UAE bins BAE
BAE can't win anyway which way it would seem, when they produce something it is allways late, rubbish, out of date and expensive. When the MOD buys it, it is because they are forced/blackmailed into buying the product because it is saving british jobs, when others overseas buy the products it is because they are provided with 'sweeteners', not because the product is any good, when they lose a sale it is because they did not give a 'sweetener' or a big enough one.
Again I must be thick but why would America in particular and all the other countries accept 'sweeteners' for buying out of date, expensive, late, inferior to American products, seems a bit of a paradox.
Again I must be thick but why would America in particular and all the other countries accept 'sweeteners' for buying out of date, expensive, late, inferior to American products, seems a bit of a paradox.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: North
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It wasn’t a happy time oop at ‘t werrks
No it wasnt a happy time and as long as we have the great 'consultants in AAR' giving us 'qualified' information on the training fleet then it never will.
Can you stick to your undoubtebtly excellent advice to blue jobs that want to convert the civvy fleet and leave the job of selling a training 'system' to the people that do it well. For goodness sake stop knocking the one British industry that we still have.
You obviously don't think much of the North but by my timing from EGVN to the home of the Hawk in a 'British Built VC10' is 21 minutes.
John (Redundancy obviously pending)
Can you stick to your undoubtebtly excellent advice to blue jobs that want to convert the civvy fleet and leave the job of selling a training 'system' to the people that do it well. For goodness sake stop knocking the one British industry that we still have.
You obviously don't think much of the North but by my timing from EGVN to the home of the Hawk in a 'British Built VC10' is 21 minutes.
John (Redundancy obviously pending)
Oh dear, some of 't clog and whippet lot seem reet proper blazin' at 't mention of 't Bungling Baron......
Brize Norton to Dunsfold, Surrey (home of the Hawk) is a lot less than 21 min. Tha' knows.
Now then, time terr see to 't pigeons, by 'eck.
Brize Norton to Dunsfold, Surrey (home of the Hawk) is a lot less than 21 min. Tha' knows.
Now then, time terr see to 't pigeons, by 'eck.
For goodness sake stop knocking the one British industry that we still have
I hope no one is under the mistaken illusion that:
- winning Hawk export orders necessarily saves jobs for British workers (the receiving country are more than likely to build them themselves under contract), or
- choosing Hawk for MFTS over, say M346 necessarily saved more jobs for British workers at home (not if the 346 was built in the UK under contract).
Beagle you mentioned:
I think you will find this analogy can be applied to the Chinook (1960’s technology, so old hat now), the F15E (1970’s technology, so old hat as well) to name but two. I do not hear any comments about these companies, who I am sure their management make money in exactly the same way as BAE, probably make more as well.
[“Well, ‘t lads have coome oop wi’ a new nose ferr ‘t ‘awk. An’ soom nice new TVs in ‘t cockpit” “But Baron, an old camel with a new saddle is still an old camel”, said the Emir............. As indeed it truly is.
Last edited by Exrigger; 4th Nov 2007 at 08:35. Reason: Formatting
If the government wish us to have a particular aircraft because it is in the national interest then so be it - they are elected to make those decisions. However, they also are increasingly expecting the defence budget to be run along commercial lines and are funding it accordingly. Therefore if this procurement is being made for political reasons, rather than commercial/defence reasons then the extra cost should be funded from outside the defence budget.
It is also a little irksome to see BAE Systems receiving contracts on this basis when they have happily sold-off all their inherited family silver - HS125, Airbus, Rover etc - without any thought for national interest.
Politics was just as big a factor in the procurement of the A400M - which some people around here are very quick to defend.
It is also a little irksome to see BAE Systems receiving contracts on this basis when they have happily sold-off all their inherited family silver - HS125, Airbus, Rover etc - without any thought for national interest.
