All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFM this month has, yes you guessed it, an article on HHA with Potulski adding some artistic license to the F-4F saga. He labours the point that he had an End Use Certificate which is normal and forms part of the submission, along with a cover letter and standard Third-Party Transfer (TPT) questionnaire, by the divesting government (Germany) to the Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, Office of Regional Security and Arms Transfers (PM/RSAT). This is then examined, and an inter-agency research/analysis is conducted before a determination is made, in this case I suspect it would need a decision by the Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security.
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.”
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.”
In my view I don’t believe HHA have a dog in the fight if it were to come to filling the void left by 100/736 folding.
The clock is ticking regarding a 100 Sqn red air replacement in the form of a fast jet….
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Accurate and well put, DuckDodgers. I’d be willing to bet the serviceability and supply chains would be problematic for an F-4, not to mention the cost of operating one of those beasts and the regulatory red tape of seeing that thing flying in the UK. His glib comment of it simply getting MAA approval is rather interesting as is the claim regarding the provenance of the jet, it’s engineering and paperwork; good luck with that.
In my view I don’t believe HHA have a dog in the fight if it were to come to filling the void left by 100/736 folding.
The clock is ticking regarding a 100 Sqn red air replacement in the form of a fast jet….
In my view I don’t believe HHA have a dog in the fight if it were to come to filling the void left by 100/736 folding.
The clock is ticking regarding a 100 Sqn red air replacement in the form of a fast jet….
Which brings me to other points Potulski raises, "....we would look at NGOT, either with an industry partner or standalone". Rhetorical, but why would anybody partner with HHA to offer a Hunter? It's presentationally a dead end in the UK, even more so with Hawk T1 withdrawal unless you believe replacing the Hawk with the aircraft the Hawk replaced would be palatable?
Then there is this classic, "If the requirements fall outside the performance envelope of the Hunter (supersonic/AESA radar) then we'd look at alternate air systems. We're platform agnostic." So is everyone, so what you going to do? Buy/lease shiny new air systems? Good luck with making the costs work! Acquire surplus FMS US origin defense articles? Nope you tried that and being a UK Private Entity it didn't go too well. French M2K as they retire? I think Trappier would stop that in its tracks.
Perhaps my biggest annoyance is his arrogance or ignorance, I can't decide which, with regards to operations in the United States. He is clearly clueless as to what's required to actually fly on contract for for the USAF or USN beyond the baseline certification within the very broad Experimental category.
They should stick to what they do well, trials support activity and support to ETPS.
A few years ago HHA did some very successful FOST tasking (Tuesday and Thursday wars) using the nominal Hawk profiles with the Cobham Falcons. There were distinct advantages over the Hawk because pairs attacks could be flown comfortably at 550+ kts and they could operate at 50 ft as they were rad alt equipped. It was a little eye-opener at first for the ships!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
A few years ago HHA did some very successful FOST tasking (Tuesday and Thursday wars) using the nominal Hawk profiles with the Cobham Falcons. There were distinct advantages over the Hawk because pairs attacks could be flown comfortably at 550+ kts and they could operate at 50 ft as they were rad alt equipped. It was a little eye-opener at first for the ships!
Thankfully the RN appears to be moving to the 21st Century and will hopefully adopt Banshee NG and Rattler for future AShM and ARM threat replication. Both of which are more representative than any fast jet platform. You could probably have Rattler launched from a representative host platform too in addition to being carried by Banshee.
Thankfully the RN appears to be moving to the 21st Century and will hopefully adopt Banshee NG and Rattler for future AShM and ARM threat replication. Both of which are more representative than any fast jet platform. You could probably have Rattler launched from a representative host platform too in addition to being carried by Banshee.
Courtesy of @HMSPWLS
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Completely agree! Between Banshee NG and Rattler, they answer the question to truly representative AShM and ARM profiles. Let's hope QQ and the RN have the vision to integrate this without restrictive commercial T&Cs.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Not sure, requirement for EA will likely endure, volume however would be hard to say. I'd be more concerned about whether FOST has the staff bandwidth to actually rewrite BRd 9904 and whether the RNSFC joins the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, embraces technology and takes an exception to the STANAG. Undertaking 1 Vs 1 Close Control with a Falcon 20 is just ridiculous. They'll be asking for ATC training next.......
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not sure, requirement for EA will likely endure, volume however would be hard to say. I'd be more concerned about whether FOST has the staff bandwidth to actually rewrite BRd 9904 and whether the RNSFC joins the 3rd decade of the 21st Century, embraces technology and takes an exception to the STANAG. Undertaking 1 Vs 1 Close Control with a Falcon 20 is just ridiculous. They'll be asking for ATC training next.......
