Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Aircrew Forums > Military Aviation
Reload this Page >

All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022

Military Aviation A forum for the professionals who fly military hardware. Also for the backroom boys and girls who support the flying and maintain the equipment, and without whom nothing would ever leave the ground. All armies, navies and air forces of the world equally welcome here.

All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022

Old 18th Mar 2022, 02:47
  #321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Europe
Posts: 3
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
With all due respect I don't think that Andy1999 has a point at all.

The RAF ordered 176 Hawk T1's, and they equipped an advanced flying training school of three squadrons, two tactical Weapons Units of two squadrons each, a CFS squadron, an aerobatic team the Red Arrows, the Institute of Aviation Medicine, ETPS, A&AEE and RAE. The RAF training aircraft were used to provide aircrew for a total of 32 RAF and RN front line fast jet squadrons.

The RAF ordered 28 Hawk T2's to equip one advanced flying training school of two squadrons that provide aircrew for 8 front line squadrons, soon to increase to 9 when 809 Sqn reforms in a few years, and maybe an additional RAF squadron by 2030 (the slowest re-equipment programme in RAF history?)

The current Hawk T1 fleet of 81 aircraft is used to equip one RAF adversary and aggressor squadron, one RN adversary and aggressor squadron, the Red Arrows with 16 a/c and the Centre for Aviation Medicine with 2, the remainder of the 81 being in store. All but the Red Arrows aircraft and a few in store are being retired this month, without replacement.

So, as they are not used for pilot training there is no equivalence between the 176 Hawk T1, nor indeed the current 81 Hawk T1, and the 28 Hawk T2.

If you REALLY want to look at a comparison, then look no further than the basic trainer situation. There 14 aircraft have taken over the roles of 130! The RAF had 130 Tucano T1 in three flying training schools, a CFS squadron, and later some used for refresher and navigator training. Currently the RAF has 14 Texan T1 in one squadron...
Now that is how to make a PPRuNe post: relevant, evidenced and easily read. Thanks Pr00ne.
KrisKringle is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 07:30
  #322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,514
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
So, as they are not used for pilot training there is no equivalence between the 176 Hawk T1, nor indeed the current 81 Hawk T1, and the 28 Hawk T2.
Well put pr00ne, with one slight addendum in that 100 Sqn has been carrying out a small proportion of AFT/TWU training to supplement the output of the T2, so there is a smidge of read across (plus the few that have gone out to ENJJPT in recent years).
Background Noise is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 11:29
  #323 (permalink)  
wub
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Scotland
Posts: 1,163
Navy Hawk formation heading from Prestwick towards Valley 11:30 18/3/22
wub is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 12:50
  #324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 1,037
Thanks Pr00ne, spot on. and the argument extends far beyond just T1 fleet and old aircraft numbers.

How many time do we see " oh that Lightning is too expensive, for that money we could have had 10 x ?? (F16 / F18/F15 insert what is flavour of the day on the BBC). What folk fail to realise is you then need 10 x more pilots, 10 x more engineers, 10 x more spaces to hangar the aircraft etc. How that translates back through the pipeline to how many trainees you need to get to the 10 x frontline qualified pilots ( and WSOs as well) to occupy this vast number of airframes.
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 15:51
  #325 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 26,128
NUMBERS GAME

Originally Posted by SATCOS WHIPPING BOY View Post
Thanks Pr00ne, spot on. and the argument extends far beyond just T1 fleet and old aircraft numbers.

