All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

Not quite true GeeRam old chap. Although BAE are obviously the OEM, 100 Sqn Hawks were/are having an awful time sourcing spares. They just don’t support the airframe as you’d expect!

However, I’m sure the BAE lobbying would carry some weight along with them pouring honey in the MoD’s ears that it’ll be the most amazing offer….only for it to be ‘challenging’ most of the time.

I’m with you on the airframes that you think would win the contract and those that cause concerns. As I say A4s in Germany have been terribly unserviceable. Whoever bids must have a quite a number of assets to fly a 12 line daily programme.

The 12 line daily schedule is nonsensical and doesn’t tally with the stated annual hours. I do hope they publish a little more detail especially around supposed radar performance! Knowing MOD they’ll copy the USAF and ask for an AESA. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

The 12 line daily schedule is nonsensical and doesn’t tally with the stated annual hours. I do hope they publish a little more detail especially around supposed radar performance! Knowing MOD they’ll copy the USAF and ask for an AESA. 🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️🤦‍♂️

Ha ha well, an AESA would be nice if they paid for that capability; we all know the answer to that one though.

You’re right, the 12 line programme doesn’t make sense for 2400hrs of flying. Not all Typhoon/F35 sorties will require the capability and there’s also the ability to mix it in with Draken’s present biz jet ops. So I reckon it could be about right? I’m sure there’ll be the ability to pay for more time if required in the contract.

<edited, my mistake on hours>

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

Ha ha well, an AESA would be nice if they paid for that capability; we all know the answer to that one though.<edited, my mistake on hours>

Especially as we know that all AESA systems are not the same and those with SW&P and cooling constraints offer little real world benefit.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

Especially as we know that all AESA systems are not the same and those with SW&P and cooling constraints offer little real world benefit.

True that. Grifo-E would be an attractive proposition as it’s designed for aircraft of the ilk we’re likely to see for this contract.

It would be nice to see some more information regarding the contract for the required specification for radar performance. Otherwise, the MoD will likely be lumbered with aircraft fitted with radars that have such small detection and tracking ranges it makes it pointless.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

True that. Grifo-E would be an attractive proposition as it’s designed for aircraft of the ilk we’re likely to see for this contract.

It would be nice to see some more information regarding the contract for the required specification for radar performance. Otherwise, the MoD will likely be lumbered with aircraft fitted with radars that have such small detection and tracking ranges it makes it pointless.

A range in nautical miles against a “fighter-sized” forward aspect target using RWS (or equivalent), in a clutter-free (look up or look down), no electronic attack (EA) environment and achieving a 50% probability of detection. But that means they'd have to define "fighter sized" and actually state a range...........Two bag fit Typhoon = ???

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

A range in nautical miles against a “fighter-sized” forward aspect target using RWS (or equivalent), in a clutter-free (look up or look down), no electronic attack (EA) environment and achieving a 50% probability of detection. But that means they'd have to define "fighter sized" and actually state a range...........Two bag fit Typhoon = ???

Is that the spec they’re after? Do you have a link to it please?

”fighter sized” as you know will change dependent upon aircraft, aspect, loadout and the frequency of radar that’s looking at it. Owing to this, there is a generic and standardised figure in metres Square which is normally used to express radar performance.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

Is that the spec they’re after? Do you have a link to it please?

”fighter sized” as you know will change dependent upon aircraft, aspect, loadout and the frequency of radar that’s looking at it. Owing to this, there is a generic and standardised figure in metres Square which is normally used to express radar performance.

That is verbiage from another successful programme that is executing at this time. Without a xx nm against an xx m2 target it’s largely irrelevant. Hence MOD should give a base line reference of say Typhoon, 2 bags, and 2 pylons with ASRAAM acquisition round and ACMI. Failing that, just state something against against a 10 or 5 m2 target.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

That is verbiage from another successful programme that is executing at this time. Without a xx nm against an xx m2 target it’s largely irrelevant. Hence MOD should give a base line reference of say Typhoon, 2 bags, and 2 pylons with ASRAAM acquisition round and ACMI. Failing that, just state something against against a 10 or 5 m2 target.

I wholeheartedly with you! It’s a bit mealymouth to not give basic performance specs otherwise, as I say, they could well end up with a fleet of aircraft that are no better than a lead nose hawk!

What competition is that verbiage taken from, is it the current US CAFCAS?

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

I wholeheartedly with you! It’s a bit mealymouth to not give basic performance specs otherwise, as I say, they could well end up with a fleet of aircraft that are no better than a lead nose hawk!

What competition is that verbiage taken from, is it the current US CAFCAS?

That is from aircraft attributes which were posted on Beta Sam a few years back, they were amended somewhat in early 2020. Sadly, USAFE has also fallen into the trap of contracting for systems without specifying performance; most likely because it would expose their preferred vendors narrative and claims.

[LateArmLive]

No Hawk, AlphaJet or SkyHawk would make a suitable Red Air / Aggressor aircraft these days, unless the threat you are simulating is one of decades long past.
Unfortunately, a credible threat costs money and that's not something the UK seems to have a lot of these days when it comes to increasing operational capability. More electric scooters and Astra please...

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by LateArmLive

No Hawk, AlphaJet or SkyHawk would make a suitable Red Air / Aggressor aircraft these days, unless the threat you are simulating is one of decades long past.
Unfortunately, a credible threat costs money and that's not something the UK seems to have a lot of these days when it comes to increasing operational capability. More electric scooters and Astra please...

Yup, you nailed it. All that’s going to happen is they’ll get an adversary platform which would have been useful 20 years ago. Gripen is the answer, it’s a shame that they can’t afford it.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

Yup, you nailed it. All that’s going to happen is they’ll get an adversary platform which would have been useful 20 years ago. Gripen is the answer, it’s a shame that they can’t afford it.

