Ascent urges the UK MOD to look for a Hawk T2 replacement.

[NutLoose]

I bet this will fall on deaf ears the budget as it is.

Ascent Urges UK Defense Ministry To Explore Hawk Trainer AlternativesLONDON–Ascent, the consortium created to run the UK’s Military Flying Training System (MFTS), has suggested that the UK defense ministry explore the procurement of an alternative advanced jet trainer to replace the BAE Systems Hawk T2. The company, a joint venture of Babcock and Lockheed Martin...


https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/light-attack-advanced-training/ascent-urges-uk-defense-ministry-explore-hawk-trainer

[SLXOwft]

It would have to be critical and the money achieved by canning something else. AFAIK Hawk T.2 OSD is still 2040 so I presume no money will have been considered yet - and the expectation would be UAV platform dominance and quite likely participation in a multinational training programme for the few FJ pilots required.

I would assume any replacement could only be seriously considered if it were contractor supplied (owned or leased), LM doesn't make one - its failed T-X bid was a partnership with KAI for the T-50

Beyond the M-346 what are the options unless the UK was to accept a supersonic trainer? Resurrecting the HAL/BAES Advanced Hawk? AERALIS - Babcock France has recently signed a deal with them.

[DuckDodgers]

Given its continued poor availability and an increased sovereign training demand, it would make sense these discussions are held sooner rather than later. I wonder if there has been talk of wider synergies across the training enterprises given the obvious capability enhancement both TF-50A or M346 could deliver?

[BEagle]

Surely it has to be the Areola Aeralis AJT?

[LateArmLive]

Hopefully not - an unproven design that hasn't flown from a company with no experience building fighter trainers is the last thing that's needed.

[DaveJ75]

Surely it has to be the Areola Aeralis AJT?

Looks ideal, although the 'flexible, affordable, on-demand' mantra will need to be regressed to late and over budget to stand realistic chance...

[NutLoose]

Textron Scorpion ;)


.

[Coochycool]

Why not just build more Hawks?

[LateArmLive]

Because it's an obsolete airframe and not representative of any of the current FL platforms. There are better options available these days.

[unmanned_droid]

It should really be a new UK airframe from a credible company.

I wouldn't mind seeing the T-7 in the UK - they should have done all the problem solving by then.

[Bob Viking]

The Hawk production line closed a while ago. It will never re-open so new Hawks cannot be an option regardless. Buying some used ones is a possibility though!

This does all feel a little like some people at Aeralis and Ascent have been doing some back channel work to scratch each others backs perhaps.

BV

[Asturias56]

"It should really be a new UK airframe from a credible company."

Not a hope - who would build it? And who else can we sell it to?

[VM325]

"It should really be a new UK airframe from a credible company."

Not a hope - who would build it? And who else can we sell it to?

Well maybe Qatar..? (https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/qatari-fund-takes-stake-in-uks-aeralis) for a start.

The Qatar-based Al Shamal 5 investment fund has taken a stake in UK aircraft development firm Aeralis, Janes has learned.

Companies House filings on 22 September revealed that the fund was the party behind the GBP10.5 million (USD14.3 million) investment that was first announced on 16 September. The investment in the company came with the allocation of 134,892 ordinary shares in the company, along with corresponding rights related to voting, dividends, and capital distribution. As a result, the investment equates to a 17.48% holding in the company.

Qatari registration documents reveal that the Al Shamal 5 fund's significant shareholder is Barzan Holdings QSTP-LLC, an arm of the Qatari Ministry of Defence's Barzan Holdings organisation. Barzan Holdings was launched in 2018 to help the country manage defence sector research and development (R&D) programmes and investments, as well as with strategic procurements.

Prior to the disclosure of the identity of the funding, Aeralis had said that the investment had been secured to help “support the design, development, and first flight of the Advanced Jet Trainer, Aeralis's first platform”, and that the fund “has committed to investing in the next generation of cutting-edge, market-disrupting solutions and the flexible, affordable, and connected aircraft systems designed by Aeralis [that] will serve the fast-evolving requirements across the future of flying training and light combat air”.

The Aeralis training aircraft has been developed as a modular system, which allows for the engines and outer edge of the wings to be changed as required to suit the curriculum. Partners for the aircraft include Rolls-Royce, which will be providing propulsion systems for the pre-production aircraft and potential future versions of the aircraft, KBR, and Atkins.

[SASless]

Replacing Hawks with Hawks sounds like a good idea.

