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

UKMFTS Failing to Deliver...again

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.

UKMFTS Failing to Deliver...again

Old 15th Sep 2022, 08:08
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,146
Received 177 Likes on 92 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
'Unfortunately' there was no thread that I could find related to UK military flight training that wasn't related to UKMFTS.
Also, last I checked, the Advanced FastJet Training (AFJT) package that uses the Hawk T2 is provided by Ascent. Is that not the case?
melmothtw is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 16:42
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: The Alps
Posts: 3,210
Received 126 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by Big Pistons Forever
I left the CAF they way I joined it. My Commissioning Scroll arrived in a tube which was casually tossed to me by a Clerk as I walked by the unit Amin Office. My last official correspondence was a one paragraph PFO letter directing me to retire.

I am however not in the slightest bit bitter. At times I suffered under some truly toxic senior management, but they will never be able to take away my fond memories of the great people I worked with.
Oh thats professional - from here ?

https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en

Talking about Canada and flying training bar the Texan and Hawk ...I take it their system is finely tuned and delivers to wings standard and not have same problems as us here in old blighty.

https://www.kfaero.ca/defence-progra...training-fact/

Also I understand that it sup for grabs with FACT.

cheers

chopper2004 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 17:12
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,931
Received 141 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Also, last I checked, the Advanced FastJet Training (AFJT) package that uses the Hawk T2 is provided by Ascent. Is that not the case?
But the aircraft are provided by MoD and were an outright purchase for the RAF from BAE Systems.

I think I am right in saying that makes them unique in the entire RAF/RN/AAC Flying Training world.

And the instructors are UK military.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 17:19
  #144 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parts Unknown
Posts: 249
Received 37 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by chopper2004
Oh thats professional - from here ?

https://www.rmc-cmr.ca/en

Talking about Canada and flying training bar the Texan and Hawk ...I take it their system is finely tuned and delivers to wings standard and not have same problems as us here in old blighty.

https://www.kfaero.ca/defence-progra...training-fact/

Also I understand that it sup for grabs with FACT.

cheers
Yes, indeed it is. FAcT will be awrded in Autumn '23 and the winning bidder will select and provide aircraft, synthetic devices, courseware, instructors, ATC, etc etc for a 20 year delivery period. The competition is down to the final 2 bidders, SkyAlyne (50/50 JV between CAE and KF Aerospace - both Canadian) and Babcock/Leonardo (Leonardo being the company with deep ties to the Russian state https://www.somersetlive.co.uk/news/...osneft-6745975 ).
Contract value is $8 Billion+. CAE currently provides the training at Moosejaw through NFTC and KF provides the rotary training at Southport.

It will be an interesting watch!
Baldeep Inminj is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 19:11
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Trumpville, on the edge
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by pr00ne
But the aircraft are provided by MoD and were an outright purchase for the RAF from BAE Systems.

I think I am right in saying that makes them unique in the entire RAF/RN/AAC Flying Training world.

And the instructors are UK military.
I believe that they are also unique in the fact that the number of airframes (24?) exceeds the number of engines to go with the same (22?) - how on earth did that happen, and what was the logic (!) behind that decision?
Trumpet trousers is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 20:40
  #146 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London/Oxford/New York
Posts: 2,931
Received 141 Likes on 66 Posts
Originally Posted by Trumpet trousers
I believe that they are also unique in the fact that the number of airframes (24?) exceeds the number of engines to go with the same (22?) - how on earth did that happen, and what was the logic (!) behind that decision?
28 aircraft, no idea about number of engines, but again that will be down to the organisation that purchased them, the RAF/MoD, and nothing to do with MFTS or Ascent.
If true then it will indeed be a baffling decision that flies in the face of the norm, which is usually airframes complete with engines, plus spare engines and components.
pr00ne is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2022, 21:32
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Uranus
Posts: 963
Received 11 Likes on 9 Posts
It was 28 Hawk T2 - https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com...rainers-02734/

