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

Hawk problems at Valley

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.

Hawk problems at Valley

Old 25th Jan 2023, 18:20
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by BEagle View Post
Did Sky pay you well for your information, Warren Peace?

Címon old guy, you are better than that.

This was never gonna be kept quiet. MoD sat in this fir a week. Since I knew, loads of folk knew.

Warren Peace is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 18:39
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Welwyn Garden City
Age: 62
Posts: 1,722
Received 23 Likes on 13 Posts
There's only a penny packet full of them as well. Perhaps another contributory factor to the pilot training, or rather availability, shortage.

FB
Finningley Boy is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 20:19
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: UK
Posts: 150
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store?
ASRAAMTOO is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 20:30
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Wildest Surrey
Age: 74
Posts: 10,006
Received 17 Likes on 14 Posts
Be having problems with C/T soon then; have to get some T1s out of storage.
chevvron is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 22:00
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Overseas
Posts: 431
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.
LateArmLive is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 22:05
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2022
Location: Europe
Posts: 23
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by LateArmLive View Post
Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.
Enlighten us...
KrisKringle is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2023, 23:50
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,714
Likes: 0
Received 20 Likes on 11 Posts
When CAS gets his inevitable summons for a bollocking from SofS, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. And then go on to say that RAF capability in general would benefit from rather less manipulation of procurement by ministers with constituencies near BAES plants. I mean, it's not as if Wiggy has a shot at CDS, so he has nothing to lose, and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience...
Easy Street is online now  
The following 3 users liked this post by Easy Street:
Old 26th Jan 2023, 07:57
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Ferrara
Posts: 5,856
Received 84 Likes on 42 Posts
"and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience..."

yeah but he'd lose a grade in the "Retirement Honours" stakes
Asturias56 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:27
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Here
Posts: 1,587
Received 7 Likes on 7 Posts
So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT? I do recall the late, great John Farley writing on here as to why the T2 was the wrong choice.

Advanced Hawk? T-50? T-7?
Davef68 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:34
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: East Riding
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Easy Street View Post
, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. ...
OK, I'm biased, but.... The RAF took a lot of persuasion to accept that they were getting a completely upgraded capability rather than a rehashed T.1. I'll admit it doesn't fly like an F-16, but does it have to ? Even now the RAAF want to keep the earlier Mk.127 going. IMHO, elements of the contracts with HIOS and Ascent have affected availability and the current engine problems have really put a downer on things. One thing that springs to mind is that the RAF middle management didn't have sunnier climes for the gravy train to meetings etc. (F-35 is a prime example).
Thankfully, Mr. Prescotts intervention provided continued work for 1000's of people for another 15+years, not only in East Yorkshire, that must be worth something?
teeonefixer is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:39
  #31 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A simple solution for all of this.

Originally Posted by Davef68 View Post
So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT?
Well maybe the T1 needs a new lease of life. By using the Red airframes, and the best of what 100 Squadron scrapped, and the very successful pilot production system that 100 had going, then the backlog in the pilot training pipeline could be fixed in months.

Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as itís their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.

As for losing the Reds, who's mad enough to prevent the training of more pilots, just to show what the RAF was once able to produce, but nowadays canít?



Warren Peace is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:46
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Westnoreastsouth
Posts: 1,700
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Arguably the Finns ended up with the best Hawk upgrade variant after fitting the Ex Swiss Mk66's with a glass cockpit.
The T2 has too much gubbins squeezed into too little space (amongst other problems).
longer ron is online now  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:48
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....

GeeRam is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:49
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: East Riding
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GeeRam View Post
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....
]
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's)
teeonefixer is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:57
  #35 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by GeeRam View Post
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....

The aircraft that are grounded have a different engine.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 08:58
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,140
Received 47 Likes on 18 Posts
Originally Posted by Warren Peace View Post
Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as itís their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.

At the time, and for decades thereafter, MoD default policy was to seek 15 years guaranteed support. If it wanted more, then it had to provide ample notice, and contract it.

If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1, who would pay for it? This is dangerously close to the Health and Safety Executive's formal position in the Sean Cunningham case (which MoD did not disagree with) that when MoD cancelled Martin-Baker contacts in 1983 the company should have continued doing the work free of charge. That, having accepted the initial contract, their liability remained in perpetuity and was 'non-delegable', regardless of contract cover.
tucumseh is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 09:30
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Royal Berkshire
Posts: 1,564
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by teeonefixer View Post
]
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's)
Aah.....sneaky.

I suppose they can afford the stuff that works....


Time to get the rattle cans out then, for some quick in the field repaints and press those shiny old red things into service as a stop gap.






GeeRam is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 09:30
  #38 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Solution

Tucumseh, I am not suggesting thet Bae Systems provide parts free, as the warranty on the T1 fleet is well expired. They have been reluctant to sell the spares, to promote the sales of T2 which now turns out to be no use.

This is just a solution, which is what the SofS instructed the RAF to find.

Some guys went from T1 at Leeming to Typhoon OCU so the T2 is not essential.

The alternative is for RR to say the existing engine is safe to fly. Based on last week, who is going to sign that off?

Last edited by Warren Peace; 26th Jan 2023 at 09:32. Reason: Adding a wee bit.
Warren Peace is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 09:54
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 991
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Less than 40 T1s available

Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store?
... have to get some T1s out of storage.
If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1,
Last figure I saw a few months ago was less than 40 total Hawk Mk 1 remaining; divided between Red Arrows, AMRO at Valley and storage at Shawbury. I would guess the rest were quickly SOC or RTP after last March, before anyone could see how bad they (or the records) were. There might even be difficulty certifying the parts, let alone the wholes.

At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice.

LFH
Lordflasheart is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2023, 10:41
  #40 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart View Post
At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice.

LFH
I donít see any other solution being in place any sooner.

100 Squadron only had six jets available most days, yet they taught pilots, as well as doing the red air task at the same time.

Warren Peace is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.