Hawk problems at Valley

[Warren Peace]

Surely it must be time for another wheel to come off the Hawk T2 fleet.

We’ve not had a problem for a while, and a failure of the aircraft, might divert attention from the piss poor performance of the training provider.

Just a thought.

[dervish]

There's another thread running on this where people who seem to be in the know point the finger elsewhere.

[KrisKringle]

There's another thread running on this where people who seem to be in the know point the finger elsewhere.

WP's poking because this one isn't out of the bag (yet) and it appears 'people ' either aren't in the know or are keeping zip lip.

[Warren Peace]

Don’t tell them your name, Pike.

[Timelord]

Maybe this is another part of CAS’s cunning plan to do away with actual aircraft and do everything synthetically.

[Warren Peace]

Is nobody going to go public about this?

[Wrathmonk]

Is nobody going to go public about this?

You clearly know more than you are letting on so how about you going public? Or are you just 5hit stirring?

[chevvron]

OK lets try this then.
Putin is known to favour clandestine means of eliminating his enemies.
Not only his warships but his fishing boats (ever heard the term 'Russian Trawlers') often operate close to our shores.
Huge numbers of lobsters and crabs in specific waters off the north east coast of England are dying due to some heretofore 'unknown' type of virus killing the crustacea; the government don't appear to know what this virus is or how it got there to cause such devastation.
Putin is fully capable of getting his minions to develop such a virus; he also has the means (via the aforementioned trawlers) to 'seed' the local waters off Whitby and elsewhere with it.
He knows he's on a hiding to nothing with his present campaign against Ukraine so he turns to other means to try to destroy our fishing industry.
Fantasy? You tell me; I think it's perfectly feasible (and no I don't like lobsters or crabs; can't stand the taste)

[5thGenOnly]

OK lets try this then.
Putin is known to favour clandestine means of eliminating his enemies.
Not only his warships but his fishing boats (ever heard the term 'Russian Trawlers') often operate close to our shores.
Huge numbers of lobsters and crabs in specific waters off the north east coast of England are dying due to some heretofore 'unknown' type of virus killing the crustacea; the government don't appear to know what this virus is or how it got there to cause such devastation.
Putin is fully capable of getting his minions to develop such a virus; he also has the means (via the aforementioned trawlers) to 'seed' the local waters off Whitby and elsewhere with it.
He knows he's on a hiding to nothing with his present campaign against Ukraine so he turns to other means to try to destroy our fishing industry.
Fantasy? You tell me; I think it's perfectly feasible (and no I don't like lobsters or crabs; can't stand the taste)

Fantasy

[Asturias56]

Much more likely its the local heavy industry.

have you ever seen Teesside - steel works, chemical works, a nuclear power station, a landing/processing point for N Sea oil and gas, ship breaking................ who needs Russian Science when capitalism can do such a good job?

After all they have a lot of previous form - just look around the rest of the NE of England.

[Warren Peace]

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/288x230/2f011af0_04e5_4a87_82ff_e61bffc4b9e9_85b0e02a057642287ab9b09 ecbb80e68aafa0410.gif
They think I’m a Russian Trawler!😂

[Ninthace]

OK lets try this then.
Putin is known to favour clandestine means of eliminating his enemies.
Not only his warships but his fishing boats (ever heard the term 'Russian Trawlers') often operate close to our shores.
Huge numbers of lobsters and crabs in specific waters off the north east coast of England are dying due to some heretofore 'unknown' type of virus killing the crustacea; the government don't appear to know what this virus is or how it got there to cause such devastation.
Putin is fully capable of getting his minions to develop such a virus; he also has the means (via the aforementioned trawlers) to 'seed' the local waters off Whitby and elsewhere with it.
He knows he's on a hiding to nothing with his present campaign against Ukraine so he turns to other means to try to destroy our fishing industry.
Fantasy? You tell me; I think it's perfectly feasible (and no I don't like lobsters or crabs; can't stand the taste)
Are you in the right thread?

[India Four Two]

(ever heard the term 'Russian Trawlers')

My first UAS Summer Camp was at Binbrook in 1967, home in those days to 5(AC) Squadron, flying Lightning F6s. We were allowed to sit in on the daily Station Briefings and I remember that the locations of the 'Russian Trawlers' were pointed out - one in the North Sea and one in the Irish Sea.

I also remember that when we flew cross-country and talked to RAF ATC en-route, we used the appropriate tri-graph callsign prefix and had to identify our aircraft type as "Single Piston". I bet that fooled the Russians bobbing about in their trawlers! :)

[chevvron]

Much more likely its the local heavy industry.


