All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
The WWII warbird, iffy characteristics or no, will have been completely disassembled on initial restoration and rebuilt IAW the appropriate regs, inspected and certified as such, and hence have a complete record of that work to prove its airworthiness. Your Hawk T1a would have to go through the same process BP in the absence of such a record. Is there such a record? If so where? I suspect that your token payment would soon have to be added to with a certain amount of arms and legs.
I can’t find anywhere it stating that a total strip down and rebuild is required?
I would offer that Bigpants has made a valid point.
Chug, I’m not so sure that every warbird will have been completely disassembled (down to the last nut and bolt) and then rebuilt iaw the regs. CAP632 states the requirements and to what standards: https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33...20Edition8.pdf
I can’t find anywhere it stating that a total strip down and rebuild is required?
I would offer that Bigpants has made a valid point.
I can’t find anywhere it stating that a total strip down and rebuild is required?
I would offer that Bigpants has made a valid point.
a WW2 Warbird with very iffy handling characteristics
buy a Hawk T1a from the MOD for a token amount, have it refurbished
A WWII restoration usually means the aircraft comes from the bottom of a lake, buried in a beach, found in a barn, etc.
The ex military scenario assumes that the aircraft is being transferred from one register to another, ie military to civil, and the CAA sees the MOD/MAA as assuring the airworthiness it is responsible for as it is moved to the civil registry (wrongly in my opinion). You have only to consider the Shoreham Hunter to see how this arrangement is fraught with airworthiness issues. I fully agree with Bigpants though when he says :-
Unfortunately, I suspect the CAA would say "No" to any prospect of even ex military pilots owning a civil Hawk on the G Register after Shoreham.
I suspect, Chug, with the passage of time many have forgotten that the Shoreham Hunter's Airworthiness Approval Note was predicated on the RAF being the Hunter Aircraft Design Authority. Step forward please, one of the hundreds who work on this in the Hunter Project Team, or even those who work on Continuing Airworthiness, and tell how you're getting on trying to implement the MAA's regs, which get the basic definition wrong and disappear off into a black hole.
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Chester
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's worth saying too that there is a Hawk T1 currently being worked on to fly on the G-reg. XX342 (G-HAWC) is currently with Horizon at St Athan. Owned by L39 Aviation LTD.
10-15 years ago there were still a small handful flying around the world that would have fallen into that category, but they've all now been (are are being) 'nut and bolted'.
GeeRam, many thanks for your confirmation of WWII 'Warbirds' restorations going down to the last nut and bolt, contrary to LJ's assertion. I'm surprised that was not necessarily so some 10 to 15 years ago, but progress in the right direction on the civil register at least!
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
II.4) Short description of nature and scope of works or nature and quantity or value of supplies or services
This notice is for the purpose of informing potential suppliers of the intended procurement of a medium to fast speed Operational Readiness Training (ORT) aerial support service, to include Air-to-Air, Target, Threat Simulation and Mission Augmentation training.
This is an urgent requirement for the RAF and the intention is to utilise the DSPCR Competitive Procedure with Negotiation, using the accelerated timescales.
Due to the security classification of this project, and in accordance with Reg 6(3A)(a) of DSPCR, any potential competition that follows this PIN will be limited to those suppliers that can provide the requirement with employees who are UK nationals.
We are looking to hear from companies that can commit to:
• Delivery of an estimated 2400 flying hours (per annum) with a maximum of 4 simultaneous sortie rate and up to 12 sorties daily in a 15 hour flying window
• CAA or MAA accreditation for the proposed aircraft and activities
• Available to commence contract activities from a UK base within a 30 minute transit time to D323 North Sea training complex
Operations able to commence Summer 2022
Estimated value excluding VAT
£100,000,000
This notice is for the purpose of informing potential suppliers of the intended procurement of a medium to fast speed Operational Readiness Training (ORT) aerial support service, to include Air-to-Air, Target, Threat Simulation and Mission Augmentation training.
This is an urgent requirement for the RAF and the intention is to utilise the DSPCR Competitive Procedure with Negotiation, using the accelerated timescales.
Due to the security classification of this project, and in accordance with Reg 6(3A)(a) of DSPCR, any potential competition that follows this PIN will be limited to those suppliers that can provide the requirement with employees who are UK nationals.
