Red Arrows are safe after Ministry of Defence plans to retire entire fleet of 76 Hawk

[alexhara]

The UK Ministry of Defence plans to retire its entire fleet of 76 Hawk T1 trainer aircraft. This leaves only 28 Hawk aircraft in British service, the T2 variant.
The Hawk T1 is the current Red Arrows aircraft, but for now their aircraft remains operational.
In fact, the team has a long history impact over the recent decades in the aviation fans not only in UK, but abroad. Red Arrows are team unit who inspire the next-generation of pilots and are a great source of national pride, so losing such incredible team will be loss for all UK just to spend £15m a year.

Source: https://aerobaticteams.net/en/news/i330/Red-Arrows-are-safe-after-Ministry-of-Defence-plans-to-retire-entire-fleet-of-76-Hawk-T1-aircraft.htm

[HEDP]

I'll bite. So if the Red Arrows are safe for now but the whole fleet of aircraft are being retired, what will they fly in the future?

[ORAC]

So, plenty of spare airframes, parts and engines able to be tucked away to keep the Sparrows flying for the next 30 years.....

Plus enough for someone to buy and use on a contract to provide aggressor and fleet support....

[GeeRam]

Perhaps they'll become the worlds first purely synthetic display team....... :E

[oldgrubber]

15m, Isn't that just the hotel costs :}

[HEDP]

So. If the Arrows are flying them, then they are not all being retired........

[paco]

They will use Zoom...

[ORAC]

So. If the Arrows are flying them, then they are not all being retired........
The BBNM is flying Spitfires, Hurricanes and a Lancaster, but they're not in RAF operational service.

But it will be the first time an RAF display team won't be using an aircraft in use by the RAF for operations or for training in over a hundred years (1920, Sopwith Snipes of the Central Flying School).

[Mil-26Man]

I thought one of the main points of the Red Arrows was to showcase British industry to the world and to drum up exports. Not sure what message it sends flying an aircraft that the RAF has binned.

[NutLoose]

The BBNM is flying Spitfires, Hurricanes and a Lancaster, but they're not in RAF operational service


Let me help you with that..

The BBMF is flying Spitfires, Hurricanes and a Lancaster, but they're not in RAF operational service........ Yet

:)

[Timmy Tomkins]

I thought one of the main points of the Red Arrows was to showcase British industry to the world and to drum up exports. Not sure what message it sends flying an aircraft that the RAF has binned.
You are in danger of using logic there Mil

[Out Of Trim]

Perhaps, the RAF can keep the all the Hawk T1A that were wired to carry 2 x Sidewinders. 🤔 :E

[Bob Viking]

Perhaps the RAF can keep the all the Hawk T1A that were wired to carry 2 x Sidewinders. 🤔 :E

For what possible reason?!

BV

[chevvron]

I'll bite. So if the Red Arrows are safe for now but the whole fleet of aircraft are being retired, what will they fly in the future?
2 seat Typhoons?

[chevvron]

I thought one of the main points of the Red Arrows was to showcase British industry to the world and to drum up exports. Not sure what message it sends flying an aircraft that the RAF has binned.
And which first flew 47 years ago and is now out of production.

[Out Of Trim]

For what possible reason?!

BV

Well, a T1A is not strictly a T1 is it? Then the Reds would still have some aircraft! ( It was just a tongue in cheek comment ). Not serious 🧐!

[Mil-26Man]

And which first flew 47 years ago and is now out of production.

Indeed, but my point is doesn't this undercut the case for having the Reds at all, unless a new in-service replacement (or one planned to be in service) can be found. The UK developed Aeralis seems an interesting prospect, and the MoD is certainly sniffing around with regard Tempest.They can't fly Hawk T1 forever.

[ORAC]

They can't fly Hawk T1 forever.
Well there will be a few Tranche 1 Typhoons available to replace them in a couple of years.....

[DuckDodgers]

Plus enough for someone to buy and use on a contract to provide aggressor and fleet support....