Politics was just as big a factor in the procurement of the A400M - which some people around here are very quick to defend.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"the receiving country are more than likely to build them themselves under contract"
i would suggest that the manufacture of the component parts involves far more work than the final assembley of the aircraft its self
i would suggest that the manufacture of the component parts involves far more work than the final assembley of the aircraft its self
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exrigger - interesting arguement until you consider that the US Department of Defense is BAE's biggest customer, accounting for just under 50% of the company's annual income.
Think you will find that same BAE is the biggest (by some margin) overseas supplier to the US armed forces. And the USN is the largest operator of Hawk, albeit a Boeing-built variant, specifically adapted for carrier operations.
Suggest it's not quite as black as the picture you and others paint.
Think you will find that same BAE is the biggest (by some margin) overseas supplier to the US armed forces. And the USN is the largest operator of Hawk, albeit a Boeing-built variant, specifically adapted for carrier operations.
Suggest it's not quite as black as the picture you and others paint.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hawk was a remarkable step forward as an advanced trainer when it first appeared thanks to its airframe. The instructor could see, the handling was safe and straightforward and the engine and wing were extremely well matched. Indeed as the first swept wing with low induced drag it gave the old Hunter men a very hard time as they were not used to pulling high g for more than a turn or two before the speed dropped and they could take a breather. The Hawk’s 6g until you ran out of fuel was quite another matter.
The cockpit and equipment fit was gradually developed (indeed Warton did a better job at that than I believe Kingston would have done) and turned the later versions into excellent trainers. But now the wing aerodynamics cannot offer a lead in experience to high alpha types.
The FBW Yak-130 and M-346 allow high alpha training plus the Yak offers variable stability and airborne simulation of other service types. As such they seem to me to be real instructional tools for a modern QFI/QWI.
I am sad to say that the Hawk and FA2 wings are no longer up to tomorrow’s job – but not many designs that date from the 60s have done as well for so long. In fact probably none if one is honest.
The cockpit and equipment fit was gradually developed (indeed Warton did a better job at that than I believe Kingston would have done) and turned the later versions into excellent trainers. But now the wing aerodynamics cannot offer a lead in experience to high alpha types.
The FBW Yak-130 and M-346 allow high alpha training plus the Yak offers variable stability and airborne simulation of other service types. As such they seem to me to be real instructional tools for a modern QFI/QWI.
I am sad to say that the Hawk and FA2 wings are no longer up to tomorrow’s job – but not many designs that date from the 60s have done as well for so long. In fact probably none if one is honest.
Indeed, John!
Not to mention that it was vastly safer for most AFTS students than the lovely Gnat (no STUPRECC-ing) - and a darn sight easier to maintain!
Although with its frankly appalling compass system (in pre-AHARS days) and greater fuel capacity, it had vastly greater potential for getting its pilots utterly lost in the wildest parts of Viet-Taff.
And WHY no offset-TACAN? What idiot allowed that....
Not to mention that it was vastly safer for most AFTS students than the lovely Gnat (no STUPRECC-ing) - and a darn sight easier to maintain!
Although with its frankly appalling compass system (in pre-AHARS days) and greater fuel capacity, it had vastly greater potential for getting its pilots utterly lost in the wildest parts of Viet-Taff.
And WHY no offset-TACAN? What idiot allowed that....
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You are right of course BEagle and I did not go into details about the poor original T1 cockpit fit for many reasons. The Dunsfold pilots were mainly concerned to get ADD and fuel flowmeters fitted as the former allows a good instructor to teach everything about flying the wing and the flowmeter how and why we deal with jet engines the way we do.
Sadly neither was in the RAF spec because the OR staff of those days, who clearly had no grasp of angle of attack, said they learnt to fly properly without it and it was just a Dunsfold/Harrier fad that had no part to play in flying training. Since it was not in the spec we were forbidden to clutter up the cockpit with such stuff even if it was free.
Sadly neither was in the RAF spec because the OR staff of those days, who clearly had no grasp of angle of attack, said they learnt to fly properly without it and it was just a Dunsfold/Harrier fad that had no part to play in flying training. Since it was not in the spec we were forbidden to clutter up the cockpit with such stuff even if it was free.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Deepest Oxfordshire
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pre-AHRS 'Awks
BEags, JF
I did TWU at Chiv in 1983 when the fleet was mixed - I guess about a third of the jets had AHRS at that time. The training value conferred by this circumstance was beyond measure.
