Ascent UK MFTS
just another jockey,
Then I suppose that means the end of air experience flying at the AEF's and UAS's, and Grading at Middle Wallop and Yeovilton?
If, as wg13_dummy says, the accent appears to be all on cost saving and cheapness, why on earth is the G120TP there as a replacement for a fixed under carriage piston engine single?
Strange decision.
Then I suppose that means the end of air experience flying at the AEF's and UAS's, and Grading at Middle Wallop and Yeovilton?
If, as wg13_dummy says, the accent appears to be all on cost saving and cheapness, why on earth is the G120TP there as a replacement for a fixed under carriage piston engine single?
Strange decision.
What I don't quite understand about the choice of aircraft is that they've gone for 120TP which is, if I'm not mistaken, a 200kt+, 25000' capable retractable undecarriage pocket rocket (see flight's article on it). They then supplement that with T-6C, which, to my knowledge, adds a little in terms of performance, and in-line rather than side by side seating. Obviously one wishes to download training hours as far as one can, but surely it isn't too much of a leap to ditch t-6 and use the 120 for bfjt also?
The G 120TP seems a good choice for EFTS at RAFC Cranwell, but way over the top for UAS / AEF work. Either that means the end of UASs and AEF flying, or perhaps they'll soldier on with the Plastic Pig?
But why choose an old design such as the T-6C? Wouldn't the PC-21 have been a better choice?
No doubt the shiny-suited snake oil folk at Ascent know the 'big picture' better than 92 years of CFS experience?
I note that the G 120TP has similar (if not better) performance to the Siai-Marchetti SF.260. Yet when the Chipmunk replacement programme took place, the SF.260 ('too complicated for the UAS world'), the Pitts S-2C ('we can't have a biplane') and (I think) the Zlin Z-42 ('Good grief - a communist aeroplane?') were ruled out in favour of the political Bulldog. Which served the RAF well, until the wretched Teutor appeared on the scene.
After the
Marston report destroyed the traditional UAS scheme in 2005, students only get around 10 hours of flying per annum, unless they're allocated someone else's share. But plenty of running around doing 'Force Development' bolleaux 
. So I can't see them maintaining their skills on a complicated aeroplane such as the G 120TP with such little annual flying. However, if flying does stop at UASs, who in their right mind would choose a UAS over an URNU or OTC?
I'm so glad that I joined the RAF when it could afford to do things properly - as many hours on the Chipmunk as you could get at ULAS, paid the equivalent of £14800 in my 3rd year, then £20800 in my 4th year. Summer camps at Thorney Island, Marham, Newton and Abingdon. Followed by Officer Training and flying training on a proper jet trainer at RAFC Cranwell and on to the Gnat / Hunter at Valley / Brawdy....
Things hadn't changed that much when I went back as a QFI 25 years later, but the writing was on the wall by then - so I'm glad that I wasn't there to see it all go to hell in a handcart.
But why choose an old design such as the T-6C? Wouldn't the PC-21 have been a better choice?
No doubt the shiny-suited snake oil folk at Ascent know the 'big picture' better than 92 years of CFS experience?
I note that the G 120TP has similar (if not better) performance to the Siai-Marchetti SF.260. Yet when the Chipmunk replacement programme took place, the SF.260 ('too complicated for the UAS world'), the Pitts S-2C ('we can't have a biplane') and (I think) the Zlin Z-42 ('Good grief - a communist aeroplane?') were ruled out in favour of the political Bulldog. Which served the RAF well, until the wretched Teutor appeared on the scene.
After the
Marston report destroyed the traditional UAS scheme in 2005, students only get around 10 hours of flying per annum, unless they're allocated someone else's share. But plenty of running around doing 'Force Development' bolleaux . So I can't see them maintaining their skills on a complicated aeroplane such as the G 120TP with such little annual flying. However, if flying does stop at UASs, who in their right mind would choose a UAS over an URNU or OTC?I'm so
glad that I joined the RAF when it could afford to do things properly - as many hours on the Chipmunk as you could get at ULAS, paid the equivalent of £14800 in my 3rd year, then £20800 in my 4th year. Summer camps at Thorney Island, Marham, Newton and Abingdon. Followed by Officer Training and flying training on a proper jet trainer at RAFC Cranwell and on to the Gnat / Hunter at Valley / Brawdy.... Things hadn't changed that much when I went back as a QFI 25 years later, but the writing was on the wall by then - so I'm glad that I wasn't there to see it all go to hell in a handcart.
Last edited by BEagle; 7th Nov 2015 at 09:21.