Plenty of more modern variants with less hours and landings available in addition to those other more capable platforms out there too!

[Just a spotter]

Simples, rationalise, switch to MQ-9A's, rebrand as the Red Reapers. Drones do formations really well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44KvHwRHb3A

:}
JAS

[Boeing Jet]

The Reds flew their first 9 ship formation today, look forward to seeing them flying over Lincolnshire for many more years to come!!

[Capn Bug Smasher]

I thought one of the main points of the Red Arrows was to showcase British industry to the world and to drum up exports. Not sure what message it sends flying an aircraft that the RAF has binned.

Don't the Blue Angels use bog standard Hornets instead of Super Hornets?

Not an argument in favour, merely an observation.

[NIREP reader]

Does this include the Boscombe Down based aircraft, RAFCAM/ETPS?

[Just This Once...]

Don't the Blue Angels use bog standard Hornets instead of Super Hornets?


No, they converted to the newer jet.


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/590x393/blue_angels_legacy_hornet_farewell_1_jpeg_4f9e79ce2e72eb0ff9 23a72b818b8211db8d4875.jpg

[bythebackdoor]

Don't the Blue Angels use bog standard Hornets instead of Super Hornets?

Not an argument in favour, merely an observation.
Not anymore, they're switching to Super Hornets this year.

[The Oberon]

The Reds flew their first 9 ship formation today, look forward to seeing them flying over Lincolnshire for many more years to come!!
Well I'm glad that you do, but if you live within a 10 mile radius of Scampton, for the past 2 years they have been a total pain in the rear. Roll on when they can go to Cyprus or Greece for their spring work up and give everyone a break.
Yes, I was here before they were and, yes, I did do 22 years on the much noisier V force.

[NWSRG]

Well there will be a few Tranche 1 Typhoons available to replace them in a couple of years.....

Was wondering that myself...is it a serious possibility? Would the extra hourly cost be outweighed by the benefit of not maintaining an additional type? (They could always lock off the afterburners to save fuel!)

[Valiantone]

Chances of the Tranche 1 Typhoons going to the Reds........:ugh::rolleyes:

Which part of retired by 2025, along with the Hawk T.1s did you miss. Still you could always sweep round a few scrappies for the remnants of the Tranche 1 Twins seaters. or the 3 used for GIAs and as for the Tranche 2s. If you Borrow the jet Warton use, you can make a 6 ship.

Anyway I thought the Reds having taken a lot of newer ex TWU airframes on means they have had the replacement wings, fuselage behind the cockpit and triggers broom adaptions

[H Peacock]

The Reds flew their first 9 ship formation today, look forward to seeing them flying over Lincolnshire for many more years to come!!

They’ve dragged that out then! I heard the only new member was the one at the very front, everyone else in the same position as last year!!

[Easy Street]

Well, a T1A is not strictly a T1 is it? Then the Reds would still have some aircraft! ( It was just a tongue in cheek comment ). Not serious 🧐!

Don't do yourself down, I think this might actually be the answer to the confusion over the announcement. Aren't the Reds aircraft all T1As? So the T1s are being retired, the T1As aren't, and the stockpile of T1 spares will keep the latter going into the 2030s?

[Trumpet trousers]

The Canadian Snowbirds seem to have been doing ok as the sole remaining operator of the Canadair CT-114 Tutor since 2000....

[NutLoose]

It’s a shame they didn’t bin the Reds at the same time, there might have been an uproar over the cuts in the media then.

[NutLoose]

So do you think they will now stand down 736 Naval Air Sqn and stand back up their predecessors FRADU and hand them their Hawks as a Civilian operation?

[TBM-Legend]

Don't the Blue Angels use bog standard Hornets instead of Super Hornets?

Not an argument in favour, merely an observation.


The Blues have transitioned to Super Hornets.

Why not give the Reds a dozen to be pensioned off Typhoons and represent the cutting edge and not the blunt side of the sword..?

