MFTS - 'Getting Sticky'
Thread Starter
MFTS - 'Getting Sticky'
Came across the following article ref MFTS. There appeared to be no mention of the project in the recent SDSR, anyone shed any light on the future? Is it going to go the same way as the PFI at St Athan?
UK MFTS - ARE THINGS GETTING STICKY? - Military Training and Simulation News
UK MFTS - ARE THINGS GETTING STICKY? - Military Training and Simulation News
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Between a rock and a hard place
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Official line is that MFTS is being 'rationalised'.
That doesn't sound good, going on other results of rationalising! Suppose we slash the number of pilots we need to train and all of a sudden the assets we already have in the training system do the job quite well and last much longer. Which of course begs the question...
I would imagine the decision makers are looking at any possible means of making savings. I suspect 'rationalisation' does not bode well for MFTS.
That doesn't sound good, going on other results of rationalising! Suppose we slash the number of pilots we need to train and all of a sudden the assets we already have in the training system do the job quite well and last much longer. Which of course begs the question...
I would imagine the decision makers are looking at any possible means of making savings. I suspect 'rationalisation' does not bode well for MFTS.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its an intriguing situation from many perpsectives. This major PFI is in the middle of its roll out following contract award and then HMG decides to fundamentally change the game by radically changing the IPS requirements for every role except perhaps rotary stream...although there will be reductions there too given the apparent demise of some rotary tasks within the FAA. The multi-engine and rear crew training streams are going to be ripped apart along with signifcant reductions to FJ IPS.
Clearly, apart from the detailed rationalisation changes to resources etc that the contractor is going to have to plan in now....Ascent is going to have to consider carefully whether these change alter the programme so signifcantly that it is no longer worth them staying with it. While I am sure they will look at every aspect to keep it going..the bottom line is if it can't make them a profit now...they will wish to go. The fortunate thing is that apart from the Initial contract creatng the Ascent JV and the FJ stream, the whole thing was sensibly phased that each training stream required new contracts following appropriate bidding. Much of this I think is therefore more open to the flexibility required post the Review. How much they are in over their heads for FJ training is undoubtedly an issue...surely FJ IPS is now to be halved.
I would be surprised therefore if the thing folds given that it was already about significant rationalisations of resources and closing some airfields....not things to go back on in our apparently dire financial circumstances......
Clearly, apart from the detailed rationalisation changes to resources etc that the contractor is going to have to plan in now....Ascent is going to have to consider carefully whether these change alter the programme so signifcantly that it is no longer worth them staying with it. While I am sure they will look at every aspect to keep it going..the bottom line is if it can't make them a profit now...they will wish to go. The fortunate thing is that apart from the Initial contract creatng the Ascent JV and the FJ stream, the whole thing was sensibly phased that each training stream required new contracts following appropriate bidding. Much of this I think is therefore more open to the flexibility required post the Review. How much they are in over their heads for FJ training is undoubtedly an issue...surely FJ IPS is now to be halved.
I would be surprised therefore if the thing folds given that it was already about significant rationalisations of resources and closing some airfields....not things to go back on in our apparently dire financial circumstances......
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallsar,
You sound suprised that the aircrew training requirement can go down as well as up! I thought that was a mandatory warning given to everyone taking out a new mortgage these days.
It certainly shouldn't have come as a surprise to Ascent because the aircrew training requirement (for civilians as well as military) regularly hits peaks and troughs. Surely they didn't believe Gordon Brown's mantra, "No return to boom and bust"!?
As for rationalisations and closing airfields; it seems that the MOD can do that quite well by itself!
You sound suprised that the aircrew training requirement can go down as well as up! I thought that was a mandatory warning given to everyone taking out a new mortgage these days.
It certainly shouldn't have come as a surprise to Ascent because the aircrew training requirement (for civilians as well as military) regularly hits peaks and troughs. Surely they didn't believe Gordon Brown's mantra, "No return to boom and bust"!?
As for rationalisations and closing airfields; it seems that the MOD can do that quite well by itself!
If Valley are only getting half the number of new Hawks, then Linton will require in theory only half the number of Tucano replacement which could go to valley. Strawbs is open for another 25 years, and they probably won't shut Cranditz, looks like a money saver to shut Lin, Top and Chu Fen.