Boeing Hawks sounds like a possibility.

Fifth generation trainer with an integrated ground training system all in one package.

Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen.

With a bucket of paint they could even come in all Red rather than just having a red tail.



https://www.boeing.com/defense/t-7a/index.page



https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x600/boeing_20t_7a_20red_20hawk_20_boeing_201_28345b175c9c7c86216 a92a70b0f146f54a754d3.jpg

[DuckDodgers]

Well maybe Qatar..? (https://www.janes.com/defence-news/news-detail/qatari-fund-takes-stake-in-uks-aeralis) for a start.

https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1168x254/img_6610_6d4c4bcd8d3ff386623ae72a6d9b63dcf7ae4747.jpeg
A classic tale, any bets that the £5M will not be paid and it becomes Qatari majority owned by Feb 24.

[Lima Juliet]

Seeing as LM own a massive stake in Ascent, then buying T-50As seems the most likely scenario:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1GsXGNrSB4

Then, what to do with a fleet of 28x Hawk T2s with life left to 2040…oh, yes, let’s paint them red…

Simples :ok:

[sharpend]

I instructed on Hawk T1 at Chivenor and consider it a fine aeroplane, perfect for advanced/tactical training. Nothing wrong with what we have. Pity we cannot have a Hawk Mk3. From an instructor point of view it is vital that the back-seater has a perfect view.

[ahwalk01]

Can anything be said for the Fouga Magister and its periscope


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x960/04c7a25b_7f8f_471d_b360_5d56866be459_7b7269b58d2274396893e9b 54b995362a4fa3eca.jpeg

[Asturias56]

"Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen."

always struck me as odd that someone building a very successful aircraft never looked at developing a successor - same with the HS125 Biz jet

[Bob Viking]

I believe it is a little while since you taught on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. I’m afraid you do yourself a disservice by imagining that times and requirements haven’t moved on since then.

I taught Tac Weapons on the Hawk T1, T2, 115 and 166. During my 15 years of Hawk instructing I saw many changes. The most obvious of which was a shift from a frontline consisting of Tornados, Jaguars and Harriers to one consisting of Typhoons and F35s. Whilst the T1 system was a good system and pushed out very capable pilots that could still provide value today, it would not be one that would provide the input standard desired of modern OCUs.

I love the Hawk T2 (that combined with the 166 make up the largest slice of my 3000+ Hawk hours) and I rate it very highly as a training platform. Notwithstanding its current serviceability woes, if I had a blank sheet of paper now to design a new trainer it wouldn’t come out looking like a Hawk. It would almost certainly look a lot more like a M346, T50 or Red Hawk and possess all of the advanced handling characteristics associated with such aircraft along with the modern avionics suites (which the Hawk T2 does have but could use a midlife update to incorporate some modern sensor simulation).

BV

[chevvron]

"Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen."

always struck me as odd that someone building a very successful aircraft never looked at developing a successor - same with the HS125 Biz jet
English Electric/BAC never wanted to produce anything other than military combat types; they got rid of all civil types as well as the Hawk as quickly as they could when BAE was formed and 'ran down' production of anything which originated in the Hawker Siddeley inventory.
They also closed the other airfields, Dunsfold, Hatfield, Filton, Woodford in order to make it look like they were still producing lots of aircraft. Now they need somewhere to set up a new production run of a new trainer, they have no capacity.

[sharpend]

I believe it is a little while since you taught on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. I’m afraid you do yourself a disservice by imagining that times and requirements haven’t moved on since then.

I taught Tac Weapons on the Hawk T1, T2, 115 and 166. During my 15 years of Hawk instructing I saw many changes. The most obvious of which was a shift from a frontline consisting of Tornados, Jaguars and Harriers to one consisting of Typhoons and F35s. Whilst the T1 system was a good system and pushed out very capable pilots that could still provide value today, it would not be one that would provide the input standard desired of modern OCUs.

I love the Hawk T2 (that combined with the 166 make up the largest slice of my 3000+ Hawk hours) and I rate it very highly as a training platform. Notwithstanding its current serviceability woes, if I had a blank sheet of paper now to design a new trainer it wouldn’t come out looking like a Hawk. It would almost certainly look a lot more like a M346, T50 or Red Hawk and possess all of the advanced handling characteristics associated with such aircraft along with the modern avionics suites (which the Hawk T2 does have but could use a midlife update to incorporate some modern sensor simulation).