Already ruled out by the 'official' lnquiry.

[SWBKCB]

Already ruled out by the 'official' enquiry.

That's all right then... :rolleyes:

Still not spotted the connection to Hawks at Valley, though I'm sure the Whitby Fishermen’s Association are flattered by the attention

[chevvron]

:rolleyes:

Still not spotted the connection to Hawks at Valley,
The original discussion was getting bogged down by people implying they know but they're not telling so I thought I'd liven it up a bit.
The strange 'virus' affecting crustacea is genuine and has been widely reported on some media channels but not as far as I'm aware, the Daily Wail so most of you will not be aware of it until you order your favourite seafoods and find they are not on the menu.

[DuncanDoenitz]

OK lets try this then.
Putin is known to favour clandestine means of eliminating his enemies.
Not only his warships but his fishing boats (ever heard the term 'Russian Trawlers') often operate close to our shores.
Huge numbers of lobsters and crabs in specific waters off the north east coast of England are dying due to some heretofore 'unknown' type of virus killing the crustacea; the government don't appear to know what this virus is or how it got there to cause such devastation.
Putin is fully capable of getting his minions to develop such a virus; he also has the means (via the aforementioned trawlers) to 'seed' the local waters off Whitby and elsewhere with it.
He knows he's on a hiding to nothing with his present campaign against Ukraine so he turns to other means to try to destroy our fishing industry.
Fantasy? You tell me; I think it's perfectly feasible (and no I don't like lobsters or crabs; can't stand the taste)

You're suggesting its a pincer attack? Don't think that would work here (although I hear it crushed Asia).

[chopper2004]

This was a happy bunch of newly graduates from Bangor's finest oops sorry twas a decade ago and it was T1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pX-_1EZzl3M

cheers

[Warren Peace]

Well, there you go

royal-air-force-grounds-its-entire-fleet-of-fast-jet-training-aircraft-due-to-engine-problem

http://news.sky.com/story/royal-air-force-grounds-its-entire-fleet-of-fast-jet-training-aircraft-due-to-engine-problem-12795301

[BEagle]

Did Sky pay you well for your information, Warren Peace?

[Warren Peace]

Did Sky pay you well for your information, Warren Peace?


C’mon old guy, you are better than that.

This was never gonna be kept quiet. MoD sat in this fir a week. Since I knew, loads of folk knew.

[Finningley Boy]

There's only a penny packet full of them as well. Perhaps another contributory factor to the pilot training, or rather availability, shortage.

FB

[ASRAAMTOO]

Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store?

[chevvron]

Be having problems with C/T soon then; have to get some T1s out of storage.

[LateArmLive]

Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.

[KrisKringle]

Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.
Enlighten us...

[Easy Street]

When CAS gets his inevitable summons for a bollocking from SofS, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. And then go on to say that RAF capability in general would benefit from rather less manipulation of procurement by ministers with constituencies near BAES plants. I mean, it's not as if Wiggy has a shot at CDS, so he has nothing to lose, and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience...

[Asturias56]

"and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience..."

yeah but he'd lose a grade in the "Retirement Honours" stakes

[Davef68]

So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT? I do recall the late, great John Farley writing on here as to why the T2 was the wrong choice.

Advanced Hawk? T-50? T-7?

[teeonefixer]

, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. ...

OK, I'm biased, but.... The RAF took a lot of persuasion to accept that they were getting a completely upgraded capability rather than a rehashed T.1. I'll admit it doesn't fly like an F-16, but does it have to ? Even now the RAAF want to keep the earlier Mk.127 going. IMHO, elements of the contracts with HIOS and Ascent have affected availability and the current engine problems have really put a downer on things. One thing that springs to mind is that the RAF middle management didn't have sunnier climes for the gravy train to meetings etc. (F-35 is a prime example).
Thankfully, Mr. Prescotts intervention provided continued work for 1000's of people for another 15+years, not only in East Yorkshire, that must be worth something?

[Warren Peace]

So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT?

Well maybe the T1 needs a new lease of life. By using the Red airframes, and the best of what 100 Squadron scrapped, and the very successful pilot production system that 100 had going, then the backlog in the pilot training pipeline could be fixed in months.

Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.

As for losing the Reds, who's mad enough to prevent the training of more pilots, just to show what the RAF was once able to produce, but nowadays can’t?

[longer ron]

Arguably the Finns ended up with the best Hawk upgrade variant after fitting the Ex Swiss Mk66's with a glass cockpit.
The T2 has too much gubbins squeezed into too little space (amongst other problems).

[GeeRam]

They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....

