All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
...
According to my reading of the SI for XX177 (Red Arrows, Scampton, November 2011) the Board had trouble locating any valid Safety Case for the Hawk T1/T1a - either for the seat or for the whole aircraft, and difficulty with proper records for a lot of other stuff too.
The SI for XX204 (Red Arrows, Valley, March 2018) didn't seem to mention 'Safety Case' but reported irregularities with the RTS and difficulty in obtaining important documents, or non-retention thereof, from the various organisations with airworthiness fingers in the Hawk pie.
Ignoring the absence of a gas shackle, it seems that there may still be unresolved maintenance issues with the Mk 10B seat, for instance -
Does anyone know any better ?
LFH
...
According to my reading of the SI for XX177 (Red Arrows, Scampton, November 2011) the Board had trouble locating any valid Safety Case for the Hawk T1/T1a - either for the seat or for the whole aircraft, and difficulty with proper records for a lot of other stuff too.
The SI for XX204 (Red Arrows, Valley, March 2018) didn't seem to mention 'Safety Case' but reported irregularities with the RTS and difficulty in obtaining important documents, or non-retention thereof, from the various organisations with airworthiness fingers in the Hawk pie.
Ignoring the absence of a gas shackle, it seems that there may still be unresolved maintenance issues with the Mk 10B seat, for instance -
- Do they still do seat maintenance in-aircraft, that should be done in the Seat Bay ?
- Are they still working to RTI 059 ?
- Do they still re-use old nuts and bolts?
- Do they still talk the torque on the drogue shackle bolt ?
- Is there now a valid safety case and fully updated and accurate RTS ?
- Do previously identified irregularities still exist ?
- What mandatory training is now given to travelling engineers and casual passengers ?
- Would any of these irregularities repeat themselves if there were to be another crash ?
Does anyone know any better ?
LFH
...
Are you suggesting MoD would get rid of a whole fleet just because they can't prove it airworthy? Surely not.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
It was possibly a contender for ASDOT, but I doubt you’ll get a formal answer as companies tend to still keep their cards close to their chest. With Hawk being dispensed with who knows what contract may come up. If you know the platform selection you can then work out costs and potentially undercut the competition.
The Reds continue flying theirs though, so does that confound my suggestion, or is it merely a cynical move to deflect attention from the trend? Surely not.
Shurely not ...
...
Heaven forfend ! ... And keep fingers crossed for another eight years for the last remaining dirty dozen ?
LFH
...
Are you suggesting MoD would get rid of a whole fleet just because they can't prove it airworthy? Surely not.
... or is it merely a cynical move to deflect attention from the trend? Surely not.
LFH
...
This will end the same way it always does. The airplanes go to a private company which will contract them back to the RAF, so the RAF will end up paying more for the same aircraft going forward....
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This will categorically not happen. The Hawks are having issues regarding the spare parts supply chain and they’re just, well, old.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The entire Scorpion effort was being pushed very publicly as part of the QQ/Textron/Thales effort. A certain ex-RN Bagger at Thales was one of the key architects, there were also some other shenanigans within Air Command too along with Commandant AWC. It was very quickly withdrawn once the fast jet requirement was finalised (which it didn't meet) and that there would only be iro 1,930hrs on task for a non-fast jet (biz jet type) capability. As for Inzpire and their partners, it was certainly the priciest bid at mid-£900MM!
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there have been numerous discussions on pprune about Sentinel retirement. None of them anything to do with safety or airworthiness.
Why not have a read of other threads, do some general reading on Sentinel, what it did, the politics and economics associated with the capability and stop looking for conspiracy theories everywhere.
Why not have a read of other threads, do some general reading on Sentinel, what it did, the politics and economics associated with the capability and stop looking for conspiracy theories everywhere.
there have been numerous discussions on pprune about Sentinel retirement. None of them anything to do with safety or airworthiness.
Why not have a read of other threads, do some general reading on Sentinel, what it did, the politics and economics associated with the capability and stop looking for conspiracy theories everywhere.
Why not have a read of other threads, do some general reading on Sentinel, what it did, the politics and economics associated with the capability and stop looking for conspiracy theories everywhere.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Cambridge
Age: 57
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh I do read other threads and repeatedly find that statements and explanations that emerge from the MOD, directly or via their apologists, turn out to be at variance to the truth. Conspiracy is a good all inclusive explanation for that, lies is another. Thank you for the suggestion, Mr N
I would imagine you are able to pick and choose your pprune sources by now - knowing whom to trust and whom not
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Starring at an Airfield Near you
Posts: 371
Received 15 Likes
on
7 Posts
Pull up another Sandbag...
I well remember the Hawk entering service and, very early on, one visiting Her Majesty's Open Prison, RAF Machrihanish, on a sort of 'Show the Troops what one looks like and can do' tour. Flown in by The Inspector of Flight Safety, I recall - but stand to be corrected on that. A little snaggette arose. On landing, said pilot transmitted:
"Request refuel - xxx lbs of your finest F34, if you please my good man..." (or words to that effect).
To which the stock answer was (it wasn't the first time we in the tower had had this exchange!):
Sniff, "Sorry guv - don't have F34 'ere. F44 is all we got. You OK wiv that?"
