All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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>
Last edited by Foghorn Leghorn; 13th Nov 2021 at 14:54.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 = ???
”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.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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.
”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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
What competition is that verbiage taken from, is it the current US CAFCAS?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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?
What competition is that verbiage taken from, is it the current US CAFCAS?
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...
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...
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
There are plenty of C/D models about to be retired over the next 2-3 years, it's a great little aircraft.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Foghorn Leghorn; 18th Nov 2021 at 10:52.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Quite a sad state of affairs that we will end up with a 1990s solution….
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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….
Quite a sad state of affairs that we will end up with a 1990s solution….
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.