[Thaihawk]

2 seat Typhoons?

What, all six of them?.

[Bob Viking]

The Canadian Snowbirds seem to have been doing ok as the sole remaining operator of the Canadair CT-114 Tutor since 2000....

Have they though? Really?

Remember the Snowbirds do not have an industry promotion remit.

BV

[Not_a_boffin]

So do you think they will now stand down 736 Naval Air Sqn and stand back up their predecessors FRADU and hand them their Hawks as a Civilian operation?

Decommissioning of 736 announced some months back and now imminent IIRC.

[GeeRam]

It’s a shame they didn’t bin the Reds at the same time, there might have been an uproar over the cuts in the media then.

Which is why they won't get binned, as while they exist, Joe Public are oblivious to the ever shrinking RAF....because all they 'see' is the Reds.

The RAF could shrink to the size of the Irish Air Corps, and the Reds would likely still survive...!

[Mil-26Man]

The Canadian Snowbirds seem to have been doing ok as the sole remaining operator of the Canadair CT-114 Tutor since 2000....

Not for long, the RCAF is looking to replace its wider training force under the Canadian Future Aircrew Training Programme (FAcT). Contenders include Leonardo's M-345, which the company is also pitching as a Snowbirds replacement. Suggest whichever platform wins, it will be the new mount for the Snowbirds.

[chevvron]

Maybe the plan is for BAe to build the M-345 under licence as a Hawk replacement?
Just asking; not a lot else going on at Warton at the moment is there?

[KPax]

I am sure a visit to the Shropshire rotary base will find plenty of Hawks and Tranche 1 Typhoons.

[mmitch]

Perhaps the Reds could become pat of an enlarged BBMF? They would need a bigger hangar though.....
mmitch.

[Union Jack]

Then there were regrettably only 75 as a result of https://www.pprune.org/military-aviation/639490-hawk-incident-near-culdrose.html

Jack

[XR219]

Meanwhile, six years ago, the Indian Air Force managed to find the funds to buy twenty new Hawk 132s for their aerobatic team...

[THJC]

I am pretty sure the Reds will be in the T1 until the Aeralis comes along. They do have plenty of spares now!

[Brewers Droop]

This thread is really disappointing. Usually by now someone has recommended bringing back the gnat, sopwith camel, shackleton.

[NutLoose]

Shame we got rid of the Hunter......

;)

[Stu666]

I understand that the replacement airframe for the Reds has already been made, but not yet announced; this would tie in with the announcement that ALL Hawk T1s will be gone by 2025.

Give us a clue...my money's on them cutting the number of pilots down to 6 and ordering more Texans.

[sangiovese.]

Give us a clue...my money's on them cutting the number of pilots down to 6 and ordering more Texans.

Prefer a Lion Bar over a Texan tbh

[NutLoose]

I understand that the replacement airframe for the Reds has already been made, but not yet announced; this would tie in with the announcement that ALL Hawk T1s will be gone by 2025.


https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/810x539/c_71_articles_173432_bodyweb_detail_0_image_691dfbfec2391cf2 90cdf647b9df304c4fa305a4.jpg

I was going to mention the red scooters but fuel cost savings and all that.

[treadigraph]

Brilliant Nutty, if you squint you really can't tell the difference...

[Davef68]

Does this include the Boscombe Down based aircraft, RAFCAM/ETPS?

All going/gone and replaced by PC21s

[cubemaster]

Are those Red Barrows flown by ground crew, or are they what the pilots use when the cloudbase is too low?

[Lomon]

I thought one of the main points of the Red Arrows was to showcase British industry to the world and to drum up exports. Not sure what message it sends flying an aircraft that the RAF has binned.
What message does it send that our display team are flying 40 year old obsolete aeroplanes? Maybe if the Reds were operating the T2 or the 200 it would promote foreign sales and showcase British Industry.

[Valiantone]

Better hurry up as the only Hawks currently in production are for Qatar and thats less than 10.