BV
I bow to your far more current views. It is totally correct that I last instructed on the Hawk in 1983; an amazing 40 years ago; a lifetime. I also appreciate that the modern RAF is totally different to that era; more is the pity. Of course times have changed. However, do you not agree it is important for the instructor to have a good view out. That is the point I was trying to make. I remember many hours in the back seat of a Chippy; nightmare at night .

[unmanned_droid]

"Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen."

always struck me as odd that someone building a very successful aircraft never looked at developing a successor - same with the HS125 Biz jet
Perennial UK short-sightedness.

[BEagle]

It is totally correct that I last instructed on the Hawk in 1983; an amazing 40 years ago; a lifetime.

And a very fine instructor you were at Chivenor too, bluntie old chap! Missed you at TBs last Thursday though - once again I had your book with me for you to sign!

However, do you not agree it is important for the instructor to have a good view out.

Quite how Valley QFIs coped with night manual touch and gos at Mona in the Gnat I cannot imagine! But they did - even with clumsy students like me!

[Bug]

And a very fine instructor you were at Chivenor too, bluntie old chap! Missed you at TBs last Thursday though - once again I had your book with me for you to sign!



Quite how Valley QFIs coped with night manual touch and gos at Mona in the Gnat I cannot imagine! But they did - even with clumsy students like me!

What book? I am in the need of a good read.

[chevvron]

I remember many hours in the back seat of a Chippy; nightmare at night .
My first ever AEF trip (1962) was in a Piston Provost which rather 'spoilt' me for Chipmunk back seat rides; even when I grew taller I always thought what a crap view I used to get until the day I scrounged a Hawk ride so I could actually see something from the back seat.

[Bob Viking]

I wholeheartedly agree that a good view from the back is a very desirable thing. Older Hawk competitors such as Alphajet and T38 were terrible from the back seat. The modern competitors have all seemingly learned that lesson though (at least I know the M346 has but with the T50 and Red Hawk I’m just basing my views on photos).

BV

[Martin the Martian]

Does make you wonder what Ascent would have gone with had they had the choice. M346?

[Bob Viking]

Martin, back when the decision had to be made (bearing in mind the timeline from contract award to start of student training on Phase IV) there weren’t many options other than new Hawks. Five years later then PC21 or M346 would have been realistic options. Another five years later the T50 might have been in with a shout.

All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.

BV

[DuckDodgers]

Martin, back when the decision had to be made (bearing in mind the timeline from contract award to start of student training on Phase IV) there weren’t many options other than new Hawks. Five years later then PC21 or M346 would have been realistic options. Another five years later the T50 might have been in with a shout.

All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.

BV

I do wonder what variances in response you’d get in terms of requirements and informed output standard dependent on end platform destination? How much do you want to download from the OCU into AJT as that appears to be a bottleneck? A competition to replace T2 by the early 2030s would be interesting for sure!

[RetiredBA/BY]

Perhaps it might be better if MOD ditched Ascent and brought flying training back to the RAF. Worked in my day, Vampires to Lightnings, via Hunters !

[Bob Viking]

I could write a thesis about downloading training from OCUs to other training establishments but it’s probably a bit off topic so I’ll leave it for now.

BV

[melmothtw]

Because it's an obsolete airframe and not representative of any of the current FL platforms. There are better options available these days.

The Hawk T2 cockpit is designed to be representative of the Eurofighter and other 4th Gen types. For 5th Gen, the MFD-cockpit can be replaced by a large area display that was developed for the Indians and which I believe the Finns are taking up as they transition to the F-35. What else would make an improved version of the Hawk unsuitable?

[Bob Viking]

As far as Typhoon is concerned, the Hawk T2 is perfectly adequate as a lead in trainer. Although a software upgrade to include additional sensor simulation would be good. For F35 though you need more than just a large display to make the Hawk a better lead in. It’s still a great trainer but not when we’re taking about lead in to fifth gen stuff. Having said that, that’s what the F35 simulators are for! So maybe, we don’t need a new training jet, we just need a simulated one. Maybe ACM Wigston had a point! 💣

BV

[melmothtw]

Thanks Bob, all good points. If a Hawk isn't adequate for 5th gen training, then (as you say) arguably no LIFT aircraft is. However, IIRC Gen Brown was left bemused by Wigston's assertion that all training could be synthetic, as at some point you have to send the student up in a real aircraft and I'm not sure you would want the first time to be in an actual F-35.