Noting that
it has now taken longer than WW2 to get to the point of announcing a choice of aircraft, which presumably now have to be ordered, built, tested, RtS'd etc, and will in the end cost more than WW2 in financial terms. Isn't it great that instead of 'Action this day' we have teams of committees to pass the buck and hoover up the money because in our new management style no individual is deemed able to do so.
No doubt this will work - for a very few, very expensively trained aircrew - but we seem to have fallen way below the drag curve and the only real winners appear to be Ascent. And as yet no mention of rotary/DHFS, which was supposed to be part of this monolith but went in to the 'too difficult' tray some time ago.
I too mourn the passing of what was considered one of the best flying training systems in the world that many other countries tried to emulate. No one is going to emulate this!
Ascent, a 50/50 joint venture between Lockheed Martin and Babcock International won the contract in May 2008
No doubt this will work - for a very few, very expensively trained aircrew - but we seem to have fallen way below the drag curve and the only real winners appear to be Ascent. And as yet no mention of rotary/DHFS, which was supposed to be part of this monolith but went in to the 'too difficult' tray some time ago.
I too mourn the passing of what was considered one of the best flying training systems in the world that many other countries tried to emulate. No one is going to emulate this!
aw ditor, given the very small number of pilots under training these days, compared to the times when the UK could afford an air force worthy of the title, I doubt that there'll be a lot of crowding.
4 FTS used to operate 2 Gnat squadrons, plus a Hunter squadron, with a far greater number of aircraft than the Snake Oil Flying School will operate.
I suspect that mixed circuits and the delightful Anglesey weather factor might be rather more of an issue than the actual numbers of aeroplanes at Valley.
4 FTS used to operate 2 Gnat squadrons, plus a Hunter squadron, with a far greater number of aircraft than the Snake Oil Flying School will operate.
I suspect that mixed circuits and the delightful Anglesey weather factor might be rather more of an issue than the actual numbers of aeroplanes at Valley.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many thanks, beagle, for posting details of the generous pay you enjoyed as a student. Lucky you. But, aside from winding up younger ppruners struggling with their student loans, is this really evidence for your hell in a handcart theme?The RAF still attracts high quality candidates.
ps. Was the Pitts really once under serious consideration as an RAF trainer?? A fine aerobatic mount no doubt, but lethally unsuitable in that role.
ps. Was the Pitts really once under serious consideration as an RAF trainer?? A fine aerobatic mount no doubt, but lethally unsuitable in that role.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BBC News - RAF basic pilot training to move to Anglesey
BBC reporting the move of BFT from Linton to Valley.
Duncs
BBC reporting the move of BFT from Linton to Valley.
Duncs
Only come by this forum very occasionally.
Almost every time, I learn something horrifying about the current defence setup.
They've PFI'd military flying training, for *&£$'s sake?! I sit slack-jawed with horror.
Almost every time, I learn something horrifying about the current defence setup.
They've PFI'd military flying training, for *&£$'s sake?! I sit slack-jawed with horror.
Ascent UK MFTS
BEagle and Shackman.
Just a quick question if I may. When did you last set foot inside the perimeter of RAF valley?
It is very easy to throw spears at Ascent (God knows I have in the past) but unless you've actually seen the recent set up and experienced the Hawk T2 process (I realise that comes across as business speak but we do live in the 21st century) then you are in danger of coming across as a little out of touch to put it mildly.
I am not particularly au fait with the rationale behind the latest aircraft choices but I take issue with one of BEagles points again. UAE is using PC21 in place of a jet trainer. Whilst I am not entirely convinced by that progression I don't think you need to spend the money required to have a PC21 and a Hawk. T6 should be just fine.
Shackman you are underestimating the rest of the world. Despite any reservations we may have the set up at Valley is very much admired. Saudi have already made moves to copy it and Canada and even the USA have commented on its desirability as a concept.
Finally despite all of the above, it will still be military or ex military pilots flying the jets and the CFS ethos will continue. Just not in the way it did in 1972 (or any other date you choose to name).
I lose count of the number of times I have said this but guess what gents. Time moves on. Since the dawn of aviation guys will have been saying 'it's not the way it was in my day'. You have some valid points but approaching it like the old gits on Harry Enfield just winds people up.
BV
Just a quick question if I may. When did you last set foot inside the perimeter of RAF valley?
It is very easy to throw spears at Ascent (God knows I have in the past) but unless you've actually seen the recent set up and experienced the Hawk T2 process (I realise that comes across as business speak but we do live in the 21st century) then you are in danger of coming across as a little out of touch to put it mildly.
I am not particularly au fait with the rationale behind the latest aircraft choices but I take issue with one of BEagles points again. UAE is using PC21 in place of a jet trainer. Whilst I am not entirely convinced by that progression I don't think you need to spend the money required to have a PC21 and a Hawk. T6 should be just fine.