[oxenos]

entire fleet of 76 Hawk T1 trainer aircraft

make that 75.

[chevvron]

What will 100 Sqdn be flying then?

[pr00ne]

Davef68,

Are you sure about that? I thought that the PC-21's were for ETPS, which is a QinetiQ outfit, where as the Centre for Aviation Medicine Hawks are RAF.

[Stu666]

What will 100 Sqdn be flying then?

Wonder if they will get Tranche 1 Tiff aggressors like IX? Failing that, disbandment?

[chevvron]

Perhaps the Reds could become pat of an enlarged BBMF?
mmitch.
From what I've observed at Farnborough I would say that one is a BIG no-no.

[Valiantone]

Wonder if they will get Tranche 1 Tiff aggressors like IX? Failing that, disbandment?


Contracted out probably

Failing that I suppose you can wheel the bits around the RTP hangar. As that is what will likely happen to the Tranche 1s post 2025. Or if they are still using real airframes at Cosford by then.... Some of the 12 Op Ellamy jets might survive at whatever its called now...

[longer ron]

Davef68,

Are you sure about that? I thought that the PC-21's were for ETPS, which is a QinetiQ outfit, where as the Centre for Aviation Medicine Hawks are RAF.

Yes the RAFCAM Hawks are RAF Aircraft - I would have thought they were on borrowed time as they are a bit of a mongrel version,because of their instrumentation fit - they still have their original pre - mod 2010 Fuselages - although they do have the post mod999 Wings and also the later tailplanes fitted.
One of them is the very first Hawk to go into RAF Service and had a few little differences as compared to the main production run Aircraft.

[Jackonicko]

Which one, Ron?

[longer ron]

Hi Jacko
XX162 - which was the 8th Hawk built and the first to go into RAF Service - the previous Hawks were originally used on the flight test and development programme.
We are not talking big differences here - just some small detail differences.

[Jackonicko]

Thanks Ron. Cool bit of trivia nonetheless.....

[NutLoose]

The title really sums it up, don’t worry the 9 ish pilots and the back up are safe, but not a scant thought for the possible other 67 ish pilots and ground staff that support them for their future outlookn, including one of “”our own” on here.

[Jackonicko]

That's a good point NutLoose, though I suspect the numbers are MUCH smaller. Many or even most of the Hawk T1s are in sustainment, so you're probably talking about 18 (mainly civilian/reservist?) pilots with 736 and a similar number of RAF aircrew on the Tatty Ton.

One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?

But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.

Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That's a good point NutLoose, though I suspect the numbers are MUCH smaller. Many or even most of the Hawk T1s are in sustainment, so you're probably talking about 18 (mainly civilian/reservist?) pilots with 736 and a similar number of RAF aircrew on the Tatty Ton.

One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?

But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.

Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.

1. What Manning crisis on Typhoon?

2. ‘Dubious airworthiness and sustainability’? How so? If it’s a new contract and written by MoD how are you able to say with certainty that airworthiness and sustainability will be an issue?

[Jackonicko]

1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.

2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?

I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.

2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?

I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.

1. The Typhoon Force is fully manned.

2. Your assertion that any COCO solution is going to be unable to meet UK airworthiness standards is incorrect. The requirement hasn’t even been written. The contract hasn’t even gone out to tender, so how do you know what platform solution would be selected by any company wishing to bid for the contract? There are platforms out there which would more than meet UK airworthiness standards. The issue doesn’t lie with the companies bidding for the contract, the problem lies with the MoD and how much they think they can get a solution for.

The MoD started out offering £750 million for ASDOT, then slashed the offering to circa £450 million, but said they wanted the same solution. That’s simply never going to happen.

As far as airworthiness goes and the Tatty Ton, I’d be a bit careful there.