No, I am not referring to the level of skill that we all acquired in low level navigation with a compass that didn't work in turns (or at all, after you had done the first couple) - banging a six-inch nail into the coaming to use as a sundial, combined with even an RAF issue aircrew watch, would probably have made a better navigation aid!
I mean the equally valuable skill imparted to the abo pilots in 'negotiating' with the groundcrew for an AHRS jet! Much beer changed hands, to be sure.
Gadget
I did TWU at Chiv in 1983 when the fleet was mixed - I guess about a third of the jets had AHRS at that time. The training value conferred by this circumstance was beyond measure.
No, I am not referring to the level of skill that we all acquired in low level navigation with a compass that didn't work in turns (or at all, after you had done the first couple) - banging a six-inch nail into the coaming to use as a sundial, combined with even an RAF issue aircrew watch, would probably have made a better navigation aid!
I mean the equally valuable skill imparted to the abo pilots in 'negotiating' with the groundcrew for an AHRS jet! Much beer changed hands, to be sure.
Gadget
Yes, pre-AHRS was a shock to those of us brought up on "Heading and time - and put yer map away, Bloggs!". Fortunately, Viet-Taff has plenty of unique features to use as landmarks, so we just used those instead of maps.
The Chipmunk had a better compass than the pre-AHRS Hawk. IIRC, to resunch the poxing thing you were supposed to press the mysterious orange button, then fly straight and level for a minute. Useful idea in a TWU jet, that!
Some Air Wheel once wrote "The deficiencies of the Hawk compass system were well know before the aircraft entered service"...
So why wasn't it fixed before the Hawk entered service?
We had a visiting Israeli assessment team at Valley who said that they couldn't believe that an aircraft manufacturer could come up with something as useless as that awful compass system.
The Chipmunk had a better compass than the pre-AHRS Hawk. IIRC, to resunch the poxing thing you were supposed to press the mysterious orange button, then fly straight and level for a minute. Useful idea in a TWU jet, that!
Some Air Wheel once wrote "The deficiencies of the Hawk compass system were well know before the aircraft entered service"...
So why wasn't it fixed before the Hawk entered service?
We had a visiting Israeli assessment team at Valley who said that they couldn't believe that an aircraft manufacturer could come up with something as useless as that awful compass system.
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So why wasn't it fixed before the Hawk entered service?
I refuse to be drawn into more specifics about this issue than what follows - not because I am afraid of limiting my career (ha!) but just because I have better things to get on with today.
In those days there was something called GFE (Government furnished equipment) which was often specified by the customer as having to be fitted.
The T1 was a Hawker aeroplane (pre BAe) and the chaps in that org on a daily basis really did do their best for the user (not the customer) but sometimes they had no control over events.
A2E2 was the clearance to service authority not Hawkers.
Over the years many in A2E2 did not always agree what they were told to clear.
Neville Shute (who knew a thing or two about the aviation industry and life) had one of his characters (an RAE boffin) say that you could not maintain your professional integrity as an engineer in the aircraft business unless you had a private income.
I had a UK civilian (1 or 2 star) project director write to my company and formally complain that my job was to fly aeroplanes and not to publicly express views that went against his procurement policy over a bit of kit for the GR5 at his meeting in the US (would you believe that kit also told you which way the aircraft was pointed). Despite the subsequent unpleasantness I was much chuffed when on that occasion the technical case I made won the day. In those days technical merit did not always win out over political expediency.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr.Farley,
we all know what you say is spot-on as usual; the only bit which concerns me is " in those days " ! --- Has it got better then ??!!
I did think one word which ( unless I've missed it as usual ) was noticeably absent from the Hawk debate here is ' commonality ' - given that there's still a relatively large T1 fleet, and the 128 buy not that big.
