended up with more AoA units than IAS. Oops!!

During my F-4 course, we had some DACT towards the end. The opposition were a pair of Hunters with 100 gallon tanks flown by 79 Sqn instructors versus our fatigue conserving g-limited Charlie fit jets. Oh how they chuckled!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I disagree with the concept that a uniformed pilot RN or RAF in the Red Air role is ‘wasted’ and they could be flying Blue.

I know that you’ll always get the puddles of folk who don’t seem to move on - but circulation is on the whole healthy and probably aids retention; so long as it’s well managed, doesn’t foul your career and quarters are good...

If your Red Air people are uniformed you have the opportunity to keep them vibrant and fresh in roles other than the frontline (or whatever we’re calling constant QRA and Simulator time these days!!) If your Red Air work for a contractor - expect to lose folk to the contractor.

Trust me, it’s wasted having people sat doing FJ Red Air; you simply cannot get the training required. If your metric is hours flown then sure. If your metric is capability, then it’s a waste. As I’ve already said, there is a constant stream of talented FJ pilots leaving anyway so they would be ideal candidates for contract Red Air.

[orca]

Trust you? No idea why I should do that.

Remember, if you’re not up against a representative war plane then no one’s training. You can get plenty of training out of a Red Air sortie.

If your people are leaving then you’re losing experience and capability. The fact that they’re leaving to fly for contractors when they might not have left if given a second line tour at the correct point is an issue.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

You’ve no reason to trust me. No you can’t get training out of flying Red Air other than airborne time itself which would be better served flying as Blue. You simply can’t get the required ‘ticks’ when flying Red Air. That’s not open for debate.

People are leaving, that’s the point, and of those people leaving they have been asking for follow on tours on the FL and are not getting them for various reasons; entirely valid reasons for the majority.

[flighthappens]

You’ve no reason to trust me. No you can’t get training out of flying Red Air other than airborne time itself which would be better served flying as Blue. You simply can’t get the required ‘ticks’ when flying Red Air. That’s not open for debate.

People are leaving, that’s the point, and of those people leaving they have been asking for follow on tours on the FL and are not getting them for various reasons; entirely valid reasons for the majority.




Trust me, it’s wasted having people sat doing FJ Red Air; you simply cannot get the training required. If your metric is hours flown then sure. If your metric is capability, then it’s a waste. As I’ve already said, there is a constant stream of talented FJ pilots leaving anyway so they would be ideal candidates for contract Red Air.


Red air is only a waste of a time if people are not thinking correctly. At present the threat has very similar capabilities to the 4th Gen Blue - mimicking red is certainly not “invalid”. There are plenty of core skills that can be practiced.

The point that you don’t get “ticks” merely serves to highlight some of the problems within a system that is that it driven by quantitative stats rather than qualitative assessment.

Flying Red also gives the opportunity for people to try things they wouldn’t normally do as blue which if flown correctly can increase their individual ability.

regardless if I have a choice up between a squadron that I have a role in having to fly a modest percentage of red air or getting an extra Cobham or some contractor job radar non EW ex trainer I know what I want. Guess what - It’s not the 0.8M hawk with no SA or 0.6M 20kft falcon.

lastly what percentage of people leaving want to step to Cobham over Middle East training / an airline job / somewhere like inzpire / city consultancy? I wouldn’t be relying on that to solve the brain drain.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Red air is only a waste of a time if people are not thinking correctly. At present the threat has very similar capabilities to the 4th Gen Blue - mimicking red is certainly not “invalid”. There are plenty of core skills that can be practiced.

The point that you don’t get “ticks” merely serves to highlight some of the problems within a system that is that it driven by quantitative stats rather than qualitative assessment.

Flying Red also gives the opportunity for people to try things they wouldn’t normally do as blue which if flown correctly can increase their individual ability.

regardless if I have a choice up between a squadron that I have a role in having to fly a modest percentage of red air or getting an extra Cobham or some contractor job radar non EW ex trainer I know what I want. Guess what - It’s not the 0.8M hawk with no SA or 0.6M 20kft falcon.

lastly what percentage of people leaving want to step to Cobham over Middle East training / an airline job / somewhere like inzpire / city consultancy? I wouldn’t be relying on that to solve the brain drain.

I would guess that you’ve not flown Red Air recently and/or correctly. You don’t ‘try something’ you normally wouldn’t as Blue because your are either cuffed for training purposes or you’re mimicking what the actual threat does. There are not plenty of core skills to practice because your shot doc is completely different, your shot ranges are different and manoeuvres are different.

I absolutely agree about your assessment of a quantitative vs qualitative system. Unfortunately, in my view, the hierarchy are seduced by number of hours flown vice quality of hours flown.

The ASDOT contract would have unlocked the door to more representative Red Air threats and not the Falcon or Hawk that you speak of.

Finally, neither you nor I are able to tell with certainty what percentage of pilots would switch to a contract Red Air company to fly fast jets rather than the options you listed. Anecdotally though, it’s a high percentage.

[Davef68]

SAAB might have some spare fighters looking for a use...

Fourteen white tail Saab GripensA small scandal is emerging within the Swedish Defence Industry. It was reported this week in the Svenska Dagbladet that the Försvarets MaterielVerk (FMV, Swedish Defence Material Adminsitration) had ordered fourteen more Gripen hulls with Saab AB just in order to keep the production line open. According to the given information ten of these hulls are JAS39C models and four JAS39D models.The Swedish Government agreed to this policy and were hopeful that the aircraft could have been exported to overseas customers, but an order never came in. Several, mainly eastern European countries, were approached in the past, like Slovakia, Romania, Bulgaria and Croatia, hoping those would buy the Saab JAS39C/D Gripen. But to no avail.The white tails, although "only" empty hulls, have cost the Swedish taxpayer a lot of money. FMV does not want to say the amount of money involved, but claims that these hulls have been budgeted for in the Gripen E contract.
https://www.facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/posts/2748254551867728

(https://www.facebook.com/Scramblemagazine/posts/2748254551867728)

[Foghorn Leghorn]

SAAB might have some spare fighters looking for a use...


Thumbs up!