How many time do we see " oh that Lightning is too expensive, for that money we could have had 10 x ?? (F16 / F18/F15 insert what is flavour of the day on the BBC). What folk fail to realise is you then need 10 x more pilots, 10 x more engineers, 10 x more spaces to hangar the aircraft etc. How that translates back through the pipeline to how many trainees you need to get to the 10 x frontline qualified pilots ( and WSOs as well) to occupy this vast number of airframes.
Rather like a certain unlamented CDS of the early 1960s who used to slap down 5 x Buccaneer photos and 1 x TSR-2 photo, claiming "You could have 5 of these for the same price as 1 of those" - clearly forgetting you'd need 5 x pilots, 5 x navigators/observers, more engineers, hangars etc. etc.
BEagle is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 20:39
  #326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Yorkshire....God's Country
Age: 57
Posts: 409
What does the future hold for Leeming now that 100 squadron has stood down?
mopardave is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 20:50
  #327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Teesside
Posts: 224
Originally Posted by mopardave View Post
What does the future hold for Leeming now that 100 squadron has stood down?
Steady on it hasn't gone yet but this looks to be the beginning of the end ;
.
David Thompson is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 21:09
  #328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Yorkshire....God's Country
Age: 57
Posts: 409
Hopefully I'm jumping to the wrong conclusion but if they've carried out the last aggressor sortie and they're scrapping the Hawks, the future doesn't sound that rosie does it.........sadly. It's gonna be quiet up here now.
mopardave is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 21:18
  #329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Alles Über
Posts: 278
100 Sqn only make up one of the 10 units based at Leeming. Granted they're the only (full time/jet) flying unit but there's plenty still going on at Leeming.
trim it out is offline  
Old 18th Mar 2022, 21:31
  #330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: North Yorkshire....God's Country
Age: 57
Posts: 409
[QUOTE=trim it out;11202060]100 Sqn only make up one of the 10 units based at Leeming. Granted they're the only (full time/jet) flying unit but there's plenty still going on at Leeming.[/QUO

Yes, I'd hate to see it close down. Nonetheless, I'll miss the Hawks.
mopardave is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 00:03
  #331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Beverley
Posts: 32
Originally Posted by trim it out View Post
100 Sqn only make up one of the 10 units based at Leeming. Granted they're the only (full time/jet) flying unit but there's plenty still going on at Leeming.
Don't forget 11 Sqn Qatar AF with their Hawk Mk.167 still working up
teeonefixer is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 01:29
  #332 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 545
Originally Posted by teeonefixer View Post
Don't forget 11 Sqn Qatar AF with their Hawk Mk.167 still working up
So reading this article https://www.airforce-technology.com/...hawk-squadron/

It states 9 Aircraft to train 8 pilots a year - must be a misprint?

Now what were the relative numbers for RAF T-6 output?
typerated is offline  
Old 19th Mar 2022, 17:23
  #333 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,621
[QUOTE=mopardave;11202063]
Originally Posted by trim it out View Post
100 Sqn only make up one of the 10 units based at Leeming. Granted they're the only (full time/jet) flying unit but there's plenty still going on at Leeming.[/QUO

Yes, I'd hate to see it close down. Nonetheless, I'll miss the Hawks.
Not going to happen! And you will still see Hawks.

100 Sqn is being replaced (not in role) by a joint Qatari/RAF Hawk T2 squadron. Leeming is also home to two University Air squadrons, one of which has only just moved in, and an AEF. It is also the home to 90 SU (TCW as was), possibly the largest single unit in the RAF. It is also one of only a small number of airfields with hardened facilities, and in the face of the increasing likelihood of Scottish indepence, would be the RAF's most northerly operational airfield.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 20th Mar 2022, 21:39
  #334 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Teesside
Posts: 224
NOTAM posted up for the 100 Squadron disbandment parade this Thursday , 24th ;
U1524/22: Leeming: Aerodrome limitation
Q) EGTT/QFALT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5418N00132W005NOISE AND CIRCUIT EMBARGO FOR PARADEFROM: 24 Mar 2022 14:00 GMT TO: 24 Mar 2022 15:00 GMT .
David Thompson is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 11:13
  #335 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Yeovil,Somerset
Age: 50
Posts: 53
Originally Posted by David Thompson View Post
NOTAM posted up for the 100 Squadron disbandment parade this Thursday , 24th ;
U1524/22: Leeming: Aerodrome limitation
Q) EGTT/QFALT/IV/NBO/A/000/999/5418N00132W005NOISE AND CIRCUIT EMBARGO FOR PARADEFROM: 24 Mar 2022 14:00 GMT TO: 24 Mar 2022 15:00 GMT .
736 NAS will also be conducting a final farewell flypast around Cornwall on the 24th.
lmgaylard is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 11:17
  #336 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Yeovil,Somerset
Age: 50
Posts: 53
Having spoken to a friend who would know, apparently HHA & Draken International are/ will be bidding for any surplus Hawk aircraft & spares, with the idea to tender a bid for any MOD requirement.

