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 9th Jul 2021, 10:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,499
All Hawk T1s will be gone by 31 March 2022

This may come as no surprise, but with 76 Hawk T1s (The Red Arrows not included) now getting the acetylene torch treatment post 31 March 2022, haste to remove assets seems to be the one thing government wastes no time over. According to Business Live, the work load of 100 Sqn and 736 NAS will be taken up by "synthetic training". I'd have thought that the role of each was very much one which had to be conducted using the real thing!? Also, the Red Arrows get a stay of execution until 2030 only because of a raft of commercial sponsors. Everything one reads today is utterly depressing.

FB

Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 11:30
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Number 10 No longer
Age: 70
Posts: 16
Do UK JTAcs still require 'hot' controls for qual & currency? If so, where will they come from? Can't be a very efficient use of Typhoons.
Gordon Brown is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 12:25
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,681
Worries about jobs at Valley, I hope you are ok in all of this Bob.

https://www.dailypost.co.uk/news/nor...hreat-21006347
NutLoose is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 13:02
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 198
Originally Posted by Gordon Brown View Post
Do UK JTAcs still require 'hot' controls for qual & currency? If so, where will they come from? Can't be a very efficient use of Typhoons.
It's ok, I'm sure there's a company pedling a knackered Strikemaster that JALO could contract..............
DuckDodgers is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 13:29
  #5 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,499
There is, of course, HHA and Draken Europe, mind you the former are looking for somewhere else to ply their trade from?

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 20:57
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: South West
Posts: 104
I wonder how RAF CAM are going to do all their trials work now?
gipsymagpie is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 22:37
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,112
They should give 100 the Tranche 1 Typhoons and then treat those as an entirely separate fleet. TyTAN makes them cheap to support and operate, and a low level obsolescence removal upgrade should be affordable (perhaps using the Spanish T1 upgrade as a model?) while the lack of commonality or compatability with the T2/3 op fleet would surely then be irrelevant?
Jackonicko is online now  
Old 9th Jul 2021, 22:38
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Just behind the back of beyond....
Posts: 4,112
If you're not getting rid of a whole fleet (eg including the Reds) surely the savings you make are going to be relatively modest?
Jackonicko is online now  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 07:11
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Posts: 310
Can’t beat real a/c for training IMHO, synthetic is a poor substitute. We could always buy some Goshawks from the US instead, or better still build our own ones like we always used to 👏
old-timer is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 07:54
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,499
I suppose the depressing unavoidable thinking behind this constant pursuit of the absolute minimum, and then further down still, is avoiding spending money, at all.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 08:09
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Wiltshire
Age: 52
Posts: 70
Sign of times I suppose and it was always going to happen at some point. Will be nice to see a red/white/grey and a green/grey example again when the go around the country saying farewell. I guess they’ll be a strip program to rob spares to keep the Reds going, like we did for the Lynx to feed Wildcat. Then the next thought = jobs.

Last edited by NIREP reader; 10th Jul 2021 at 09:14.
NIREP reader is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 08:10
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sleepy Hollow
Posts: 310
Very true FB, accountants seem to rule these days sadly. When the proverbial hits the fan we need trained aircrew & aircraft, not accountants spread sheets & rose tinted spec’s 🙈
old-timer is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 08:18
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 380
Yes, we need trained aircrew. No, we don't want them trained on the Hawk T1.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 11:55
  #14 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 60
Posts: 1,499
Even given the far reaching cuts of the 2010 SDSR, was 28 Hawk T2s ever going to be enough in the long term? Bear in mind my post 10 and old-timer's post 12.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 12:42
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2020
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 354
Originally Posted by Jackonicko View Post
They should give 100 the Tranche 1 Typhoons and then treat those as an entirely separate fleet. TyTAN makes them cheap to support and operate, and a low level obsolescence removal upgrade should be affordable (perhaps using the Spanish T1 upgrade as a model?) while the lack of commonality or compatability with the T2/3 op fleet would surely then be irrelevant?
Under the Review the T1 Typhoons will only last until 2025. I presume this means 9(B) and 12(B) will follow Tatty Ton onto the retired list unless others are sacrificed instead.

