All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022

[Ninthace]

Was there ever an Avro Milk Monitor?

[BEagle]

Miles M.33 Monitor?

[Martin the Martian]

Don't forget the Avro Cadet and the de Havilland Don.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

We all know that you can’t replace 5000 hours with synthetics. Unfortunately, the hierarchy will not back down even though everything tells them its wrong. Sure, use synthetics to supplement, but not replace. I’m chuckling at the mess that’s going to unfold in terms of aggressor provision when the Ton folds. 9 Sqn is on its knees and has been for some time. I suppose the only chance of a sane, rational decision to be made would be a COCO aggressor option - and quickly.

I wish them all the luck in the world. We can only assume they, Air Cap, might actually engage with industry, assuming they have any money, and come up with a viable requirement set to meet training effects that holistically provides a course of action that is feasible, acceptable, distinguishable and complete! Assuming they aimed at just the fast jet requirement of legacy programmes then they need somewhere around 3,350 per year, even then you lose a bucket of hours, but that can be offset with synthetics, if technologically mature and able to interact with adjacent programmes!

Did we mention airworthiness and certification? If they default to the UK MAR for the air system and organisations having to obtain UK MAA organisational approvals you may as well add 12-18 months to the schedule as a minimum, assuming there's any resource. Standby for all sorts of wacky ideas as to how not to have to go down this route, it can and has been done quite successfully in Europe!

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

I wish them all the luck in the world. We can only assume they, Air Cap, might actually engage with industry, assuming they have any money, and come up with a viable requirement set to meet training effects that holistically provides a course of action that is feasible, acceptable, distinguishable and complete! Assuming they aimed at just the fast jet requirement of legacy programmes then they need somewhere around 3,350 per year, even then you lose a bucket of hours, but that can be offset with synthetics, if technologically mature and able to interact with adjacent programmes!

Did we mention airworthiness and certification? If they default to the UK MAR for the air system and organisations having to obtain UK MAA organisational approvals you may as well add 12-18 months to the schedule as a minimum, assuming there's any resource. Standby for all sorts of wacky ideas as to how not to have to go down this route, it can and has been done quite successfully in Europe!

Its quote the mess isn’t it, DD! The answer is loud and clear, a COCO aggressor platform and start using synthetics to supplement live fly not replace it. Exactly as the Americans have come to realise.

I think a COCO platform would fit better operating under the CAA regulatory framework rather than going down the MAA route.

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

I think a COCO platform would fit better operating under the CAA regulatory framework rather than going down the MAA route.

Well that's all a little Hamlet whilst he was contemplating death. It would be very out of kilter with any other COCO service delivery for fast jets anywhere else in the world. Even if you were able to have the policy document (CAP 632) and the ANO amended to operate under the regulations contained within CAP 553 for non-EASA aircraft, I'd expect that the MAA would want a final say and ultimately sign off for any organisation to fly on contract issuing recommendations and operational limitations. Given a COCO service delivery is operating within the defence aviation environment I just can't see anybody within defence signing off on the CAA route given the MAA mandate from SoS. Why fight the white?

[Davef68]

In terms of COCO operation of 'fast' jets, HHA at Scampton already operate their Hunters under military registration rather than civil.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by DuckDodgers

Well that's all a little Hamlet whilst he was contemplating death. It would be very out of kilter with any other COCO service delivery for fast jets anywhere else in the world. Even if you were able to have the policy document (CAP 632) and the ANO amended to operate under the regulations contained within CAP 553 for non-EASA aircraft, I'd expect that the MAA would want a final say and ultimately sign off for any organisation to fly on contract issuing recommendations and operational limitations. Given a COCO service delivery is operating within the defence aviation environment I just can't see anybody within defence signing off on the CAA route given the MAA mandate from SoS. Why fight the white?

Watch this space….

[Chugalug2]

DD :-

Why fight the white?

Because it causes avoidable fatal air accidents?

[NutLoose]

tercelin British English

NOUN
a male falcon or hawk, esp as used in falconry
Collins English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word origin
C14: from Old French, from Vulgar Latin tertiolus (unattested), from Latin tertius third, referring to the tradition that only one egg in three hatched a male chick

Bearing in mind when it came into service female pilots hadn’t become a reality, perhaps they named it over the possible chop rate

[chopper2004]

Re open ASDOT

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

We all know that you can’t replace 5000 hours with synthetics. Unfortunately, the hierarchy will not back down even though everything tells them its wrong. Sure, use synthetics to supplement, but not replace.

I’m chuckling at the mess that’s going to unfold in terms of aggressor provision when the Ton folds. 9 Sqn is on its knees and has been for some time.

I suppose the only chance of a sane, rational decision to be made would be a COCO aggressor option - and quickly.

Bring back the ASDOT competition then lol

Laughingly seeming as Cobham is Rebranded Draken …Chuck the rule book out of the window, persuade MAA all is well and satisfy aviation enthusiast wet dream with A-4N based in Hurn.

Speaking Of Draken while attending Heli Expo 2018 in Vegas, I saw them from the convention center inbound to McCarran after Red Flag






cheers

[typerated]

I dont want to sound harsh .But please dont post photos -They are terrrible.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by typerated

I dont want to sound harsh .But please dont post photos -They are terrrible.

Don't look.

CG

[DuckDodgers]

Originally Posted by Foghorn Leghorn

Watch this space….

Good luck with RA 1166, essentially the same approach as in The Netherlands, France and Germany.

[Minnie Burner]

25-ship loop?

Absolutely the very last chance for the Royal Air Force to better treble one's record of 60-
how-many years. Assuming there are still at least 25 current Ork pilots in existence...
.....and someone with a pair to auth it....

[SLXOwft]

A Bit of Hawk Nostalgia

I knew I had this somewhere and found the right box when clearing out my garage. From the days when we looked to its introduction not demise - 'Service Release (Certification) will be achieved on schedule' - when was that last said?

(Full Leaflet Attached)

[pr00ne]

So, all Hawk T1's to be retired by March 2022. Except the Hawk T1's operated by the Red Arrows. So, all Hawk T1's are NOT being retired by March 2022.

[charliegolf]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

So, all Hawk T1's to be retired by March 2022. Except the Hawk T1's operated by the Red Arrows. So, all Hawk T1's are NOT being retired by March 2022.

Good spot. It was noted in post number one, too.

CG

[CAEBr]

Originally Posted by pr00ne

So, all Hawk T1's to be retired by March 2022. Except the Hawk T1's operated by the Red Arrows. So, all Hawk T1's are NOT being retired by March 2022.

Exactly, and since they still have to be serviced and maintained, with a functioning TAA, and can't be subsumed into theTMk2 fleet, then while fewer TMk1s will be in service, the support system will remain meanimg any savings are going to be less than diddly squat, certainly not enough to provide any meaning alternative to 100 Sqn.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Originally Posted by CAEBr

Exactly, and since they still have to be serviced and maintained, with a functioning TAA, and can't be subsumed into theTMk2 fleet, then while fewer TMk1s will be in service, the support system will remain meanimg any savings are going to be less than diddly squat, certainly not enough to provide any meaning alternative to 100 Sqn.

I wouldn’t bet on the fact there won’t be enough to provide a meaningful alternative to 100 Sqn.