There are plenty of C/D models about to be retired over the next 2-3 years, it's a great little aircraft.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

There are plenty of C/D models about to be retired over the next 2-3 years, it's a great little aircraft.

its the perfect aircraft for it. I also hear they’ve got surplus aircraft residing in hangars. I’m no business man but I do always wonder if you could drive a good deal with Saab to lease them for pennies as they’re not being used.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

its the perfect aircraft for it. I also here they’ve got surplus aircraft residing in hangars. I’m no business man but I do always wonder if you could drive a good deal with Saab to lease them for pennies as they’re not being used.

It has been tried, discussions at AFA in 2019 with Saab resulted in a price iro $20K per flight hour. Now that the Flygvapnet are withdrawing two thirds of the aircraft another chat might be in order.

[typerated]

So if the RAF can't afford a suitable adversary – nor can most countries outside of the US – is there an alterative hiding in the past?

And it’s obviously a waste of money using a Hawk /Alpha Jet /Skyhawk etc -

Would it not be better to fund very active DACT deployment schedule between countries.

So for the UK

Week 1 Swedish Gripens to Coningsby
Week 2 Lossiemouth to French Mirage 2000s
Week 3 Coningsby to Spanish F/A-18s
Week 4 USAFE F-16s to Lossiemouth
Week 5 Polish Mig-29s to Marham
etc etc.

It means more time away and some time flying Red Air but surely in Europe there are lots of dissimilar aircraft looking for opponents through European NATO – why hire machines that are very unrepresentative.

Or, put the money into more tankers – and fly longer range DACT sorties – meet the Swedes off Denmark if you don't want to drink Swedish beer for the week!

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by typerated

So if the RAF can't afford a suitable adversary – nor can most countries outside of the US – is there an alterative hiding in the past?

And it’s obviously a waste of money using a Hawk /Alpha Jet /Skyhawk etc -

Would it not be better to fund very active DACT deployment schedule between countries.

So for the UK

Week 1 Swedish Gripens to Coningsby
Week 2 Lossiemouth to French Mirage 2000s
Week 3 Coningsby to Spanish F/A-18s
Week 4 USAFE F-16s to Lossiemouth
Week 5 Polish Mig-29s to Marham
etc etc.

It means more time away and some time flying Red Air but surely in Europe there are lots of dissimilar aircraft looking for opponents through European NATO – why hire machines that are very unrepresentative.

Or, put the money into more tankers – and fly longer range DACT sorties – meet the Swedes off Denmark if you don't want to drink Swedish beer for the week!

The EDA is formalising a programme to address participating member states requirements. Let us see what 2022 brings.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

It has been tried, discussions at AFA in 2019 with Saab resulted in a price iro $20K per flight hour. Now that the Flygvapnet are withdrawing two thirds of the aircraft another chat might be in order.

Yeah I know the chat had been had with Saab previously. As you point out, which accords with what I’m led to believe, there are now a slack handful of Gripen doing nothing which would be ripe for the plucking of Saab were agreeable.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by typerated

So if the RAF can't afford a suitable adversary – nor can most countries outside of the US – is there an alterative hiding in the past?

And it’s obviously a waste of money using a Hawk /Alpha Jet /Skyhawk etc -

Would it not be better to fund very active DACT deployment schedule between countries.

So for the UK

Week 1 Swedish Gripens to Coningsby
Week 2 Lossiemouth to French Mirage 2000s
Week 3 Coningsby to Spanish F/A-18s
Week 4 USAFE F-16s to Lossiemouth
Week 5 Polish Mig-29s to Marham
etc etc.

It means more time away and some time flying Red Air but surely in Europe there are lots of dissimilar aircraft looking for opponents through European NATO – why hire machines that are very unrepresentative.

Or, put the money into more tankers – and fly longer range DACT sorties – meet the Swedes off Denmark if you don't want to drink Swedish beer for the week!

It wouldn’t work. As you point out it means more time away, which means a concomitant reduction in numbers to do QRA and I guess the force is already running hot. The logistics tail to conduct dets all over the place would be horrendous when there’s already spares issues. I also guess you’d get the standard answer of - ‘different budgets’ so you wouldn’t be able to use the money ear marked for this contract.

Quite a sad state of affairs that we will end up with a 1990s solution….

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

It wouldn’t work. As you point out it means more time away, which means a concomitant reduction in numbers to do QRA and I guess the force is already running hot. The logistics tail to conduct dets all over the place would be horrendous when there’s already spares issues. I also guess you’d get the standard answer of - ‘different budgets’ so you wouldn’t be able to use the money ear marked for this contract.

Quite a sad state of affairs that we will end up with a 1990s solution….

What’s the definition of a 1990s solution? Somebody ought to define what is deemed good enough in the live environment as we march forward to LVC. Especially as the bearer network has already demonstrated TRL8 and that system is supposedly going to be integrated to Lvl 3 on the Qatari Typhoons.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

What’s the definition of a 1990s solution? Somebody ought to define what is deemed good enough in the live environment as we march forward to LVC. Especially as the bearer network has already demonstrated TRL8 and that system is supposedly going to be integrated to Lvl 3 on the Qatari Typhoons.

3rd Gen aircraft I would venture as a 1990s solution. PD radar incapable of robust track files beyond 60nm against a 2 tank Typhoon and incapable of high fast….amongst other things.

What is deemed good enough - Gripen. 4th Gen capabilities such as an advanced mech scan radar or, optimally, an AESA. The ability to run high fast profiles and their normal profiles at 0.9M….amongst other things.

The competition being run is for a 90s solution to a 2020+ problem. That’s the cold hard truth of it.