[Corrosion]

Sorry for the slight off-topic

When i was on my UK working tour few years ago, our company (MRO) offers night shelter for vintage warbirds like P51, YAK-3 etc etc during local airshow. Red Arrows were on site too, but they stayed on apron. Ok, we were pushing P51 into hangar and couple of fine young RA pilots joined to help. My older colleague, fine gentleman, stops those pilots after pushing job was done... told them " i have never saw you guys do anything else than enjoying yourselfs". :)
How embrassing moment, but my colleague put his old and wise words in correct way with correct tone and nobody get hurt.

[DuckDodgers]

1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.

2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?

I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.

1. Manning against liability is still a comd issue on the TyF especially at LOS, but nowhere near as prevalent as perhaps 4-5 years ago. However, the disbandment of 100 Sqn and the move to (much) smaller sqns may perhaps assist?

2. Whilst a Special Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA forms the baseline in the United States, to deliver Public Aircraft Operations (PAO) iso the DOD an organisation is required to gain additional approvals that sees them out with the FAA's purview. In the case of delivering a contract to the USN / USMC then an Interim Flight Clearance (IFC) is required from NAVAIR, if delivering a contract to the USAF then a Military Flight Release (MFR) is required from the Technical Airworthiness Authority (TAA), the latter is very similar to the UK Military Aircraft Certification Process (MACP) and elements of the Contractor Flying Approved Organisation Scheme (CFAOS). Organisations are audited annually and both IFC and MFR can be withdrawn if recommendations are not implemented nor standards applied.

3. I'd also be very careful using the term 'ancient' along with the statement 'dubious airworthiness and sustainability' without understanding the support behind individual air systems. There is absolutely no reason why, for example, an Alpha Jet couldn't fly on contract in the UK.

4. ASDOT failed due to unrealistic requirements for the continually changing budget along with 2* interference and disingenuous industry promises. For any future UK programme, I suspect the default position will be for the air system to be on the UK Military Aircraft Register (MAR) having undergone the MACP or that industry can demonstrate alternate acceptable means of compliance for which I can think of at least 3 options.

5. Yes, a HHA museum piece at >£10,000 per hour is hardly VFM nor I suspect would be presentationally nor reputationally viable to MOD.

[teej013]

Para 7.44 is a tad ambiguous:
"This will include rationalising older fleets to improve
efficiency, retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 by 2025,
and Hawk T1. We will enhance the new military
flying training system with further investment in
synthetic training that will deliver more capable
pilots more quickly and more efficiently."
I read that as Tiffy T1's by 2025, but no actual date for the T1 fleet ?
Teej...

[Jackonicko]

5. Yes, a HHA museum piece at >£10,000 per hour is hardly VFM nor I suspect would be presentationally nor reputationally viable to MOD.

It's a tiny bit nearer to £100,000 than to £10,000, I believe.

3. I'd also be very careful using the term 'ancient' along with the statement 'dubious airworthiness and sustainability' without understanding the support behind individual air systems. There is absolutely no reason why, for example, an Alpha Jet couldn't fly on contract in the UK.

There aren't that many Alpha Jets out there, and they offer little advantage over the Hawk in this role. I was thinking more of the Mirage F1s, Cheetahs, and ex IDF F-16s.......

[DuckDodgers]

There aren't that many Alpha Jets out there, and they offer little advantage over the Hawk in this role. I was thinking more of the Mirage F1s, Cheetahs, and ex IDF F-16s.......

Again, I do think you need to look into the supportability behind each of those air systems prior to questioning their airworthiness credentials and certification base. For example, both the Atar 9K-50 and F100-PW-200 are supportable by some fairly reputable aerospace companies and at least one of the air systems mentioned has an active OEM behind it as design authority. I'm sure you would agree with the idiom of what's sauce for the goose is pretty applicable here across those mentioned air systems? The real question I suppose is, does the RAF's appetite for a supersonic, radar equipped, block 4 contracted adversary live up to the price point they are willing to pay along with the question of what are their expectations?

