Interim Red Air Aggressor Training

[DuckDodgers]

So it looks like the PQQ for this interim capability was published today. Very little detail contained within regards to what is required beyond stating that the platform must have an air-to-air radar and radar warning receiver equipment. Has anyone seen the actual contract notice or statement of requirement that may provide some greater detail?


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1047/screenshot_2021_11_26_at_15_36_08_26cd8d88e915f0611ba0da3367 1af74fa6223cf2.png

[Foghorn Leghorn]

More to the point, which companies are bidding!?

[DuckDodgers]

More to the point, which companies are bidding!?

I think the real question is that of who has capacity from within existing fleets that isn’t already contractually committed? That is of course unless someone hasn’t acquired a fleet of aircraft specifically for this interim programme. Will be interesting to watch.

[Bengo]

More to the point, which companies are bidding!?

We will only know that once Treasury and MoD have read the answers to the PQQ and decided whose replies they like enough to want in the bidding round. If it gets that far. Should it look too expensive after PQQ it will be back to the word processor.

N

[Nil_Drift]

According to the UK Defence Journal blog the timeline is very sporty - by Summer '22 with approval from the CAA and MAA. That should narrow it down a bit.

Any ideas to buy the 100 Sqn Hawks and contract them back to the RAF has been scuppered by the air-to-air radar requirement.

Perhaps it's an attempt to flog off the Tranche 1 Typhoons and get a contractor to fly them; that will help to reduce the JPANs at Lossiemouth and save in the short term as pilots will ET and join the new company. But then the hard-pressed TG1 techies will jump ship as well ... not so good.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

According to the UK Defence Journal blog the timeline is very sporty - by Summer '22 with approval from the CAA and MAA. That should narrow it down a bit.

Any ideas to buy the 100 Sqn Hawks and contract them back to the RAF has been scuppered by the air-to-air radar requirement.

Perhaps it's an attempt to flog off the Tranche 1 Typhoons and get a contractor to fly them; that will help to reduce the JPANs at Lossiemouth and save in the short term as pilots will ET and join the new company. But then the hard-pressed TG1 techies will jump ship as well ... not so good.

Unfortunately, that won’t happen as Typhoon is far too expensive to run as COCO Red Air.

[DuckDodgers]

This appears to have gone quiet, anyone got an update?

[ShyTorque]

Did the Russians get the contract?

[_SpinFlight_]

Appears the answer is below judging by the recruitment drive for Fast Jet Captains, SE Techs, Egress, Av, and Mechs.

Draken Europe Job Search (https://drakeneurope.aero/jobs/)

[tutgby]

Any rumours on the platform? Asking for a friend…

[GeeRam]

Any rumours on the platform? Asking for a friend…

Coincidental with Draken's purchasing of a number of the recently retired Norwegian AF F-16 fleet last month...perhaps.

[_SpinFlight_]

Coincidental with Draken's purchasing of a number of the recently retired Norwegian AF F-16 fleet last month...perhaps.

Doubtful, I suspect it will be something Hawk like from within their compendium of aircraft.

[David Thompson]

Doubtful, I suspect it will be something Hawk like from within their compendium of aircraft.
Aero L-159E ALCA's for instance ?

[SATCOS WHIPPING BOY]

Aero L-159E ALCA's for instance ?

Indeed David. DRAKEN have updated their job spec to : Draken Europe are recruiting for a L159 Captain to be based at Teesside International Airport in the UK.

[Bob Viking]

That’s a real upgrade isn’t it?! I’m sure the Typhoon and F35 guys will be delighted at the challenge.

BV

[N707ZS]

When they say captain is he the senior guy in American terms and might they employ further pilots and ground staff.

[teej013]

The Draken ads are for Fast jet Aircrew and Groundcrew, including Squippers, Riggers, Avionics & Egress.

[Martin the Martian]

Still wondering who or what will replace 736 at Culdrose.

[DuckDodgers]

Still wondering who or what will replace 736 at Culdrose.

Project Vampire Phase 1 - the RN will not be getting a fast jet replacement. It will be Banshee or Mirach.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That’s a real upgrade isn’t it?! I’m sure the Typhoon and F35 guys will be delighted at the challenge.