[Bob Viking]

As I said, I could write a thesis about this stuff. However, it is all mostly moot since there is no money. We have Hawk T2s (and other overseas training solutions) and that isn’t going to change any time soon. We use what we have.

BV

[typerated]

As I said, I could write a thesis about this stuff. However, it is all mostly moot since there is no money. We have Hawk T2s (and other overseas training solutions) and that isn’t going to change any time soon. We use what we have.

BV

Go on Bob,
Give us a summary... maybe on another thread?

You can start by shooting down my thinking - which was a get a unit of Gripens that sit between Valley and the Typhoon/F-35s OCUs.

First short tour is to get lots of air time in the Gripen and build up 'real' experience levels on a cheap(er) platform - also Gripen of course has an excellent war role.

[LateArmLive]

The Hawk T2 cockpit is designed to be representative of the Eurofighter and other 4th Gen types. For 5th Gen, the MFD-cockpit can be replaced by a large area display that was developed for the Indians and which I believe the Finns are taking up as they transition to the F-35. What else would make an improved version of the Hawk unsuitable?

No FCS, no soft wing / high AOA capability, terrible engine, terrible cockpit ergonomics, high cockpit noise. That about covers the LIMFACs for Hawk as an advanced trainer in the 2020s and beyond. Sure, you can polish the turd by putting in a fancy screen, but you need a reason to have that screen. No point having it if all you can do is display a SENSIM and pseudo-datalink.

Now if you were smart and looking at replacing the advanced trainer with something that could perform a red air role too, you'd need L16, radar, AAR, supersonic capability and a jammer, but that all costs money and that's something HMG isn't too keen to spend on capability in the short term. Much better to pay more over the long term for a significantly reduced output... Maybe I'm just being cynical, but this is not something I see us getting right in the future either.

[Bob Viking]

Since I have a little bit of spare time and I’m in the mood I’ll throw a few thoughts down. I won’t go for the full thesis but I’ll highlight a few things. I feel it is still on thread enough.

First, a quick précis of my experience and then a little history. I did six Hawk tours teaching mostly tac weapons but also AFT to staff and students in the RAF, RCAF, and RAFO. So, whilst I have been away from the frontline for a considerable time I do know a thing or two about FJ training.

Ascent took over Phase IV FJ training in about the 2010-11 timeframe. They were told that the Hawk T2 was their airframe. RAF QFIs wrote the early syllabus and commenced training the first batches of QFIs.

I know most people like to bash Ascent but I have never joined the chorus. I realise there is an element of not wishing to bite the hand that might feed you one day, but I also think that the MOD has to take a share of the blame. The major mistake from day one was asking a civilian consortium (with a few select ex-military individuals) to start a multi-year, multi-billion pound contract by taking over the process of producing Phase III and IV FJ pilots as their first taste of military flying training. That was a big ask to say the least.

You’ll also note that I don’t ever comment on any of Ascent’s dealings outside of the Hawk set up at Valley because I cannot comment with any authority about what goes on in other units.

Anyway, at about the same time as Ascent was taking hold of the reins at Valley, the UK Government was busy slashing front line fighter fleets. Harriers and F3s were binned with not enough front line cockpits elsewhere to go around.

This is the point where I unleash some brutal honesty.

Lots of otherwise thrusting and capable front line pilots and instructors were left with nowhere decent to thrust. Several of them (of varying ranks and from various fleets) went to Valley. They then saw it as their mission to make their mark on the fledgling system there. Hence the idea of downloading training from OCUs and the frontline was born. It almost became an obsession to make the Hawk T2 ‘force’ become ready for war. Forgetting that the raisin d’etre of the Hawk T2 was as a training platform. It would be fair to say there was a little competition to prove who knew the most about being a fighter pilot instead of focussing on how to take Tucano pilots (as they were then) and turn them into a pilot capable of starting an OCU.

None of that can be blamed on Ascent. In fact you could argue they had to exercise extreme patience when their only customer continually changed their mind about what they wanted.

Anyway, downloading training from more expensive aircraft types is, of course, a great idea. In theory. Trying to slavishly copy and recreate how frontline types operate was not such a great idea. Especially when the new kid on the block (the Typhoon force) was in a phase of continual change in their tactics and operating procedures, as was to be expected from a new force and one that had just been thrown into its first major operational deployment in Libya.