[teeonefixer]

They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....
]
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's)

[Warren Peace]

They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....


The aircraft that are grounded have a different engine.

[tucumseh]

Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.




At the time, and for decades thereafter, MoD default policy was to seek 15 years guaranteed support. If it wanted more, then it had to provide ample notice, and contract it.

If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1, who would pay for it? This is dangerously close to the Health and Safety Executive's formal position in the Sean Cunningham case (which MoD did not disagree with) that when MoD cancelled Martin-Baker contacts in 1983 the company should have continued doing the work free of charge. That, having accepted the initial contract, their liability remained in perpetuity and was 'non-delegable', regardless of contract cover.

[GeeRam]

]
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's)

Aah.....sneaky.

I suppose they can afford the stuff that works....:rolleyes:


Time to get the rattle cans out then, for some quick in the field repaints and press those shiny old red things into service as a stop gap.

[Warren Peace]

Tucumseh, I am not suggesting thet Bae Systems provide parts free, as the warranty on the T1 fleet is well expired. They have been reluctant to sell the spares, to promote the sales of T2 which now turns out to be no use.

This is just a solution, which is what the SofS instructed the RAF to find.

Some guys went from T1 at Leeming to Typhoon OCU so the T2 is not essential.

The alternative is for RR to say the existing engine is safe to fly. Based on last week, who is going to sign that off?

[Lordflasheart]

Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store?

... have to get some T1s out of storage.

If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1,

Last figure I saw a few months ago was less than 40 total Hawk Mk 1 remaining; divided between Red Arrows, AMRO at Valley and storage at Shawbury. I would guess the rest were quickly SOC or RTP after last March, before anyone could see how bad they (or the records) were. There might even be difficulty certifying the parts, let alone the wholes.

At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice.

LFH

[Warren Peace]

At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice.

LFH

I don’t see any other solution being in place any sooner.

100 Squadron only had six jets available most days, yet they taught pilots, as well as doing the red air task at the same time.

[tucumseh]

Tucumseh, I am not suggesting thet Bae Systems provide parts free, as the warranty on the T1 fleet is well expired. They have been reluctant to sell the spares, to promote the sales of T2 which now turns out to be no use.

This is just a solution, which is what the SofS instructed the RAF to find.

Some guys went from T1 at Leeming to Typhoon OCU so the T2 is not essential.

The alternative is for RR to say the existing engine is safe to fly. Based on last week, who is going to sign that off?


Thanks WP. I understand. I've known companies to adopt a reluctant position for this reason. There was a mandated Def Stan directing you what to do, but it was cancelled without replacement. If gentle persuasion doesn't work, the named MoD individual in the contract responsible for maintaining the build standard (which is what this is all about) summons the named company employee, who is an MoD appointee with delegated financial approval (i.e. he is permitted to commit MoD funding off his own back) and tells him his approval is being withdrawn.

In practice, with BAeS or Rolls Royce you'd prepare a Ministerial brief (because it might be seen as 'contentious'). I only had to do it once, when the company made my appointee redundant and 'appointed' their own man. He did he not meet MoD's SQEP requirement (which was far higher than it is today) so never was appointed, but the main issue was they had simply forgotten that they were not allowed to make the appointment. They could only propose. Within hours it was resolved, the redundancy notice withdrawn. Had it dragged on, their bills for the following month wouldn't have been paid.

This is a unique delegation because of what you're trying to achieve, which includes, as you rightly imply, maintaining the integrity of the safety case. It's the nearest most MoD employees get to the ability to hire and fire. Of course, matters are difficult if MoD no longer has a copy of the regs, and the new MAA definition of the process is completely wrong.

One thing crossed my mind. Has there already been an extension granted to extend use of the blades? It's a common temporary solution to spares shortages. But it then becomes the norm.... If so, there might be a reluctance to sign a safety report.

[downsizer]

How come the Qatari Hawks have different engines? And which ones do they have?

[KrisKringle]

How come the Qatari Hawks have different engines? And which ones do they have?
They don't but the Qatari Adour 951s are new and the damage to the RAF's is believed to be high hours related.

[ASRAAMTOO]

Not exactly HIGH hours related. Somewhat less than the design spec of the engine I believe. Just higher than some of the other nations engines. I would be interested to know the details and engine hours involved in the latest problem.

[LateArmLive]

Well maybe the T1 needs a new lease of life. By using the Red airframes, and the best of what 100 Squadron scrapped, and the very successful pilot production system that 100 had going, then the backlog in the pilot training pipeline could be fixed in months.

Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.

As for losing the Reds, who's mad enough to prevent the training of more pilots, just to show what the RAF was once able to produce, but nowadays can’t?