Shackman you are underestimating the rest of the world. Despite any reservations we may have the set up at Valley is very much admired. Saudi have already made moves to copy it and Canada and even the USA have commented on its desirability as a concept.
Finally despite all of the above, it will still be military or ex military pilots flying the jets and the CFS ethos will continue. Just not in the way it did in 1972 (or any other date you choose to name).
I lose count of the number of times I have said this but guess what gents. Time moves on. Since the dawn of aviation guys will have been saying 'it's not the way it was in my day'. You have some valid points but approaching it like the old gits on Harry Enfield just winds people up.
BV
Well if Linton is closing I guess Yorkshire UAS will be looking for another new home 
Maybe they could just move back to Fenton, except of course it's already been stripped of kit Is this the death of military (RAF) aviation in Yorkshire?
Maybe they could just move back to Fenton, except of course it's already been stripped of kit Is this the death of military (RAF) aviation in Yorkshire?
BV, the Hawk T2 training system is one thing, the concept of PFI'd military flying training is quite another.
RP, perhaps YUAS could join ULAS at Wittering? It'd be about as logical to the current breed of MoD bean counters.....
RP, perhaps YUAS could join ULAS at Wittering? It'd be about as logical to the current breed of MoD bean counters.....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Wales
Age: 53
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BV's comments above are a refreshing ray of light in what seems to have become a UKMFTS/Ascent bashing thread!
The Valley UKMFTS setup is not without its teething problems (the worst of which are firmly a thing of the past) but it is steadily improving and is already leaps ahead of the previous AFT/TW system.
As mentioned by BV, many nations are looking with envy at the 4 Sqn setup with its fantastic aircraft, infrastructure, synthetics and staff and I for one feel that what we as a nation have in 4 Sqn UKMFTS is World beating.
To BEagle and Shackman; I do wish that I had witnessed the footloose and fancy free flying enjoyed by FJ guys 'back in your day' but the Cold War is over, the RAF has shrunk and despite this our up-to-date FJ training system is something to be proud of........it just needs a little less negativity to allow it to shine.
The Valley UKMFTS setup is not without its teething problems (the worst of which are firmly a thing of the past) but it is steadily improving and is already leaps ahead of the previous AFT/TW system.
As mentioned by BV, many nations are looking with envy at the 4 Sqn setup with its fantastic aircraft, infrastructure, synthetics and staff and I for one feel that what we as a nation have in 4 Sqn UKMFTS is World beating.
To BEagle and Shackman; I do wish that I had witnessed the footloose and fancy free flying enjoyed by FJ guys 'back in your day' but the Cold War is over, the RAF has shrunk and despite this our up-to-date FJ training system is something to be proud of........it just needs a little less negativity to allow it to shine.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Way up in the clouds
Age: 42
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MFTS vs NFTC
Gents,
The comparison made between NFTC and MFTS is valid - as someone who is currently working within a fully PFI'd flying training system where all that the military provides is the QFIs, I can tell you that giving up too much control is an enormous mistake.
Support and infrastructure can often be done better by contractors (as long as they are held to account when things are not working/delivered), but the control over the syllabus and the delivery has to remain with the military. We have spent the last 2 years trying to undo a number of substantial training problems that stem from this issue.
Getting help from contractors is one thing, but giving them control is quite another - it is still military flying training.
The comparison made between NFTC and MFTS is valid - as someone who is currently working within a fully PFI'd flying training system where all that the military provides is the QFIs, I can tell you that giving up too much control is an enormous mistake.
Support and infrastructure can often be done better by contractors (as long as they are held to account when things are not working/delivered), but the control over the syllabus and the delivery has to remain with the military. We have spent the last 2 years trying to undo a number of substantial training problems that stem from this issue.
Getting help from contractors is one thing, but giving them control is quite another - it is still military flying training.
Originally Posted by ShotOne
The RAF still attracts high quality candidates.
, more so now than ever.In fact most of the current crop are extremely sharp, keen, focussed.. and a lot safer and easier to fly with than many of the old and bold, "the RAF isn't what it used to be" CRM nightmares of yesteryear.
Lockstock,
You'd expect the RAF to recruit the highest calibre people, given that the entry into training requirements are a mere trickle compared to days of yore.
If you are only skimming the top 1% of applications, rather than the top 10% then best quality should be guaranteed!
You'd expect the RAF to recruit the highest calibre people, given that the entry into training requirements are a mere trickle compared to days of yore.
If you are only skimming the top 1% of applications, rather than the top 10% then best quality should be guaranteed!