Seems to me that this would be a more expensive way to provide aggressor aircraft....
lmgaylard is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 11:37
  #337 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,621
Originally Posted by lmgaylard View Post
Having spoken to a friend who would know, apparently HHA & Draken International are/ will be bidding for any surplus Hawk aircraft & spares, with the idea to tender a bid for any MOD requirement.

Seems to me that this would be a more expensive way to provide aggressor aircraft....
Nope. You contract the service and you pay for the delivery of the service, not the overheads or the running or acquisition costs. You also remove a large number of staff and assets from your books. MUCH cheaper.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 12:50
  #338 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Somerset
Posts: 118
Originally Posted by pr00ne View Post
Nope. You contract the service and you pay for the delivery of the service, not the overheads or the running or acquisition costs. You also remove a large number of staff and assets from your books. MUCH cheaper.
Not really. You do indeed contract the service and you pay for the delivery of the service. The payment you make includes elements for the contractors profit, the whole day-to-day costs of delivery of your service including repair and maintenance, fuel, salaries etc., the acquisition cost of the kit needed, the depreciation of the kit and the pensions of the staff. An accountant would find a few more things to add in.

If you can share the service with someone else then, apart from operating costs for your service, you may be able to share the overhead costs with other users. If you want 100 % of the service you pay all the costs. The contractor will also want a premium to cover the risk that you walk away leaving him with kit and people he has no use for.

Of course, if the contractor can get your old kit cheap, his acquisition and depreciation costs are likely to be lower. Similarly, if he recruits staff at lower cost his operating costs are likely to be lower. His maintenance costs may well be higher though because he does not know the kit as well as you did.
Removing assets from your business affects the balance sheet and things like return on capital employed, though these are rather nonsense concepts for an armed force. Buying back a service that was formerly in house affects the P&L, negatively if you are the only user of the service contracted out. Again P&L is a nonsense concept for an armed force.

N
Bengo is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 12:59
  #339 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,621
Originally Posted by Bengo View Post
Not really. You do indeed contract the service and you pay for the delivery of the service. The payment you make includes elements for the contractors profit, the whole day-to-day costs of delivery of your service including repair and maintenance, fuel, salaries etc., the acquisition cost of the kit needed, the depreciation of the kit and the pensions of the staff. An accountant would find a few more things to add in.

If you can share the service with someone else then, apart from operating costs for your service, you may be able to share the overhead costs with other users. If you want 100 % of the service you pay all the costs. The contractor will also want a premium to cover the risk that you walk away leaving him with kit and people he has no use for.

Of course, if the contractor can get your old kit cheap, his acquisition and depreciation costs are likely to be lower. Similarly, if he recruits staff at lower cost his operating costs are likely to be lower. His maintenance costs may well be higher though because he does not know the kit as well as you did.
Removing assets from your business affects the balance sheet and things like return on capital employed, though these are rather nonsense concepts for an armed force. Buying back a service that was formerly in house affects the P&L, negatively if you are the only user of the service contracted out. Again P&L is a nonsense concept for an armed force.

N
Yes you are right, but all that IS far cheaper than owning, sourcing, procuring and supporting the equipment, and owning the the real estate and employing the staff. I spent many decades as a Commercial Barrister, some of which was working on Government contracts, from both sides. I know how these things work and I know that it IS cheaper.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 21st Mar 2022, 13:07
  #340 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 266
Originally Posted by lmgaylard View Post
Having spoken to a friend who would know, apparently HHA & Draken International are/ will be bidding for any surplus Hawk aircraft & spares, with the idea to tender a bid for any MOD requirement.

Seems to me that this would be a more expensive way to provide aggressor aircraft....
Why would anyone look to acquire surplus Hawk T1? There are much better and lower hour / lower FI variants available to acquire if you were that desperate to operate Hawk. Next contract in the UK isn't until at least 2025 and that's to replace the pending interim provision and Tranche One Typhoon.
DuckDodgers is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.