Re. The variable stability training you mentioned, I suppose the lessons from the Astra Hawk project are too old technology now ?, or BAe just didn't feel like it...
I can't help thinking the civil serpents are hoping to get away without a future advanced trainer programme, as A, they reckon you can do anything with simulators, B, they keep hearing ' no more manned aircraft soon '...
we all know what you say is spot-on as usual; the only bit which concerns me is " in those days " ! --- Has it got better then ??!!
I did think one word which ( unless I've missed it as usual ) was noticeably absent from the Hawk debate here is ' commonality ' - given that there's still a relatively large T1 fleet, and the 128 buy not that big.
Re. The variable stability training you mentioned, I suppose the lessons from the Astra Hawk project are too old technology now ?, or BAe just didn't feel like it...
I can't help thinking the civil serpents are hoping to get away without a future advanced trainer programme, as A, they reckon you can do anything with simulators, B, they keep hearing ' no more manned aircraft soon '...
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andy
These days I don't think anybody would try and provide variable stability without starting with an aircraft that had FBW as its basic control system
As Stanley Hooker said many moons ago "We decided not to do a hydraulically controlled TV set."
JF
These days I don't think anybody would try and provide variable stability without starting with an aircraft that had FBW as its basic control system
As Stanley Hooker said many moons ago "We decided not to do a hydraulically controlled TV set."
JF
JF,
(With due humility)
Is variable stability/specific type stimulation really all that useful and/or applicable to an advanced trainer? I can see some relevance to the 'one-frontline-type' air force, where its trainers could 'ape' the type that all students are going on to, if the potential problems can be overcome.
But if your students are likely to be 'output' to different types, how can you practically simulate all of those types? What are the implications for instructors and their currency - they'll be flying a Tornado one sortie, an F-16 the next, and all in a cockpit that gives few cues as to what it's simulating.
How can you easily and practically fly formations with students destined for different types?
If you can't fully simulate a given type, is it really helpful anyway? If you have a trainer with a centre stick, for example, is it worth accurately simulating the handling characteristics of an F-16?
Knowing the constraints and limitations applied to ops in the ASTRA Hawk and Varistab Basset, what are the airworthiness and certification implications of a reprogammable FCS?
I see a great deal of pressure from the users to be able to download more training from the OCU stage - but not from the 'type conversion' element of the course. There's an obvious need for IFF, radar emulation, etc, but I don't see much pressure for 'type simulation'.
The Hawk 128 (and the generation of 'awks that includes the Aussie, Bahraini, Indian and South African aircraft) seem to offer what you need for advanced training and some downloaded OCU type stuff.
Is supersonic performance really any more useful than the USAF have found it on the T-38 (its exploited for one sortie in the syllabus) and would high Alpha capabilities beyond those offered by the Hawk really be useful for the advanced training role?
(With due humility)
Is variable stability/specific type stimulation really all that useful and/or applicable to an advanced trainer? I can see some relevance to the 'one-frontline-type' air force, where its trainers could 'ape' the type that all students are going on to, if the potential problems can be overcome.
But if your students are likely to be 'output' to different types, how can you practically simulate all of those types? What are the implications for instructors and their currency - they'll be flying a Tornado one sortie, an F-16 the next, and all in a cockpit that gives few cues as to what it's simulating.
How can you easily and practically fly formations with students destined for different types?
If you can't fully simulate a given type, is it really helpful anyway? If you have a trainer with a centre stick, for example, is it worth accurately simulating the handling characteristics of an F-16?
Knowing the constraints and limitations applied to ops in the ASTRA Hawk and Varistab Basset, what are the airworthiness and certification implications of a reprogammable FCS?
I see a great deal of pressure from the users to be able to download more training from the OCU stage - but not from the 'type conversion' element of the course. There's an obvious need for IFF, radar emulation, etc, but I don't see much pressure for 'type simulation'.
The Hawk 128 (and the generation of 'awks that includes the Aussie, Bahraini, Indian and South African aircraft) seem to offer what you need for advanced training and some downloaded OCU type stuff.