The T1 is entirely inadequate for Advanced FJ training today. It was inadequate in the mid 2000s, hence the attempt to upgrade to the T2. Sadly, one could argue that the T1 "works" and is better than nothing, but that would be entirely missing the point. Add that to the Ascent/MFTS shambles and you have the fustercluck that the RAF (and RN) are living today. Weird how nobody could see this coming...

As for what else, either the M346 or T50 would be better suited to modern fighter training. Maybe even get on board with the T7 project. Anything but a Hawk please.

[Warren Peace]

. Sadly, one could argue that the T1 "works" and is better than nothing, but that would be entirely missing the point.


No, the point is that the RAF only have the Red airframes available.

There is no other fleet ready to go.

Teaching has stopped,

[KrisKringle]

The T1 is entirely inadequate for Advanced FJ training today. It was inadequate in the mid 2000s, hence the attempt to upgrade to the T2. Sadly, one could argue that the T1 "works" and is better than nothing, but that would be entirely missing the point. Add that to the Ascent/MFTS shambles and you have the fustercluck that the RAF (and RN) are living today. Weird how nobody could see this coming...

As for what else, either the M346 or T50 would be better suited to modern fighter training. Maybe even get on board with the T7 project. Anything but a Hawk please.


I disagree with every statement you make, except the last one in the first para, having been on the receiving end of both the T1 and T2 training systems (as well as some overseas AFT/TW 'equivalents').

The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.

[Warren Peace]

So what is the biggest problem facing the RAF today?

The inability to train pilots, or the existential threat to The Red Arrows?

Perhaps in twenty years we will be like the Kiwi air force. Rotary only.

[Davef68]

Perhaps in twenty years we will be like the Kiwi air force. Rotary only.

Hmmm

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/sgi0XDueXXM/maxresdefault.jpg

[Just This Once...]

...hmmm

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/2000x1156/2023_01_27_at_15_06_32_6f2e52fe9612a6d28f18469287482fdfc9c23 538.jpg

Now back to Hawk engine issues...

[LateArmLive]

I disagree with every statement you make, except the last one in the first para, having been on the receiving end of both the T1 and T2 training systems (as well as some overseas AFT/TW 'equivalents').

The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.
Well I would disagree with everything you wrote too. A 1960s analogue cockpit, hard wing trainer? Righto, that's relevant. Let's keep teaching clock-map/ground and LL IP-TGT missions. Zero ML A-S capability too. 1940s era gunsight, no HUD, no DL. I am berating the platform; not the quality of the training received, nor the standard of graduates. The failure of Valley to provide a worthwhile output was due to Ascent/MFTS's failings. Whether the platform was a T1, T2 or anything else - the result would have been the same.

[Easy Street]

LAL

LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?

What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.

[ThreeType]

Easy Street,

I could not agree more. In my experience the T1 and T2 pilots coming to Typhoon were equally good and it's all about building captaincy at AFT and exposing them to jeopardy through live fly hours (and solos). I don't think anyone would argue that the T1 is the best answer to current woes but to write it off off as irrelevant is IMO wrong. I'd take a T1 grad with a bucket load of live hours over someone with few live fly hours and a load of HOTAS training in the sim any day!

[LateArmLive]

LAL

LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?

What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.

How about some of that "ruthless screening" on a core skillset that is actually relevant? Paper map and stopwatch IP-TGT runs... I think there's too much rose-tinted glasses wearing going on here!
If all you want is capacity testing, fine- bring back the T1. I wonder why no other modern Air Force is doing that though.
That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.

[Easy Street]

LAL,

In an ideal world of course you would screen students out on directly relevant skill sets, although I would be interested in your response to the report above that the Typhoon OCU couldn't distinguish T1 and T2 grads. But the RAF is obviously not in an ideal world at this particular moment in respect of its FJ training pipeline (and much else besides!) and my point is that the T1 remains a lot better than nothing, which if there's no quick fix to these engine problems and unless sufficient overseas training slots can be secured in a hurry is all the RAF will have.

[Fishtailed]

Back in the early seventies before Preston Docks closed down many Russian cargo ships visited Preston, and we at Warton were alerted to their movements and closed down radar trials on the Tornado. They knew what was going on.

[rattman]

That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.

Wierd the US, according to you is in a worse postion. But US has to supply pilots for the UK F-35's as does Australia. Also hearing rumors the RAF are sending pilots to australia to go through flight training for both fighters and large multi traing because theirs is so backed

[melmothtw]

Wierd the US, according to you is in a worse postion. But US has to supply pilots for the UK F-35's as does Australia. Also hearing rumors the RAF are sending pilots to australia to go through flight training for both fighters and large multi traing because theirs is so backed

It's all relative. The US Navy is concerned it only has 11 nuclear aircraft carriers.