[andrewn]

The whole discussion around "airworthiness" of the various fleets being discussed is very subjective and depends on many factors, like how hard the jets are flown, how well maintained they are, what access there is to spares, the airworthiness management and oversight processes, etc. Basically you can have a relatively new fleet that is unairworthy versus an older fleet that is highly airworthy. Ask the Germans!

However, in the case of the T1s they are getting long in the tooth, they have been flown hard over the last 40yrs, and I suspect that supportability is now an issue. But given the OSD was pushed to 2030 only recently it makes you think someone either knows something we don't or was being highly optimistic in terms of planning assumptions....

Going forwards Hawk strikes me as a bit like the Hunter, in the best replacement for an old one is a new one! Maybe if we'd pressed buy on the original plan for 44 T2's we'd have a decent sized fleet that could be multi-tasked in the same way the T1 was over its lifespan?

Whereas now we seem to have dumped a useful asset with no clue on how (or even if) we fill the gap....

[andrewn]

And back on topic, I'm still struggling to square the circle that is the T1 fleet goes but the Reds stay...

How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?

Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?

[Easy Street]

And back on topic, I'm still struggling to square the circle that is the T1 fleet goes but the Reds stay...

How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?

Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?

Retire the T1s and keep the T1As for the Reds. With such a large stockpile of spares they will keep the latter going well into the 2030s, I suspect.

[BEagle]

We will enhance the new military flying training system with further investment in synthetic training that will deliver more capable pilots more quickly and more efficiently

Hasn't the US just published a damning report concernng over-reliance on synthetic flight training?

[Jackonicko]

They have, BEagle, and yet I can't find a blessed link for it anywhere!

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Could this be the one? I am sure there will be others.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35033/fighter-pilots-warn-of-lack-of-new-aviators-flying-experience-as-force-remodels-training

[Jackonicko]

I thought I'd seen something since that, and more 'official'.

[Haraka]

The first ever national aerobatic team with a mix of inhabited vehicles and "loyal wingmen"?

No , I can't see it either!

[xtp]

I seem to remember similar conclusions from their ASUPT programme in the 1970s.

[Watson1963]

Is this the report?
https://www.militaryaviationsafety.gov/
There's a section on pilot training from p59

[SLXOwft]

Even if it is not the report to which BEagle referred, even on the basis of a quick skim it presents clear views on the role of synthetic training as a necessary part of they system that needs to be kept up to date for all in service types. However, there is a necessary levelof real flying that needs to be done.

Constrained budgets, decreased aircraft availability, instructor pilot shortages, and reduced training range availability have led to greater simulator usage. The Commission heard concerns from pilots in all the Services about the increased use of simulation in lieu of actual flying. Recognizing that simulation is a cost-effective flight training tool, it is a supplement or enhancement, not a replacement, for actual flight training. There is great value in both.(My emphases) Simulators cannot replicate carrier landings or simulate G-forces, but they do provide the safest environment for training on emergency procedures and aircrew coordination. Achieving the proper balance between actual flight and simulator training is crucial for both safety and readiness.For simulators to be effective, they must mirror the specifications of the aircraft they simulate. In many cases, units lack simulators with the same configurations and flight characteristics as the actual aircraft. Several units reported that contracts limit simulator availability and do not provide the engineering support necessary to keep their simulators operating and up to date. This results in “negative training,” pilots practicing skills contrary to how they would employ them in actual flight.

FINDING: In many units, the minimum flight hour requirements for currency are not being met, leading to flight waivers that are increasing risks and impacting the safety culture of military aviation.

FINDING: Simulators are an essential tool for training military aviation professionals. Installations have outdated and out-of-service simulators.



I suspect the bean counters may be too convinced by the financial input comparision to concentrate on the effectiveness of the ouput.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/435x408/figure10_4_d16c6df1b40b005f9018f81ba773b176071114aa.jpg

[haltonapp]

Couldn’t the display be carried out by drones, as an encouragement for people to join the RAF as drone pilots, which would seem the way to go.