At about the same time as all this was going on, the RAF binned all stocks of dumb bombs. We were also (rightly) becoming much less of a low level oriented FJ force. This meant the frontline was definitely not in the business of practicing old school 2v1 or 4v1 low level evasion sorties with low level lay down and pop attacks. It would be fair to say that the Hawk T1 fleet used a students ability to operate as a wingman and formation leader in a low level, opposed environment (with map and stopwatch mostly but latterly with the help of a very basic bolt on GPS) with all the vaguaries of the UK weather thrown in as extra spice as their final arbiter of whether the young pilot was going to make a good frontline pilot.

People argued until they were blue in the face about how pointless it was to keep teaching such legacy tactics that were completely unrepresentative of frontline business. People such as myself might have tried to point out that what you teach wasn’t quite as important as how you teach it. In fact many pilots (from a few years back) will admit they were never as sharp in pure flying terms as when they were leading formations at low level in poor weather with a ToT to achieve. But, of course, a voice such as mine could always be trumped by someone with more recent frontline experience.

So that meant that, for instance, instead of students being asked to do these very demanding low level sorties they were then focussing more on medium level, level bombing sorties. The early ones were of course unopposed. When you have no simulated targeting pod and no symbology to simulate a Paveway type weapon this was basically a medium level, unopposed NAV ex (with simulated SAMs later on and then opposed subsequently as well) with a manual pickle from a straight and level profile. Because that’s what the frontline were doing (well actually not really but it was the only aspects that could be copied in the absence of better weapons and targeting simulation).

So when I hear downloaded training I think “great idea” if (big IF) the training aircraft can accurately represent what the frontline are doing. This means you either need a new trainer (not going to happen) or a significant software update (probably not going to happen) or you need to invest in some sort of simulated platform that can help you out (more on that later). If you can’t do any of this (usually because of budgetary restraints) then my recommendation would be to listen to the experts. The people that know how to turn Tucano pilots into OCU input standard pilots. Not people who have (I’m sure very expertly) taken already trained and combat ready pilots and taken them to war on their actual frontline platform.

So, what would I do?

I would use the platform we have (Hawk T2 which is a very good FJ trainer - notwithstanding current serviceability issues and I have no idea if and when they will be resolved). I would take those T6 pilots (no longer Tucano) and I would put them through a course that is both challenging and as operationally relevant as I could make it. That involves compromise.

If you want to see if the trainee pilots are going to make good frontline operators you need to stretch them. You do that by using the tools (factors) you have at your disposal. In the UK that means weather, terrain, airspace etc. You use sortie profiles that will stretch them even if it doesn’t perfectly replicate what the frontline do. Yes, that means potentially using low level and old school targeting methods. Not because it has anything to do with what Typhoon and F35 do in Operations but because it teaches key skills such as operating and targeting under pressure in a high threat environment. It also exposes them to captaincy and airmanship decision making that will make some later flying seem incredibly straightforward. They already do alot of radar work and are currently limited by only being able to target airborne assets. It would be great if this could evolve to include additional simulated target groups but that is all part of the software upgrade idea that would need significant funding.

I would also ensure that all students have operated from unfamiliar and preferably overseas bases by the way, before they reach an OCU and I know that certainly did happen but I don’t know to what extent it happens now.

I have been away from Valley for a few years now and left the Hawk over a year ago. This means that some of what I say may be out of date and I realise that it is very unlikely that any current Valley QFI is going to come on here anyway so I’m basically howling at the moon. But I still felt it was worth saying.

As for your Gripen question I would say no. An extra fleet will not help anyone unless it is also your trainer and red air aircraft all rolled into one. What I think could help would be an extra stage between Valley and OCUs (assuming a Hawk software upgrade does not happen) that makes use of simulation to open the eyes of the student to life beyond Wales. I know that there are some things on the horizon that have received funding to help with this (Red 6 for those that know what I’m talking about) and I hope they can come to fruition and be incorporated successfully into the equation.

Anyway, with all of the above (if you’re still reading!) I have to add that I’m yesterday’s man when it comes to Hawk training. I don’t keep fully up to date and most of my views are from (fairly recent) historic experience and I hope that much of what I’m talking about has been taken into account anyway and I just don’t know about it.

To ensure this post has at least some relevance to the thread I must add that I still don’t think the MOD needs to buy a new platform. They just need to sort out the one they already have.

BV

[tucumseh]

None of that can be blamed on Ascent. In fact you could argue they had to exercise extreme patience when their only customer continually changed their mind about what they wanted.

BV

This. Well said.

