Red Arrows are safe after Ministry of Defence plans to retire entire fleet of 76 Hawk
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Contracted out probably
Failing that I suppose you can wheel the bits around the RTP hangar. As that is what will likely happen to the Tranche 1s post 2025. Or if they are still using real airframes at Cosford by then.... Some of the 12 Op Ellamy jets might survive at whatever its called now...
One of them is the very first Hawk to go into RAF Service and had a few little differences as compared to the main production run Aircraft.
Hi Jacko
XX162 - which was the 8th Hawk built and the first to go into RAF Service - the previous Hawks were originally used on the flight test and development programme.
We are not talking big differences here - just some small detail differences.
XX162 - which was the 8th Hawk built and the first to go into RAF Service - the previous Hawks were originally used on the flight test and development programme.
We are not talking big differences here - just some small detail differences.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,819
Received 2,799 Likes
on
1,192 Posts
The title really sums it up, don’t worry the 9 ish pilots and the back up are safe, but not a scant thought for the possible other 67 ish pilots and ground staff that support them for their future outlookn, including one of “”our own” on here.
That's a good point NutLoose, though I suspect the numbers are MUCH smaller. Many or even most of the Hawk T1s are in sustainment, so you're probably talking about 18 (mainly civilian/reservist?) pilots with 736 and a similar number of RAF aircrew on the Tatty Ton.
One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?
But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.
Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.
One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?
But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.
Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's a good point NutLoose, though I suspect the numbers are MUCH smaller. Many or even most of the Hawk T1s are in sustainment, so you're probably talking about 18 (mainly civilian/reservist?) pilots with 736 and a similar number of RAF aircrew on the Tatty Ton.
One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?
But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.
Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.
One would hope that the latter, at least would be seen as a useful means of solving the manning crisis on the Typhoon/F-35 fleets?
But whether it's a good idea to save the Red Arrows rather than the adversary training units is a really interesting question.
Unless the answer is to replace 736 and 100 with more synthetic training, they'll have to relaunch ASDOT, or something similar, and contractorise the whole shooting match, with a solution that will be more expensive and of dubious airworthiness and sustainability.
2. ‘Dubious airworthiness and sustainability’? How so? If it’s a new contract and written by MoD how are you able to say with certainty that airworthiness and sustainability will be an issue?
1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
2. Your assertion that any COCO solution is going to be unable to meet UK airworthiness standards is incorrect. The requirement hasn’t even been written. The contract hasn’t even gone out to tender, so how do you know what platform solution would be selected by any company wishing to bid for the contract? There are platforms out there which would more than meet UK airworthiness standards. The issue doesn’t lie with the companies bidding for the contract, the problem lies with the MoD and how much they think they can get a solution for.
The MoD started out offering £750 million for ASDOT, then slashed the offering to circa £450 million, but said they wanted the same solution. That’s simply never going to happen.
As far as airworthiness goes and the Tatty Ton, I’d be a bit careful there.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: UK / FIN
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry for the slight off-topic
When i was on my UK working tour few years ago, our company (MRO) offers night shelter for vintage warbirds like P51, YAK-3 etc etc during local airshow. Red Arrows were on site too, but they stayed on apron. Ok, we were pushing P51 into hangar and couple of fine young RA pilots joined to help. My older colleague, fine gentleman, stops those pilots after pushing job was done... told them " i have never saw you guys do anything else than enjoying yourselfs".
How embrassing moment, but my colleague put his old and wise words in correct way with correct tone and nobody get hurt.
When i was on my UK working tour few years ago, our company (MRO) offers night shelter for vintage warbirds like P51, YAK-3 etc etc during local airshow. Red Arrows were on site too, but they stayed on apron. Ok, we were pushing P51 into hangar and couple of fine young RA pilots joined to help. My older colleague, fine gentleman, stops those pilots after pushing job was done... told them " i have never saw you guys do anything else than enjoying yourselfs".
How embrassing moment, but my colleague put his old and wise words in correct way with correct tone and nobody get hurt.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
1) Crisis may be a bit strong, but they've struggled to fully man No.IX Squadron, I gather, and I also understand that there's a shortfall of pilots across the force. I don't know if that's down primarily to retention, or to the output from Ascent.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
2) The US COCO adversary solutions all use ancient aircraft types and have an over-reliance on the Experimental certification/registration process. It's unlikely that such solutions would meet UK airworthiness standards, while there would not seem to be a sustainable source of aircraft that will meet both the requirement AND the likely cost constraints. Isn't that why ASDOT died a death in the first place?
I heard an eye-watering hourly cost figure for even HHA's Hawker Hunters - if accurate it's hard to see how owned and amortised Hawk T1s would work out more expensive.