"Well, if that's AVTUR - donnez moi la belle Juice de Go!" (again, or words to that effect).
"Nah! T'isnt AVTUR - 'tis AVCAT. Ya know - carrier fuel?
"Ahh -
don't know if this is cleared for that yet. Wait will you? I'll have to check."
A long time passes - one presumes much leafing through an almost pristine Pilot's Notes and/or Release to Service. We get a call. "I'll have take a minimal amount of F44, or whatever it is, go to XXX and refuel to full there to dilute this stuff I've never heard of that you have here."
"OK, Sir - I'll arrange that. Do you want FSII with your F44?*"
"WHAT?
"
"Fuel System Icing Inhibitor - It's normally blended and part of F34...
"
"err, then yes......:"
"Will that be with, or without, additive HITEC E-515?
"
"Oh, what the F(distorted RT) is that!
"
"It's a fuel pump lubricant. VASF have to add it separately to the F44, together with the FSII. Do you want it?"
"I don't
know - shutting down and speaking to Boscombe..."
Several hrs later than intended, subject Hawk - refuelled with our witch's brew of F44 (with FSII and HITEC E-515!) - soared into the sky and departed quickly to Lossie, Kinloss or Leuchars to replenish with 'proper fuel'.
IFS 'learned about fuels from that!' Read the ERS before departing on one's sortie! (it was all in there!)
*I note that t'internet now says that F44 includes - as standard - FSII. However, at the time our 'raw' fuel was F44/AVCAT sans FSII, which had to be blended during uptake, together with the E-515. Funny what you learn about as an ATCO........
"Request refuel - xxx lbs of your finest F34, if you please my good man..." (or words to that effect).
To which the stock answer was (it wasn't the first time we in the tower had had this exchange!):
Sniff, "Sorry guv - don't have F34 'ere. F44 is all we got. You OK wiv that?"
"Well, if that's AVTUR - donnez moi la belle Juice de Go!" (again, or words to that effect).
"Nah! T'isnt AVTUR - 'tis AVCAT. Ya know - carrier fuel?
"Ahh -
don't know if this is cleared for that yet. Wait will you? I'll have to check."A long time passes - one presumes much leafing through an almost pristine Pilot's Notes and/or Release to Service. We get a call. "I'll have take a minimal amount of F44, or whatever it is, go to XXX and refuel to full there to dilute this stuff I've never heard of that you have here."
"OK, Sir - I'll arrange that. Do you want FSII with your F44?*"
"WHAT?
""Fuel System Icing Inhibitor - It's normally blended and part of F34...
""err, then yes......:"
"Will that be with, or without, additive HITEC E-515?
""Oh, what the F(distorted RT) is that!
""It's a fuel pump lubricant. VASF have to add it separately to the F44, together with the FSII. Do you want it?"
"I don't
know - shutting down and speaking to Boscombe..."Several hrs later than intended, subject Hawk - refuelled with our witch's brew of F44 (with FSII and HITEC E-515!) - soared into the sky and departed quickly to Lossie, Kinloss or Leuchars to replenish with 'proper fuel'.
IFS 'learned about fuels from that!' Read the ERS before departing on one's sortie! (it was all in there!)
*I note that t'internet now says that F44 includes - as standard - FSII. However, at the time our 'raw' fuel was F44/AVCAT sans FSII, which had to be blended during uptake, together with the E-515. Funny what you learn about as an ATCO........
Last edited by Downwind.Maddl-Land; 15th Sep 2021 at 13:51.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2021
Location: Las Vegas
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm lead to believe that the intent, assuming they can free up the money, is to send the students to Arkansas and not bring aircraft to the UK. This is seen as an interim measure whilst they address how to do it in the UK iaw the RA 1160 series.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
Potulski simply states US approvals were in place then paints a picture of everything was good until COVID which is when "the German disposal agency pulled the plug overnight". What I suspect happened is that after 7 years of supposed negotiations, PM/RSAT notified the German government that it would not alter its original determination; this was that TPT would be granted (it's how the ground instructional frame with many systems removed was acquired after all) but for the 'designated flyer' PM/RSAT would apply a series of provisos and stipulations. These are likely to have been the removal of both the AN/APG-65 and AN/ALR-68 and other items along with limiting access to aspects of the platforms Technical Data. In other words, you can have the aircraft but the bits you want you're not going to get given they're significant military equipment on the US Munitions List (USML) governed by the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) and subjected to US International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) which we don’t want you to have access to.
His obfuscation continues, despite the supposed contractual tasking requirement still existing, when he states “we’re not going to go to Israel, South Korea or Greece to buy a Phantom there because the whole point was having their provenance – the knowledge that EADS or LIG 21 had been through them…..” Having been to Andravida and inspected the PEACE ICARUS 2000 F-4E jets this is simply not true. These aircraft were modernised by EADS and HAI in Tangara to a standard beyond the German F-4F ICE. They have an equally complete provenance, the paperwork is in order, and dare I say it would have been just as easy to obtain MAA approval in principle.
To summarise, they haven’t got a Phantom with all the Gucci kit in it because PM/RSAT said “nope, you’re not getting access to the radar and other avionic systems.”