CAS's public position is clearly that RAF operated aggressors are not necessary. I don't think I need to tell most here that as with all statements by a VVSO, it will support the current Government's line irrespective of personal views.
.
“The reason that we are in a position to retire the very first 30 Eurofighters that came into Royal Air Force service is because those aircraft have got the very first versions of the mission computers, wiring and hardware,” Wigston said on 31 March. “The development of the later batches of Eurofighter have developed far beyond what the [first] airframes were capable of.
“The things I can do with my most modern Eurofighters is unrecognisable compared to what I can do with the Tranche 1. These days I use them predominantly for adversary aggressor flying, to train the rest of my force,” he notes.“I don’t see this as any diminishing of the frontline capability for the Royal Air Force.”
I however would be interested in the opinions of current or former Warfare Officers on the ability of fully synthetic training for fighting a whole ship in the AAW role. I can't think the loss of all 1790 hours flying is welcome.

As I posted on the Qatar/RAF Hawk Sqn thread it was announced in January this year that 736 Naval Air Squadron was to disband on 30 September 2021 with 100 Squadron assuming the Maritime tasking role from 1 October 2021. The allotted annual flying task of 1790 hours will continue and will be provided by 100 Sqn using the Hawk TMK1A aircraft. Does it still make sense to transfer the task for only 6 months?

This makes me feel old, when I remember being excited seeing the newly delivered first few Hawks for 4 FTS & CFS at Valley when I was a child.
SLXOwft is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:06
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,681
Under the Review the T1 Typhoons will only last until 2025. I presume this means 9(B) and 12(B) will follow Tatty Ton onto the retired list unless others are sacrificed instead.

CAS's public position is clearly that RAF operated aggressors are not necessary. I don't think I need to tell most here that as with all statements by a VVSO, it will support the current Government's line irrespective of personal views.
Odd to think that the first of what were the Tornado replacements as such will be binned a scant couple of years after the Tornado.
NutLoose is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:21
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 198
Synthetic won't be the answer given the current state of TFST, GLADIATOR and don't even mention attempting to link Lightning FTDs. If I were a betting man I'd expect an industry engagement session in the coming months with a question of, "what (capability) can you provide, in what volume, at what cost, under what (air worthiness) certification, and by when"?

How rapid could this be given that risk aversion perpetuates throughout the DH construct across the defence aviation environment? What will the airworthiness certification baseline requirement be - UK MAR, UK CAA CAP 632 Permit to Fly or Non Part 21 CofA, 14 CFR Part 91, CAR Part V - 507.03 and Annex F? What suite of regulatory approvals will be required spanning Maintenance Organisations, Design Organisations, Continuing Airworthiness, and Operations? What can be recognised/accepted and off of whom - UK CAA, EASA, FAA, Transport Canada etc? Who will ultimately hold the operating risk?

It will be very interesting to see how defence approaches this, notably the UK MAA's relationships with other regulatory bodies be they civil or military along with industry itself following the millions lost during the ASDOT debacle. How nimble could they actually be given the potential requirement to change not only policy but also legislation?
DuckDodgers is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 13:59
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
Posts: 25,967
Although I saw a prototype in October 1975 at RAFC Cranwell when HSA were trying to flog it to the Swedish Air Force (we'd taken a Gnat and Hunter T7 over from Valley for comparison), the first time I saw an RAF Hawk was in late 1976 when one did a PD at RAF Honington. I'm not sure when HS.1182 became 'Hawk', but I heard later that someone in the mad MoD box wanted it to be named 'Tercel'...

The ones I flew were at Valley and Chivenor 1980 - 1981, so had the dreadful pre-AHARS compass system and the smaller fin trailing edge fillet. But were very agile and had superb range. A brilliant little jet, but why-oh-why no offset-TACAN, the Gnat student's friend!
BEagle is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 14:25
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 20,681
Would it not make sense to move the Reds now to Valley? Plenty of room to practice, plenty of spare capacity now at the base and set up for the Hawk, sims etc?
NutLoose is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2021, 14:38
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 732
I was on the fourth Hawk T1 course through Valley (XX Course) in 1978. We had a long flightline of shiny, new, reIiable airframes and I finished the course a month early (despite having taken two weeks off to go to Bisley for the RAF championships). I flew the final sortie of the first airframe, XX154, in December 2018. Where the hell have the last four+ decades gone ....
LOMCEVAK 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.