2. Whilst a Special Airworthiness Certificate from the FAA forms the baseline in the United States, to deliver Public Aircraft Operations (PAO) iso the DOD an organisation is required to gain additional approvals that sees them out with the FAA's purview. In the case of delivering a contract to the USN / USMC then an Interim Flight Clearance (IFC) is required from NAVAIR, if delivering a contract to the USAF then a Military Flight Release (MFR) is required from the Technical Airworthiness Authority (TAA), the latter is very similar to the UK Military Aircraft Certification Process (MACP) and elements of the Contractor Flying Approved Organisation Scheme (CFAOS). Organisations are audited annually and both IFC and MFR can be withdrawn if recommendations are not implemented nor standards applied.
3. I'd also be very careful using the term 'ancient' along with the statement 'dubious airworthiness and sustainability' without understanding the support behind individual air systems. There is absolutely no reason why, for example, an Alpha Jet couldn't fly on contract in the UK.
4. ASDOT failed due to unrealistic requirements for the continually changing budget along with 2* interference and disingenuous industry promises. For any future UK programme, I suspect the default position will be for the air system to be on the UK Military Aircraft Register (MAR) having undergone the MACP or that industry can demonstrate alternate acceptable means of compliance for which I can think of at least 3 options.
5. Yes, a HHA museum piece at >£10,000 per hour is hardly VFM nor I suspect would be presentationally nor reputationally viable to MOD.
Para 7.44 is a tad ambiguous:
"This will include rationalising older fleets to improve
efficiency, retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 by 2025,
and Hawk T1. We will enhance the new military
flying training system with further investment in
synthetic training that will deliver more capable
pilots more quickly and more efficiently."
I read that as Tiffy T1's by 2025, but no actual date for the T1 fleet ?
Teej...
"This will include rationalising older fleets to improve
efficiency, retiring Typhoon Tranche 1 by 2025,
and Hawk T1. We will enhance the new military
flying training system with further investment in
synthetic training that will deliver more capable
pilots more quickly and more efficiently."
I read that as Tiffy T1's by 2025, but no actual date for the T1 fleet ?
Teej...
5. Yes, a HHA museum piece at >£10,000 per hour is hardly VFM nor I suspect would be presentationally nor reputationally viable to MOD.
3. I'd also be very careful using the term 'ancient' along with the statement 'dubious airworthiness and sustainability' without understanding the support behind individual air systems. There is absolutely no reason why, for example, an Alpha Jet couldn't fly on contract in the UK.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole discussion around "airworthiness" of the various fleets being discussed is very subjective and depends on many factors, like how hard the jets are flown, how well maintained they are, what access there is to spares, the airworthiness management and oversight processes, etc. Basically you can have a relatively new fleet that is unairworthy versus an older fleet that is highly airworthy. Ask the Germans!
However, in the case of the T1s they are getting long in the tooth, they have been flown hard over the last 40yrs, and I suspect that supportability is now an issue. But given the OSD was pushed to 2030 only recently it makes you think someone either knows something we don't or was being highly optimistic in terms of planning assumptions....
Going forwards Hawk strikes me as a bit like the Hunter, in the best replacement for an old one is a new one! Maybe if we'd pressed buy on the original plan for 44 T2's we'd have a decent sized fleet that could be multi-tasked in the same way the T1 was over its lifespan?
Whereas now we seem to have dumped a useful asset with no clue on how (or even if) we fill the gap....
However, in the case of the T1s they are getting long in the tooth, they have been flown hard over the last 40yrs, and I suspect that supportability is now an issue. But given the OSD was pushed to 2030 only recently it makes you think someone either knows something we don't or was being highly optimistic in terms of planning assumptions....
Going forwards Hawk strikes me as a bit like the Hunter, in the best replacement for an old one is a new one! Maybe if we'd pressed buy on the original plan for 44 T2's we'd have a decent sized fleet that could be multi-tasked in the same way the T1 was over its lifespan?
Whereas now we seem to have dumped a useful asset with no clue on how (or even if) we fill the gap....
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: cheshire
Posts: 245
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And back on topic, I'm still struggling to square the circle that is the T1 fleet goes but the Reds stay...
How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?
Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?
How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?
Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?
And back on topic, I'm still struggling to square the circle that is the T1 fleet goes but the Reds stay...
How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?
Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?
How does that work? They're going to use an "orphan fleet" a la Snowbirds - that's not exactly worked out well as somebody else pointed out OR they get shiney new toys, but of what, how many and when?
Some quite fundamental questions that I don't think have been answered, unless I've missed it ?
We will enhance the new military flying training system with further investment in synthetic training that will deliver more capable pilots more quickly and more efficiently