BV

It’s a shame that the RAF won’t stump up the cash to pay for a more capable platform. Alas, with the money on offer in the contract, you get what you pay for.

[DuckDodgers]

It’s a shame that the RAF won’t stump up the cash to pay for a more capable platform. Alas, with the money on offer in the contract, you get what you pay for.

At least it has SA being able to search, track and target along with threat reaction (slowly). It seems like an ideal interim to me given what the alternates could have been.
.

[Bob Viking]

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

[DuckDodgers]

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

I hear you BV but again there's an aspiration vs budget imbalance, optimistically we should look at this through an interim requirement lens ahead of the main effort. We all know that a ex-EPAF MLU Viper would be ideal but policy issues, even if the budget was there, would likely preclude this (and ex-Netz aircraft) in the near term. I am also not convinced there would be much appetite from the UK (purely from a perceived presentational angle) for F1 of any flavour even though once suitably upgraded with certain capabilities it would more than meet HFF presentations. If the future aim is one where live should validate synthetic then, perhaps, there may be a time where less (live flying) is more (capability) but sadly I can see this as another means to reduce the fiscal resource that's available. Going to be an interesting 3+ years.....

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That 30NM radar range is going to be really useful against Typhoon. So, bearing in mind the L-159 can’t simulate a HFF and it’s radar won’t get anything until the host aircraft is already dead, it’s not really much of a step up from a Hawk T1.

Sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I think the ambitions of F16s or Mirages to fight against mean that this would be a distinctly underwhelming new Red Air platform.

BV

I agree with your sentiment about the platform, but that’s a function of the MoD not properly funding this contract to allow for a better capability.

Are you sure you’re correct regarding the 30nm range radar?

[Bob Viking]

I can’t swear to it. That was off google!

BV

[Just This Once...]

Radar range sounds about right but not against Typhoon's reduced RCS. If you spin the Typhoon 3D RCS sphere to the typical forward aspects I suspect that it's predicted contact range will be a lot shorter!

[DuckDodgers]

Radar range sounds about right but not against Typhoon's reduced RCS. If you spin the Typhoon 3D RCS sphere to the typical forward aspects I suspect that it's predicted contact range will be a lot shorter!

Unless you have the systems peak power, centre frequency, antenna gain, and the MDS you are all guessing against any RCS target platform including Typhoon in typical two bag fit.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Unless you have the systems peak power, centre frequency, antenna gain, and the MDS you are all guessing against any RCS target platform including Typhoon in typical two bag fit.

Exactly this!

[Just This Once...]

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

[DuckDodgers]

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

Indulge me for a moment and tell me what your 30nm is based on, just curious as to your benchmark.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Not really. Fog, if you want the training numbers run the question through the tame analysts in the AWC via your usual Tactics 'front door'. They can whip-up a quick model for you against the measured RCS of the platform in a representative fit.

That’s not what DuckDodgers said though was it. He said if you don’t know what the various technical numbers are then one is guessing at the range on this forum. Unless of course, JTO, you’re also an analyst at the ASWC!?

[DuckDodgers]

That’s not what DuckDodgers said though was it. He said if you don’t know what the various technical numbers are then one is guessing at the range on this forum. Unless of course, JTO, you’re also an analyst at the ASWC!?

It appears the glorious 30nm figure quoted by our experts here appears to be the Grifo 7 version that’s in the Pakistani Chengdu J-7 installation 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ which is at best what, 80 Watt average power with an Az/El volume of +/- 30 degs 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[Foghorn Leghorn]

It appears the glorious 30nm figure quoted by our experts here appears to be the Grifo 7 version that’s in the Pakistani Chengdu J-7 installation 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️ which is at best what, 80 Watt average power with an Az/El volume of +/- 30 degs 🤷🏻‍♂️🤦‍♂️

30nm does appear to be a little short!?

[Bob Viking]

The attached link suggests a range of 74km. Not much better than the original 30NM I suggested.

BV

http://cmano-db.com/pdf/sensor/5421/