Is supersonic performance really any more useful than the USAF have found it on the T-38 (its exploited for one sortie in the syllabus) and would high Alpha capabilities beyond those offered by the Hawk really be useful for the advanced training role?
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 1,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John,
As usual a few simple words from you ( FBW etc in this example ) make me realize I knew the reason, but didn't KNOW I knew the reason !
Jackonicko makes a fair point I think about simulating types - I always wondered how a relatively fast jet pilot could be conviced he was handling a C-130 even if the control inputs are the same...Not sure which force steps from F-16's to Tornado's though, except in overseas tours.
No doubt it will all be done with holograms any day now.
I quite fancy a hydraulic T.V. John, after all I have a literally brilliant wind-up torch !
Your mention of Neville Shute is very acute - there was a man who was a ( sensible ) dreamer and engineer / flyer - a rare mix but it ought to be required on some people's C.V's...
Andy
As usual a few simple words from you ( FBW etc in this example ) make me realize I knew the reason, but didn't KNOW I knew the reason !
Jackonicko makes a fair point I think about simulating types - I always wondered how a relatively fast jet pilot could be conviced he was handling a C-130 even if the control inputs are the same...Not sure which force steps from F-16's to Tornado's though, except in overseas tours.
No doubt it will all be done with holograms any day now.
I quite fancy a hydraulic T.V. John, after all I have a literally brilliant wind-up torch !
Your mention of Neville Shute is very acute - there was a man who was a ( sensible ) dreamer and engineer / flyer - a rare mix but it ought to be required on some people's C.V's...
Andy
Do a Hover - it avoids G
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Chichester West Sussex UK
Age: 91
Posts: 2,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko
I was referring to VS in the context of teaching people to fly in the pure sense not the applied one.
Most of your remarks are related to the issues that surround conversion to type, currency and so on for which there is no substitute for using either the real aeroplane or a modern full mission simulator.
I had my QFI hat on where I have a student who only knows the type of handling he has experienced in his limited (one or two) types to date. Good ones wonder what it would be like to handle (not operate) a Hercules a VC10 a MiG-29 you name it. At present all they can experience is bar chat from those who may have relevant experience.
The difference in handling such types (from the pilot’s point of view) is down to a relatively small number of issues, weight (inertia), wing sweep (lift curve slope) stall characteristics (type of aerofoil/wing design and any vortex lift possibilities) plus aircraft response to throttle movement. In other words what you would notice in trying to fly each type for a few moments in straight and level, in a steep turn on landing approach and so on. VS offers the opportunity to patter all that and so both educate/motivate the stude as well as seeing if he is somebody who should be kept away from small twitchy types etc etc.
The issues you raised about airworthiness are certainly relevant to Astra Hawk (a hydraulically controlled TV set) but would not exist with a FBW design.
JF
I was referring to VS in the context of teaching people to fly in the pure sense not the applied one.
Most of your remarks are related to the issues that surround conversion to type, currency and so on for which there is no substitute for using either the real aeroplane or a modern full mission simulator.
I had my QFI hat on where I have a student who only knows the type of handling he has experienced in his limited (one or two) types to date. Good ones wonder what it would be like to handle (not operate) a Hercules a VC10 a MiG-29 you name it. At present all they can experience is bar chat from those who may have relevant experience.
The difference in handling such types (from the pilot’s point of view) is down to a relatively small number of issues, weight (inertia), wing sweep (lift curve slope) stall characteristics (type of aerofoil/wing design and any vortex lift possibilities) plus aircraft response to throttle movement. In other words what you would notice in trying to fly each type for a few moments in straight and level, in a steep turn on landing approach and so on. VS offers the opportunity to patter all that and so both educate/motivate the stude as well as seeing if he is somebody who should be kept away from small twitchy types etc etc.
The issues you raised about airworthiness are certainly relevant to Astra Hawk (a hydraulically controlled TV set) but would not exist with a FBW design.
JF