However, it was also true that only 26 engines were bought as the expectation was that the aircraft in deep servicing wouldn’t need their engines - a massively flawed decision. However, the extra 2 engines were eventually purchased.
The B Word is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2022, 07:14
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The back of beyond
Posts: 2,146
Received 177 Likes on 92 Posts
Too few engines was never going to work, but in this case I am not sure it would have made much of a difference as the issue is a fault with the engines, not the number of engines. Even if the MoD had bough 100 spare engines, they too would suffer from the same fault and be unusable under the current circumstances.
melmothtw is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2022, 13:28
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Hot Sandpit
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by melmothtw
Too few engines was never going to work, but in this case I am not sure it would have made much of a difference as the issue is a fault with the engines, not the number of engines. Even if the MoD had bough 100 spare engines, they too would suffer from the same fault and be unusable under the current circumstances.
That’s not true if the issue occurs on accrual of fatigue by flying hours. As an example a 100 spare engines would provide ability to generate an additional 100,000+ flying hours.
Hawky McHawkface is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2022, 16:02
  #150 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Zummerset
Posts: 1,045
Received 16 Likes on 7 Posts
Wasn’t the T2 purchase a pure bit of Pork Barrel from ‘2 Jags’ Prescott to keep Brough going until the next election?
Evalu8ter is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2022, 17:15
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Grid ref confused
Age: 63
Posts: 898
Received 25 Likes on 16 Posts
From the DT just now...

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...gine-failures/
A British government minister has blamed the French for problems with RAF jet engines that could delay military pilot training for up to three years.Engines in the Air Force’s Hawk T. Mk.2 training aircraft have been pulled from service amid fears of in-flight failures. Defence procurement minister Alec Shelbrooke, appointed by Liz Truss last week, revealed that a shortage of engines caused by problems with French-made components will last for up to three years. In a parliamentary statement last week Mr Shelbrooke said: “A fault has been identified with the Rolls-Royce/Safran Adour 951 engine, which powers the Hawk T. Mk.2. “As a precaution, a number of engines have been temporarily removed from service whilst the Ministry of Defence supports a Rolls-Royce/Safran investigation into the root cause and rectification.”Problems with the Hawks’ Adour engines, built by a joint venture between Britain and France, were traced by engineers to a component made by the French aero-engine manufacturer.

Safran makes the low pressure compressor fan for the Adour 951, a component specifically referred to in Mr Shelbrooke’s parliamentary statement.

Rolls-Royce and Safran said in a joint statement: “We cannot comment on operational availability, however, we continue to work closely with our military customer to ensure we maximise the Royal Air Force’s training capability.” Neither company would say how many engines were affected, or explain why the French-made component had failed.

“Initial assessments suggest the reduction in aircraft availability will have an impact on UK fast jet training output over the next three years.”The Hawk Mk.2 is used by the RAF for advanced fighter pilot training at RAF Valley, Anglesey. The Mark 2 is a newer version of the original Hawk T. Mk.1 jet, which is still flown by the Red Arrows. The compressor fan problem does not affect the Red Arrows’ aircraft, which use a different version of the Adour engine.

BAE Systems, which builds the Hawk, said: “Through a collaborative approach with the Royal Air Force and our industry partners, we continue to deliver long-term support and maintenance to the RAF Hawk fleet, to ensure their readiness and availability.”

About 3,000 Adour engines have been delivered over the past 30 years, with the type powering various Hawk models including T-45 Goshawks sold to the US Navy, the Anglo-French Jaguar fighter jet and various military and civil helicopters.

RAF pilot training has been beset by delays for many years. A 2019 National Audit Office report found that fighter jet pilots were languishing in training for a total of seven years thanks to delays under a privatised pilot training contract.

This month Rolls-Royce said it was pulling out of a contract with US company Boom, which is making a “son of Concorde” supersonic airliner, saying “the commercial aviation supersonic market is not currently a priority for us”.

The London-listed engine maker was trading at 76.4p on Friday afternoon, a significant discount on its five-year high of £3.75 from October 2018.