[SOX80]

How about some of that "ruthless screening" on a core skillset that is actually relevant? Paper map and stopwatch IP-TGT runs... I think there's too much rose-tinted glasses wearing going on here!
If all you want is capacity testing, fine- bring back the T1. I wonder why no other modern Air Force is doing that though.
That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.

I would suggest that no other Air Force is doing that partly because it suits industry to sell them shiny new toys. In an ideal world you would probably train on glass cockpit/HUD but I don't think it is the most important consideration. It is interesting to note that there have been a number of different training pathways used over the past few years, on Typhoon the main problems have come from those who have been through NJEPTS and other 'tech focussed' routes, the T1 students as has been noted, have been absolutely fine. Almost as if Airmanship and Decision making are more important than the ability to use the kit. I certainly remember when I moved from the T1 to a HUD thinking 'wow, this is easy', I reckon it took me about 10 mins to convert. I also spend time instructing in the hills and it is very clear that spending time with a map and compass develops your understanding of the mountain environment and allround ability as a navigator much more than gluing yourself to tech, same in the air. Train hard fight easy.

[Bob Viking]

It’s completely off topic but I can’t resist giving my thoughts on the syllabus and T1 vs T2 differences.

My credentials? Six tours teaching on Hawks (T1, T2, 115 and 166). Mainly tac weapons with a bit of AFT thrown in for good measure.

All this talk of which is best and whether or not you can get valuable training is overlooking some simple facts. The front line OCUs need competent, flexible pilots who possess the skill to make quick and correct decisions under pressure. That can be taught on any mark of Hawk. You also have to remember their position in the food chain. The Hawk is a stepping stone. Nobody is taking it to war.

Any tactics and procedures should mirror what the frontline does but with the understanding that, where that is not possible, something sensible is taught. Low level evasion is the perfect example. It was never about whether or not it was a valid tactic in the 21st century. It was more about what you were asking of the student. Anyone who could get through that phase was a good pilot. In fact the pilots that graduated 19 Sqn (as it was when I was there as a QFI) with a single seat recommend especially, were bloody good pilots and would cope with anything the frontline could throw at them.

The T1 may not have been great (and although I taught on it I don’t believe we should still be using it for training 21st century fast jet pilots) but it did a great job. The T2 could do an equally, if not better job, if the syllabus was more demanding. There has simply been too much meddling over the last few years from people at the stages beyond Valley who think they know best.

Every front line QWI will be spitting feathers when they read that and will say “what does a Hawk REMF know?”. But let me ask you this. Would you rather have a student starting the Typhoon OCU who can do Medium Altitude Level Bombing (MALB) in VMC or a student who could do low level CCRP deliveries with all the challenges the terrain and weather will provide?

I know I will be shouted down with cries of “what about radar handling?” And “who cares about visual evasion”. To which I would say we managed very well in Oman to teach a hybrid profile whereby we did low level evasion but using radar and GCI SA to ensure it was a step beyond simple visual evasion.

Basically, why did we stop asking the people who taught tac weapons how to produce students to an OCU input standard and just take the word of the end user?

Are there better jets than the Hawk T2? Yes of course. But can we produce excellent students using the Hawk T2? Absolutely.

I realise I’ll be shouted down and told I don’t know what I’m talking about since I’m just a dinosaur but maybe, just maybe, I did learn a thing or two in my 23 years.

BV

[Timelord]

If a mere (ex) navigator can join in - surely it’s just about capacity. Give the student something, anything, difficult to do in the air and measure their capacity. If they have enough they will cope with whatever the OCU throws at them. If they don’t then you could train them with a complete mini Typhoon / F35 and they still won’t.

In an ideal world we want to “download” training in some skills (eg radar handling) from the expensive OCU type to the cheaper training type but we are a very long way from an ideal world and that is the sort of thing that CAN be improved in the sim.

[longer ron]

As I posted previously on this thread - the Finns ended up with possibly the best updated Hawk when they fitted a Glass Cockpit to the ex Swiss Hawk Mk66 aircraft.
Still a nice relatively nice aircraft and (relatively) fairly cheap,the T2 was definitely the Gold Plated option (but without gold plated fan blades apparently) :).

[Davef68]

RAF Facebook page highlighting T2s operating from Valley today

https://www.facebook.com/royalairforce

[Dan Gerous]

Devil 1&2 ZK013, 018 currently over Northumberland.