Why not simply return to the proper way of doing things? Officer and Basic Flying Training for all pilots at RAFC Cranwell (where it truly belongs), advanced flying training at Valley for FJ and ME (relocate the King Airs - there's no need to keep them at Cranwell and there'll now be plenty of room at Valley) and retain Shawbury for RW.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Toulouse area, France
Age: 93
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Proper way ???
Back in the '50s, u/t pilots at one Flying Training School in England but not far from Wales were advised (by instructors with medals and in one case, burns, to prove they knew what military flying was about) to keep well away from "Sleaford Tech", where "they take years to teach you some flying, but you leave quite sure you know which fork to eat your soup with".
In those days you got flying training to Wings standard plus a goodly ration of officer training too - and all in 18 hard-working months.
New aircrew ex-FTSs fitted into squadron life OK, but some graduates from the Fens needed quite a bit of "re-adjustment".
(To be fair(ish), in civil life, the above comment applied also to graduates from some prestigious engineering schools - wet behind the ears and full of the end products of bovine digestive processes. After a while they all sorted themselves out, of course).
In those days you got flying training to Wings standard plus a goodly ration of officer training too - and all in 18 hard-working months.
New aircrew ex-FTSs fitted into squadron life OK, but some graduates from the Fens needed quite a bit of "re-adjustment".
(To be fair(ish), in civil life, the above comment applied also to graduates from some prestigious engineering schools - wet behind the ears and full of the end products of bovine digestive processes. After a while they all sorted themselves out, of course).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: In England
Posts: 371
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi LFFC - no surprise to me friend...only reflecting on the likely projections of IPS that Ascent and the MoD will have used to support the resource plan for the 25 yr MFTS PFI. While some variation will have been accounted for it will have been based on the most like force levels pre SDSR. This radical change post the SDSR will for sure cause significant recalculations for all training streams, and some greater cuts, reductions and closures than were already envisaged as part of the MFTS roll out. The fundamental question is whether the sum of the changes makes it still worth while (ie still profitable) for Ascent to continue. My overall deduction is that the flexibility left within the continuing contractura lprocess proabbly means it can....but time will tell.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tallsar,
I wonder which is the most important; whether Ascent makes enough profit for them to continue, or if they add enough value for the MOD to continue?
As you say, I guess time will tell.
I wonder which is the most important; whether Ascent makes enough profit for them to continue, or if they add enough value for the MOD to continue?
As you say, I guess time will tell.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Defense News: 3 Teams Bid for U.K. Fixed-Wing Training Deal
LONDON - Industry teams from Britain and Israel delivered bids Jan. 4 to secure the fixed-wing aircraft service provision contract for the British armed forces as part of the Lockheed Martin/Babcock Military Flying Training System (MFTS) program.
BAE Systems, Elbit and Cobham-led consortia all delivered submissions to gain the fixed-wing service provider deal. Contenders for a similar competition in the rotary-wing sector are scheduled to deliver their bids Jan 14. The three teams are vying to secure a 25-year private finance initiative contract to replace the Tutor elementary flying trainer aircraft, the Tucano basic trainer and King Air 200 multiengine machines.
Downselect is expected by early next year and the new capability is planned to be available by 2015, according to Sir Barry Thornton, the managing director of Ascent Flight Training. Ascent is the Lockheed Martin/Babcock joint venture company awarded the contract by the Ministry of Defence to conduct tri-service training of pilots and crew over the next quarter of a century. Ascent is competing for the various elements of the multibillion pound MFTS program.
Some parts of the new industry-led training regime, such as new aircraft for rear crew training and advanced jet training, along with various parts of the ground based infrastructure, are already being delivered.
MFTS remains on schedule even though the deep cuts to aircraft numbers across the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy as a result of the recent strategic defense and security review are having an impact on the program. The fixed-wing deal, which includes availability and support, could be worth up to 1 billion pounds ($1.55 billion). The rotary-wing is expected to be worth a similar amount. BAE declared its intention to lead a consortia to bid for the fixed-wing service provider element late last year but this is the first time Cobham and Elbit have been named as contenders.
The bid from BAE also includes Babcock Aerospace, the Gama Group and Pilatus Aircraft. The consortium didn't name the platforms it would be offering in its original statement, but a company spokesman Jan. 5 said selections for elementary flying training and basic training requirements are an "upgraded Grob 115 with a digital cockpit and a Pilatus PC21 with a Hawk T2 optimized cockpit. For multiengine training, we have selected the Cessna Citation Mustang, which is widely recognized as the emerging multiengine training platform of choice by many multiengine operators around the world," the spokesman said.