[DuckDodgers]

Since I have a little bit of spare time and I’m in the mood I’ll throw a few thoughts down. I won’t go for the full thesis but I’ll highlight a few things. I feel it is still on thread enough.

First, a quick précis of my experience and then a little history. I did six Hawk tours teaching mostly tac weapons but also AFT to staff and students in the RAF, RCAF, and RAFO. So, whilst I have been away from the frontline for a considerable time I do know a thing or two about FJ training.

Ascent took over Phase IV FJ training in about the 2010-11 timeframe. They were told that the Hawk T2 was their airframe. RAF QFIs wrote the early syllabus and commenced training the first batches of QFIs.

I know most people like to bash Ascent but I have never joined the chorus. I realise there is an element of not wishing to bite the hand that might feed you one day, but I also think that the MOD has to take a share of the blame. The major mistake from day one was asking a civilian consortium (with a few select ex-military individuals) to start a multi-year, multi-billion pound contract by taking over the process of producing Phase III and IV FJ pilots as their first taste of military flying training. That was a big ask to say the least.

You’ll also note that I don’t ever comment on any of Ascent’s dealings outside of the Hawk set up at Valley because I cannot comment with any authority about what goes on in other units.

Anyway, at about the same time as Ascent was taking hold of the reins at Valley, the UK Government was busy slashing front line fighter fleets. Harriers and F3s were binned with not enough front line cockpits elsewhere to go around.

This is the point where I unleash some brutal honesty.

Lots of otherwise thrusting and capable front line pilots and instructors were left with nowhere decent to thrust. Several of them (of varying ranks and from various fleets) went to Valley. They then saw it as their mission to make their mark on the fledgling system there. Hence the idea of downloading training from OCUs and the frontline was born. It almost became an obsession to make the Hawk T2 ‘force’ become ready for war. Forgetting that the raisin d’etre of the Hawk T2 was as a training platform. It would be fair to say there was a little competition to prove who knew the most about being a fighter pilot instead of focussing on how to take Tucano pilots (as they were then) and turn them into a pilot capable of starting an OCU.

None of that can be blamed on Ascent. In fact you could argue they had to exercise extreme patience when their only customer continually changed their mind about what they wanted.

Anyway, downloading training from more expensive aircraft types is, of course, a great idea. In theory. Trying to slavishly copy and recreate how frontline types operate was not such a great idea. Especially when the new kid on the block (the Typhoon force) was in a phase of continual change in their tactics and operating procedures, as was to be expected from a new force and one that had just been thrown into its first major operational deployment in Libya.

At about the same time as all this was going on, the RAF binned all stocks of dumb bombs. We were also (rightly) becoming much less of a low level oriented FJ force. This meant the frontline was definitely not in the business of practicing old school 2v1 or 4v1 low level evasion sorties with low level lay down and pop attacks. It would be fair to say that the Hawk T1 fleet used a students ability to operate as a wingman and formation leader in a low level, opposed environment (with map and stopwatch mostly but latterly with the help of a very basic bolt on GPS) with all the vaguaries of the UK weather thrown in as extra spice as their final arbiter of whether the young pilot was going to make a good frontline pilot.

People argued until they were blue in the face about how pointless it was to keep teaching such legacy tactics that were completely unrepresentative of frontline business. People such as myself might have tried to point out that what you teach wasn’t quite as important as how you teach it. In fact many pilots (from a few years back) will admit they were never as sharp in pure flying terms as when they were leading formations at low level in poor weather with a ToT to achieve. But, of course, a voice such as mine could always be trumped by someone with more recent frontline experience.

So that meant that, for instance, instead of students being asked to do these very demanding low level sorties they were then focussing more on medium level, level bombing sorties. The early ones were of course unopposed. When you have no simulated targeting pod and no symbology to simulate a Paveway type weapon this was basically a medium level, unopposed NAV ex (with simulated SAMs later on and then opposed subsequently as well) with a manual pickle from a straight and level profile. Because that’s what the frontline were doing (well actually not really but it was the only aspects that could be copied in the absence of better weapons and targeting simulation).

So when I hear downloaded training I think “great idea” if (big IF) the training aircraft can accurately represent what the frontline are doing. This means you either need a new trainer (not going to happen) or a significant software update (probably not going to happen) or you need to invest in some sort of simulated platform that can help you out (more on that later). If you can’t do any of this (usually because of budgetary restraints) then my recommendation would be to listen to the experts. The people that know how to turn Tucano pilots into OCU input standard pilots. Not people who have (I’m sure very expertly) taken already trained and combat ready pilots and taken them to war on their actual frontline platform.