Last edited by cynicalint; 16th Sep 2022 at 17:25. Reason: Adding extra paras.
cynicalint is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2022, 11:04
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Pathfinder Country
Posts: 510
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
pas de probleme.
aw ditor is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2022, 19:03
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 499
Received 70 Likes on 26 Posts
Bet they wish they hadn't scrapped the T1's

WB627 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2022, 20:55
  #154 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uranus
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Engines -

Sorry for the intrusion here - I'm having real trouble understanding the logic to buy less engines than airframes. OK a small flying school wouldn't have complete spare engines knocking around, and an airline will have alternative arrangements for a large podded engine or 3.

But surely the slight expense of having say 35 complete engines (not withstanding the fact a specific weakness as mentioned across all of those engines) stored ready to swap would be a nice hedge. Especially for Military flying training where the usage profile is much more aggressive.

My mental hourglass icon is on overdrive. It just doesn't compute.




Shaft109 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2022, 21:14
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2022
Location: England
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Shaft,

It doesn’t compute because it isn’t true…
Sarawack is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2022, 22:08
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: East Sussex
Posts: 499
Received 70 Likes on 26 Posts
Bean Counters, dear boy, bean counters
WB627 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 10:45
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Uranus
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Sarawack
Shaft,

It doesn’t compute because it isn’t true…
Noted,
Shaft109 is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 14:57
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,256
Received 232 Likes on 80 Posts
Originally Posted by Shaft109
Engines -

Sorry for the intrusion here - I'm having real trouble understanding the logic to buy less engines than airframes. OK a small flying school wouldn't have complete spare engines knocking around, and an airline will have alternative arrangements for a large podded engine or 3.

But surely the slight expense of having say 35 complete engines (not withstanding the fact a specific weakness as mentioned across all of those engines) stored ready to swap would be a nice hedge. Especially for Military flying training where the usage profile is much more aggressive.

My mental hourglass icon is on overdrive. It just doesn't compute.
In VERY simple terms, there is a formula that is used to calculate Depot Stock; called, imaginatively, STOCKCAL.


It uses Number of Aircraft, Fit Policy, Flying Hours, Repair Pipeline Times, Recovery Rate at 1st Line, Recovery Rate at 2nd Line, and Mean Time Between Removals (not Failure, as it is the act of removal that places the demand on the spares) to determine the Depot Stock level. This, in addition to laid down spares levels at each unit, which is a far simpler calculation based on aircraft numbers, role, and MTBR.

Numbers/ Fit Policy/Flying Hours/Times are dictated by the Centre for each year. Last time I looked, Recovery Rates were required to be at least 8% and 68% respectively; the latter determining the scale and scope of 3/4 Line contracts. It can be seen that maintaining the integrity of STOCKCAL (the primary role of any Support Authority), for any given inventory item, is utterly crucial, as it is inextricably linked to, for example, manning and funding in almost every area of aircraft operations. Almost any In-Service Support problem can be resolved by applying it.


It would be interesting to know if this mandated policy is reflected in the outsourced support contracts that now dominate military support. I somehow doubt it. Lacking knowledgeable Service input, the figures are too easy to manipulate. That is why scrutiny of all requirements must be carried out from the User's point of view; another widely ignored mandate.

As I said, a deliberately simplistic overview.


Edit: Sorry, I really should have said that if the Fit Policy is not Full Fleet Fit, and there is only one item per aircraft, and a single unit/squadron at one location, then it will not be unusual for the total number of items to be less than the number of aircraft.

Last edited by tucumseh; 18th Sep 2022 at 15:44.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2022, 16:36
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: EGDC
Posts: 10,387
Received 773 Likes on 345 Posts
Sounds like they are now allowed to tailor the buy to meet the budget constraints and accept shortfalls rather than procure properly with a plan that works.
crab@SAAvn.co.uk is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2022, 03:06
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: the far south
Posts: 612
Received 36 Likes on 15 Posts
John Healey, Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, asked the Secretary of State for Defence:

“What steps his Department is taking to ensure that the disruption to the UK Fast Jet training is minimised over the next three years.”

James Heappey, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, responded:

“Measures being considered include sending further trainees to the NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training programme in the USA; accelerating planning for No 11 Squadron (Joint Qatar/UK Squadron) at RAF Leeming to train RAF pilots from late 2022 until 2027; and working with allies and partners to examine whether UK pilots could be trained overseas, or where we might pool our resources, to mutual benefit.”
typerated is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.