Cobham's team includes CAE of Canada and the Cassidian Division of EADS. A Cobham spokesman declined to comment on the details of its bid.
Elbit couldn't be contacted in time for this story.
Next week, potential rotary wing service providers will submit bids to replace the Squirrel and Griffon helicopters currently responsible for training. Thornton said some 10 companies had responded to the original prequalification questionnaire. He declined to name potential bidders ahead of the submission date. Companies such as AgustaWestland, Eurocopter and FBHeliservices are among those expected to play a part in the rotor-wing contest.
LONDON - Industry teams from Britain and Israel delivered bids Jan. 4 to secure the fixed-wing aircraft service provision contract for the British armed forces as part of the Lockheed Martin/Babcock Military Flying Training System (MFTS) program.
BAE Systems, Elbit and Cobham-led consortia all delivered submissions to gain the fixed-wing service provider deal. Contenders for a similar competition in the rotary-wing sector are scheduled to deliver their bids Jan 14. The three teams are vying to secure a 25-year private finance initiative contract to replace the Tutor elementary flying trainer aircraft, the Tucano basic trainer and King Air 200 multiengine machines.
Downselect is expected by early next year and the new capability is planned to be available by 2015, according to Sir Barry Thornton, the managing director of Ascent Flight Training. Ascent is the Lockheed Martin/Babcock joint venture company awarded the contract by the Ministry of Defence to conduct tri-service training of pilots and crew over the next quarter of a century. Ascent is competing for the various elements of the multibillion pound MFTS program.
Some parts of the new industry-led training regime, such as new aircraft for rear crew training and advanced jet training, along with various parts of the ground based infrastructure, are already being delivered.
MFTS remains on schedule even though the deep cuts to aircraft numbers across the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy as a result of the recent strategic defense and security review are having an impact on the program. The fixed-wing deal, which includes availability and support, could be worth up to 1 billion pounds ($1.55 billion). The rotary-wing is expected to be worth a similar amount. BAE declared its intention to lead a consortia to bid for the fixed-wing service provider element late last year but this is the first time Cobham and Elbit have been named as contenders.
The bid from BAE also includes Babcock Aerospace, the Gama Group and Pilatus Aircraft. The consortium didn't name the platforms it would be offering in its original statement, but a company spokesman Jan. 5 said selections for elementary flying training and basic training requirements are an "upgraded Grob 115 with a digital cockpit and a Pilatus PC21 with a Hawk T2 optimized cockpit. For multiengine training, we have selected the Cessna Citation Mustang, which is widely recognized as the emerging multiengine training platform of choice by many multiengine operators around the world," the spokesman said.
Cobham's team includes CAE of Canada and the Cassidian Division of EADS. A Cobham spokesman declined to comment on the details of its bid.
Elbit couldn't be contacted in time for this story.
Next week, potential rotary wing service providers will submit bids to replace the Squirrel and Griffon helicopters currently responsible for training. Thornton said some 10 companies had responded to the original prequalification questionnaire. He declined to name potential bidders ahead of the submission date. Companies such as AgustaWestland, Eurocopter and FBHeliservices are among those expected to play a part in the rotor-wing contest.
"MFTS remains on schedule", tongue firmly in cheek surely ORAC?
About 10/11 years ago, I attended a presentation by the then Air Comm i/c MFTS and the dates he talked about were roughly:-
2005, start of the implementation at Valley, complete by 2007 (this was predicated by the then projected fatigue life of the Hawk).
2008, implentation complete at Linton.
Dates were mentioned for other areas but as they were not in my world, I can't recall them.
It was quite openly admitted that whilst saving money in the short term, MFTS would be more expensive than in-house training throughout the life of the contract.
About 10/11 years ago, I attended a presentation by the then Air Comm i/c MFTS and the dates he talked about were roughly:-
2005, start of the implementation at Valley, complete by 2007 (this was predicated by the then projected fatigue life of the Hawk).
2008, implentation complete at Linton.
Dates were mentioned for other areas but as they were not in my world, I can't recall them.
It was quite openly admitted that whilst saving money in the short term, MFTS would be more expensive than in-house training throughout the life of the contract.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Leicester
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me??
The flow through the training pipeline is all but zero. Even RW (allegedly least affected by SDSR??) has ground to a halt. Maybe no surprise, as historically, the RAF planners have been completely unable to predict future training requirements with any semblance of accuracy. Whether you blame SDSR or PR11, or anything else, the bottom line is that future aircrew training numbers are likely to be only half of those predicted just a few months ago.