So, what would I do?

I would use the platform we have (Hawk T2 which is a very good FJ trainer - notwithstanding current serviceability issues and I have no idea if and when they will be resolved). I would take those T6 pilots (no longer Tucano) and I would put them through a course that is both challenging and as operationally relevant as I could make it. That involves compromise.

If you want to see if the trainee pilots are going to make good frontline operators you need to stretch them. You do that by using the tools (factors) you have at your disposal. In the UK that means weather, terrain, airspace etc. You use sortie profiles that will stretch them even if it doesn’t perfectly replicate what the frontline do. Yes, that means potentially using low level and old school targeting methods. Not because it has anything to do with what Typhoon and F35 do in Operations but because it teaches key skills such as operating and targeting under pressure in a high threat environment. It also exposes them to captaincy and airmanship decision making that will make some later flying seem incredibly straightforward. They already do alot of radar work and are currently limited by only being able to target airborne assets. It would be great if this could evolve to include additional simulated target groups but that is all part of the software upgrade idea that would need significant funding.

I would also ensure that all students have operated from unfamiliar and preferably overseas bases by the way, before they reach an OCU and I know that certainly did happen but I don’t know to what extent it happens now.

I have been away from Valley for a few years now and left the Hawk over a year ago. This means that some of what I say may be out of date and I realise that it is very unlikely that any current Valley QFI is going to come on here anyway so I’m basically howling at the moon. But I still felt it was worth saying.

As for your Gripen question I would say no. An extra fleet will not help anyone unless it is also your trainer and red air aircraft all rolled into one. What I think could help would be an extra stage between Valley and OCUs (assuming a Hawk software upgrade does not happen) that makes use of simulation to open the eyes of the student to life beyond Wales. I know that there are some things on the horizon that have received funding to help with this (Red 6 for those that know what I’m talking about) and I hope they can come to fruition and be incorporated successfully into the equation.

Anyway, with all of the above (if you’re still reading!) I have to add that I’m yesterday’s man when it comes to Hawk training. I don’t keep fully up to date and most of my views are from (fairly recent) historic experience and I hope that much of what I’m talking about has been taken into account anyway and I just don’t know about it.

To ensure this post has at least some relevance to the thread I must add that I still don’t think the MOD needs to buy a new platform. They just need to sort out the one they already have.

BV

Even with public domain initiatives relating to that platform, how do you square the circle wrt student output with just 28 airframes and a HISS contract that delivers significantly fewer hours than is required, when the platform is available of course.

[Bob Viking]

It’s not my circle to square. As I said, I last flew at Valley in 2017 and stopped flying the Hawk last year. My flying rate never suffered as a result of Hawk serviceability and I never operated on a Sqn where we were unable to meet a task as a result of jet issues.

My points that I raised were about what I believe could and should happen with regard to training. I can’t speak for how you achieve the task with 28 airframes because I don’t know anything about the current challenges at Valley.

As an aside, if the MOD were to heed the request for a new fleet of training aircraft do you really think they’d buy more than 28 of whatever aircraft was selected? I’d be very surprised if numbers ever went up! The other thing that really would need to happen would be that more than two full mission simulators would need to be procured. And they can be more expensive than aircraft.

One other thing that really dissapointed me was a total disregard by the RAF of certain other Air Forces with good training opportunities (driven by CFS ‘experts’). There is more than one country in the Middle East for instance that operates the same mark of Hawk (essentially identical except for a couple of minor, irrelevant switches) as the RAF that have good weather and large airspace. It just amuses me when I think of some of the solutions they went with and some of the potential ones they ignored. Again, CFS know best.

BV

[NutLoose]

A couple of RAF students have just gone solo during their jet training at Deci

Two student pilots have become the first Royal Air Force trainees to fly solo at Nato's flying training school on the Italian island of Sardinia.

The pair made their solo flights on the twin-engined Aermacchi T-346 Master at the International Flight Training School in Decimomannu, having completed their basic flying training on the Texan T1 in the UK earlier this year.

Launched in 2020, the Nato Flight Training Europe High Visibility Project helped to link up and coordinate training between member states.The UK joined the initiative at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels in October 2023.

Air Commodore Ian Sharrocks, the head of UK Military Flying Training, said: "Access to alternate flying training systems across Europe, which NFTE membership gives us, not only enables us to address periodic fluctuations in demand but also delivers the flexibility for us to increase our support to Nato".