We are looking to hear from companies that can commit to:
• Delivery of an estimated 2400 flying hours (per annum) with a maximum of 4 simultaneous sortie rate and up to 12 sorties daily in a 15 hour flying window
• CAA or MAA accreditation for the proposed aircraft and activities
• Available to commence contract activities from a UK base within a 30 minute transit time to D323 North Sea training complex
Operations able to commence Summer 2022
Estimated value excluding VAT
£100,000,000
So civilian facility at RAF Leeming (or Scampton
) perchance? I assume proposing using an airfield that is not currently operating FJs would delay introduction well beyond Summer 2022."For the 6(3A)(a) exemption to apply to classified information, it would normally be necessary to show that the proposed contract:
- involves access to material classified as SECRET (or higher) and bearing a UK Eyes Only or other similar caveat
- could potentially involve access to particularly sensitive sites or equipment for which only UK nationals cleared to an appropriately high security level can have access to
- is subject to restrictions of a similar nature required for the protection of the UK’s essential security interests"
Which, to me, implies ex-mil UK Citizen pilots who will have sufficient of hours on the type(s) to be used and current appropriate Security Clearance? Speed of delivery suggests to the cynic in me they already know who is getting it and what they are going to use. i.e. any potential competition = in the unlikely event of any competition.
Which reminds me of the time I saw a newly arrived faxed RFI from an Airport operator, with a response deadine of New Year's Eve, when returning from the pub on Christmas Eve to check the backups had run. We assumed the supplier they wanted to use had been told to expect it.
As 'This is an urgent requirement for the RAF' will another one appear for a 736 NAS replacement? 736 appear to be still sailoring on, as 'Three of the aircraft were involved in training
@RoyalNavy fighter controllers' earlier this week
.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.find-tender.service.gov....ce/027263-2021
So civilian facility at RAF Leeming (or Scampton) perchance? I assume proposing using an airfield that is not currently operating FJs would delay introduction well beyond Summer 2022.
"For the 6(3A)(a) exemption to apply to classified information, it would normally be necessary to show that the proposed contract:
Which, to me, implies ex-mil UK Citizen pilots who will have sufficient of hours on the type(s) to be used and current appropriate Security Clearance? Speed of delivery suggests to the cynic in me they already know who is getting it and what they are going to use. i.e. any potential competition = in the unlikely event of any competition.
Which reminds me of the time I saw a newly arrived faxed RFI from an Airport operator, with a response deadine of New Year's Eve, when returning from the pub on Christmas Eve to check the backups had run. We assumed the supplier they wanted to use had been told to expect it.
As 'This is an urgent requirement for the RAF' will another one appear for a 736 NAS replacement? 736 appear to be still sailoring on, as 'Three of the aircraft were involved in training
@RoyalNavy fighter controllers' earlier this week.
So civilian facility at RAF Leeming (or Scampton
) perchance? I assume proposing using an airfield that is not currently operating FJs would delay introduction well beyond Summer 2022."For the 6(3A)(a) exemption to apply to classified information, it would normally be necessary to show that the proposed contract:
- involves access to material classified as SECRET (or higher) and bearing a UK Eyes Only or other similar caveat
- could potentially involve access to particularly sensitive sites or equipment for which only UK nationals cleared to an appropriately high security level can have access to
- is subject to restrictions of a similar nature required for the protection of the UK’s essential security interests"
Which, to me, implies ex-mil UK Citizen pilots who will have sufficient of hours on the type(s) to be used and current appropriate Security Clearance? Speed of delivery suggests to the cynic in me they already know who is getting it and what they are going to use. i.e. any potential competition = in the unlikely event of any competition.
Which reminds me of the time I saw a newly arrived faxed RFI from an Airport operator, with a response deadine of New Year's Eve, when returning from the pub on Christmas Eve to check the backups had run. We assumed the supplier they wanted to use had been told to expect it.
As 'This is an urgent requirement for the RAF' will another one appear for a 736 NAS replacement? 736 appear to be still sailoring on, as 'Three of the aircraft were involved in training
@RoyalNavy fighter controllers' earlier this week
.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Interesting you mention Europe by which I assume you mean those nations involved in the EDA's programme? As for USAFE, from what I hear it's a complete cluster with the Prime defaulting to the BS of a certain North American provider.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not quite what I’ve heard regarding the USAFE….
Very interesting stuff this nonetheless and I suspect it’s about to get more interesting when we see who enters the arena to have a go at winning the contract and what platform they’re going to offer, flying from which base.
Typical defence procurement. Don’t pay what it costs now so you can pay more for less later…..