How then, can a 25-year MFTS contract be written so that MoD (and therefore the taxpayer) don't get ripped off with contract amendments every time the training numbers are altered??? Or equally as bad, the taxpayer isn't paying for MFTS aircraft (under PFI) that will be then immediately surplus to requirement and spend the rest of their lives being towed in an out of hangars to make the line look good every morning...
The flow through the training pipeline is all but zero. Even RW (allegedly least affected by SDSR??) has ground to a halt. Maybe no surprise, as historically, the RAF planners have been completely unable to predict future training requirements with any semblance of accuracy. Whether you blame SDSR or PR11, or anything else, the bottom line is that future aircrew training numbers are likely to be only half of those predicted just a few months ago.
How then, can a 25-year MFTS contract be written so that MoD (and therefore the taxpayer) don't get ripped off with contract amendments every time the training numbers are altered??? Or equally as bad, the taxpayer isn't paying for MFTS aircraft (under PFI) that will be then immediately surplus to requirement and spend the rest of their lives being towed in an out of hangars to make the line look good every morning...
It won't be long before the RAF is of a size where abandoning in-house FJ training and committing totally to the NFTC or ENJJPT route becomes financially sensible. However, expect North Welsh political considerations to prevail once again, especially when combined with the insistence that CFS instruction is superior to anything offered overseas!
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Leicester
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Easy Street, I think you've got it in one. It may not be financially viable for FJ training (or ME/RW) to continue in UK, but it probably will.
Rumours are that MFTS, as we know it, is dead in the water. However, the fleets of aircraft will still need replacing, presumably, so if not MFTS, then something else similar instead??
Oh yes, and only 2 bidders for RW doesn't look healthy either, particularly when one is on his own (not a consortium). Is that the first sign of the raspberries from industry? With SAR-H also on its knees, the PFI route doesn't look particularly rosy anymore.
Rumours are that MFTS, as we know it, is dead in the water. However, the fleets of aircraft will still need replacing, presumably, so if not MFTS, then something else similar instead??
Oh yes, and only 2 bidders for RW doesn't look healthy either, particularly when one is on his own (not a consortium). Is that the first sign of the raspberries from industry? With SAR-H also on its knees, the PFI route doesn't look particularly rosy anymore.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Ingerland
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hoping this doesn't bring a bucket of ordure down on my head..
But
Does the Tucano fleet really need replacing?
There are hangars full of them at Shawbury; given the reduced requirement
could they not be kept for a few more years yet by rotation of airframes?
HL
But
Does the Tucano fleet really need replacing?
There are hangars full of them at Shawbury; given the reduced requirement
could they not be kept for a few more years yet by rotation of airframes?
HL
With the RW bid, what potential airframes are on offer, as the choices are limited with whats available right now from FBH including the AW139 albeit for foreign customer training not for the UK armed forces and the AW109E.
So potential airframes on offer could be EC120B, EC135, EC145, AW119?
One time I read in a publication that pre 96, the competitor bidder for DHFS offered Bell 206 and BK117.
So potential airframes on offer could be EC120B, EC135, EC145, AW119?
One time I read in a publication that pre 96, the competitor bidder for DHFS offered Bell 206 and BK117.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The RAF has been here before.
Following the 1975 Redundancy Scheme when a lot of experienced Multi Engined Pilots left to go into Civil Aviation they were replaced by people who had done 1 tour as a Co - Pilot and a Ground Tour. The ground jobs that these Pilots vacated were filled by QFI's such as myself who were surplus to requirements in the reduced Training World.
Luckily I managed to escape the non job after 18 months or so and I attended the College of Air Training at Hamble for a Refresher Course. The only description I can come up with for that Course is "Shambolic" The sole reason the Instructors were doing that job was to gain hours to improve their chances of an Airline post.
Following the 1975 Redundancy Scheme when a lot of experienced Multi Engined Pilots left to go into Civil Aviation they were replaced by people who had done 1 tour as a Co - Pilot and a Ground Tour. The ground jobs that these Pilots vacated were filled by QFI's such as myself who were surplus to requirements in the reduced Training World.
Luckily I managed to escape the non job after 18 months or so and I attended the College of Air Training at Hamble for a Refresher Course. The only description I can come up with for that Course is "Shambolic" The sole reason the Instructors were doing that job was to gain hours to improve their chances of an Airline post.