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
I’d be inclined to agree but EA doesn’t form part of every RN mission training I’ve been informed. Additionally, it wouldn’t be beyond the wit of man to put an aperture in the nose of the Banshee to emulate missile emissions or EA. Hey presto, job done. I wonder if Draken at Bournemouth are a bit worried by these developments. If it does reduce tasking then I assume it’ll have a concomitant reduction in profit.
Typical Payloads
Active radar homing emulator
Radar jammer
Up to 16 smoke tracking flares
Up to 16 infra-red tracking flares
(combinations of flares may be carried and activated as required)
Hot nose, black-body IR source
IR and chaff decoy dispensing pods
IFF transponder capable of modes A and C
Luneberg Lenses
Frequency specific, active radar augmenters
Radar altimeter, sea-skimming module
Acoustic and Doppler radar MDI
(these payloads may be mixed and some carried simultaneously)
Last edited by DuckDodgers; 21st Sep 2021 at 12:20.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's correct, it also appears Banshee NG is capable of some interesting payload options. This covers a large percentage of the threat-based presentations outside pure multi-band EA requirements. Typical Payloads Active radar homing emulator
Radar jammer
Up to 16 smoke tracking flares
Up to 16 infra-red tracking flares
(combinations of flares may be carried and activated as required)
Hot nose, black-body IR source
IR and chaff decoy dispensing pods
IFF transponder capable of modes A and C
Luneberg Lenses
Frequency specific, active radar augmenters
Radar altimeter, sea-skimming module
Acoustic and Doppler radar MDI
(these payloads may be mixed and some carried simultaneously)
Radar jammer
Up to 16 smoke tracking flares
Up to 16 infra-red tracking flares
(combinations of flares may be carried and activated as required)
Hot nose, black-body IR source
IR and chaff decoy dispensing pods
IFF transponder capable of modes A and C
Luneberg Lenses
Frequency specific, active radar augmenters
Radar altimeter, sea-skimming module
Acoustic and Doppler radar MDI
(these payloads may be mixed and some carried simultaneously)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
It'll be interesting to see, particularly as the current MSASS contract is funded by Air Command. If 1SL REALLY wants to accelerate change as he suggests, then directing his 1* training organisation to fundamentally change how this is done would be a good place to start bringing a revolution in how teams are trained on warships (and auxiliaries).
That's correct, it also appears Banshee NG is capable of some interesting payload options. This covers a large percentage of the threat-based presentations outside pure multi-band EA requirements.
Typical Payloads
Active radar homing emulator
Radar jammer
Up to 16 smoke tracking flares
Up to 16 infra-red tracking flares
(combinations of flares may be carried and activated as required)
Hot nose, black-body IR source
IR and chaff decoy dispensing pods
IFF transponder capable of modes A and C
Luneberg Lenses
Frequency specific, active radar augmenters
Radar altimeter, sea-skimming module
Acoustic and Doppler radar MDI
(these payloads may be mixed and some carried simultaneously)
Typical Payloads
Active radar homing emulator
Radar jammer
Up to 16 smoke tracking flares
Up to 16 infra-red tracking flares
(combinations of flares may be carried and activated as required)
Hot nose, black-body IR source
IR and chaff decoy dispensing pods
IFF transponder capable of modes A and C
Luneberg Lenses
Frequency specific, active radar augmenters
Radar altimeter, sea-skimming module
Acoustic and Doppler radar MDI
(these payloads may be mixed and some carried simultaneously)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But can it do a fly-by of Dartmouth College? They're going to miss the Hawks...
https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/sta...26622979969030
https://twitter.com/RNASCuldrose/sta...26622979969030
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll be interesting to see, particularly as the current MSASS contract is funded by Air Command. If 1SL REALLY wants to accelerate change as he suggests, then directing his 1* training organisation to fundamentally change how this is done would be a good place to start bringing a revolution in how teams are trained on warships (and auxiliaries).
I don’t know but I’d guess that there’s still quite a bit of trade for the Draken base oooop North for the AD work.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ha, yes, it’ll be interesting to see if MoD do anything about this issue and whether a decision is forthcoming in the short term. Europe is a void that certainly needs filling. I don’t think NATO necessarily have the money to pay for a contract fast jet platform to go to the majority of their exercises.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Ha, yes, it’ll be interesting to see if MoD do anything about this issue and whether a decision is forthcoming in the short term. Europe is a void that certainly needs filling. I don’t think NATO necessarily have the money to pay for a contract fast jet platform to go to the majority of their exercises.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be honest, NATO (AIRCOM) and its meagre GUARD series of exercises is pocket change compared to what's likely to emerge from certain national, multi-national and visiting forces requirements over the next 12-48 months. As for MOD, I'm sure they're all over their adversary centre of excellence concept at the secret Northallerton airbase.