He added: "Crucially this will deliver greater resilience to the RAF frontline, UK defence and all of our Nato partners.

"It is essential that we work together to get the very best out of the assets we have."

Following their first solo flights on the T-346, the first two trainees have now progressed to flying air-to-air and air-to-ground combat training sorties.

They will be posted to either the Typhoon or Lightning frontline Operational Conversion Units upon successful completion of the course.

Twelve RAF pilots will be trained over the next three years at the air base on the Mediterranean island.


https://www.forces.net/services/raf/students-become-first-raf-pilots-fly-solo-nato-flight-school

[mopardave]

What book? I am in the need of a good read.
An absolutely first class read it is too.

[BEagle]

It's this book:

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/330x474/bluntie_8fe4444bad02f62c6817556201bc58d649264372.jpg

[ex-fast-jets]

I have just read your previous comments - I am well out of what is currently going on in the RAF, but I found your thoughts interesting and informative - unlike many of the current ramblings on PPRuNe.

So thank you, and I wish we could return to worthwhile comments such as yours and even banter, the way it used to be on this Forum!!

[NutLoose]

Pardon me for my ignorance but as Bob says.


At about the same time as all this was going on, the RAF binned all stocks of dumb bombs. We were also (rightly) becoming much less of a low level oriented FJ force. This meant the frontline was definitely not in the business of practicing old school 2v1 or 4v1 low level evasion sorties with low level lay down and pop attacks. It would be fair to say that the Hawk T1 fleet used a students ability to operate as a wingman and formation leader in a low level, opposed environment (with map and stopwatch mostly but latterly with the help of a very basic bolt on GPS) with all the vaguaries of the UK weather thrown in as extra spice as their final arbiter of whether the young pilot was going to make a good frontline pilot.


I might be totally wrong and have no experience at all to back this up, but surely what is going on in Ukraine against Russia, who let’s face it would be our main threat , is proving that low level operations and pop ups in such a theatre is the way to go as it appears to be the norm for both sides, or is it because of the Wests supposed superior weaponry that we believe we no longer need to train in these realms?

I also wonder if operating 28 aircraft are not enough to cope with the current training scenario, how will it cope in training Ukrainian pilots that Rishi has committed us too?

[chopper2004]

How about the L-15 lol, I saw the new UAEAF one during Dubai Air Show this week (my pics below)

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/uaeaf_l15_dubai_airshow_1_f6e53e2bdf15e06c6c1c0f3e6cf7d0d5e4 697959.jpg
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/uaeaf_l15_dubai_airshow_2_7a0ccde1295125656b919d7d914ed66884 d90110.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/720x960/uaeaf_l15_dubai_airshow_3_8349ea6d6e66313c4e5a00d06ccfe0d865 5c2f3d.jpg
cheers

[BBadanov]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x720/uaeaf_l15_dubai_airshow_1_f6e53e2bdf15e06c6c1c0f3e6cf7d0d5e4 697959.jpg
The L-15 looks like it comes in Red Bull colours.
Perhaps the Ferrari variant would suit the Reds.
And the McLaren version would provide good Student Avoidance for Valley.
[oops, almost said Training Command.]

[Lima Juliet]

NutLoose

I also wonder if operating 28 aircraft are not enough to cope with the current training scenario, how will it cope in training Ukrainian pilots that Rishi has committed us too?

The French are doing the fast jet element on Alpha Jet: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2023/08/21/with-f-16s-ukraine-could-grow-its-air-force-by-half/?sh=1104f9632540

The UK is doing language training, ground school and elementary/semi-basic flying training prior to Alpha Jet as per the article.

Fear naught, you can’t pin this Hawk debacle on Rishi Sunak! You need to look back at 2 Jags Prescott who stepped in to ensure that BAe Brough (that subsequently closed!) could get the contract for T2 to buy more votes in Humberside. We should have bought the M346 instead!

BBC NEWS | Business | BAE wins key aircraft deal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3110983.stm)

[DuckDodgers]

Whether 28 aircraft is enough comes down to availability. So even pre-current woes with that platform and the historic support behind it, it simply doesn’t cut the mustard. Look to IFTS as to what availability rates should and could look like if MOD were to be so bold. Parallels can be drawn with Australia with Hawk 127 availability rates, that’s with a slightly larger fleet of 33 aircraft.