Hawk problems at Valley
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?
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?
Thanks WP. I understand. I've known companies to adopt a reluctant position for this reason. There was a mandated Def Stan directing you what to do, but it was cancelled without replacement. If gentle persuasion doesn't work, the named MoD individual in the contract responsible for maintaining the build standard (which is what this is all about) summons the named company employee, who is an MoD appointee with delegated financial approval (i.e. he is permitted to commit MoD funding off his own back) and tells him his approval is being withdrawn.
In practice, with BAeS or Rolls Royce you'd prepare a Ministerial brief (because it might be seen as 'contentious'). I only had to do it once, when the company made my appointee redundant and 'appointed' their own man. He did he not meet MoD's SQEP requirement (which was far higher than it is today) so never was appointed, but the main issue was they had simply forgotten that they were not allowed to make the appointment. They could only propose. Within hours it was resolved, the redundancy notice withdrawn. Had it dragged on, their bills for the following month wouldn't have been paid.
This is a unique delegation because of what you're trying to achieve, which includes, as you rightly imply, maintaining the integrity of the safety case. It's the nearest most MoD employees get to the ability to hire and fire. Of course, matters are difficult if MoD no longer has a copy of the regs, and the new MAA definition of the process is completely wrong.
One thing crossed my mind. Has there already been an extension granted to extend use of the blades? It's a common temporary solution to spares shortages. But it then becomes the norm.... If so, there might be a reluctance to sign a safety report.
Not exactly HIGH hours related. Somewhat less than the design spec of the engine I believe. Just higher than some of the other nations engines. I would be interested to know the details and engine hours involved in the latest problem.
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 it’s 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 can’t?
Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s 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 can’t?
As for what else, either the M346 or T50 would be better suited to modern fighter training. Maybe even get on board with the T7 project. Anything but a Hawk please.
Thread Starter
The T1 is entirely inadequate for Advanced FJ training today. It was inadequate in the mid 2000s, hence the attempt to upgrade to the T2. Sadly, one could argue that the T1 "works" and is better than nothing, but that would be entirely missing the point. Add that to the Ascent/MFTS shambles and you have the fustercluck that the RAF (and RN) are living today. Weird how nobody could see this coming...
As for what else, either the M346 or T50 would be better suited to modern fighter training. Maybe even get on board with the T7 project. Anything but a Hawk please.
As for what else, either the M346 or T50 would be better suited to modern fighter training. Maybe even get on board with the T7 project. Anything but a Hawk please.
I disagree with every statement you make, except the last one in the first para, having been on the receiving end of both the T1 and T2 training systems (as well as some overseas AFT/TW 'equivalents').
The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.
Thread Starter
So what is the biggest problem facing the RAF today?
The inability to train pilots, or the existential threat to The Red Arrows?
Perhaps in twenty years we will be like the Kiwi air force. Rotary only.
The inability to train pilots, or the existential threat to The Red Arrows?
Perhaps in twenty years we will be like the Kiwi air force. Rotary only.
The following users liked this post:
I disagree with every statement you make, except the last one in the first para, having been on the receiving end of both the T1 and T2 training systems (as well as some overseas AFT/TW 'equivalents').
The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.
The T1 graduates were - excepting individual talents - better pilots in handling, decision making and capacity. In fact, on the FL, we couldn't tell between them. I do not recall any T1 graduates, in my time, failing the OCU or struggling when reaching their squadrons. That, and the high level well-staffed report that was written stating such, was a surprise. It was also a disappointing period because the T1 training system was about to be drawdown, even when it was clear that the T2 system on its own didn't have the capacity to cope, even with 100% engine reliability, and so RAF Valley struggled - actually, it spectacularly failed - to train both our FJ pilots and those of our overseas IDT partners.
LAL
LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?
What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.
LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?
What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.
Last edited by Easy Street; 28th Jan 2023 at 08:38.
The following users liked this post:
Easy Street,
I could not agree more. In my experience the T1 and T2 pilots coming to Typhoon were equally good and it's all about building captaincy at AFT and exposing them to jeopardy through live fly hours (and solos). I don't think anyone would argue that the T1 is the best answer to current woes but to write it off off as irrelevant is IMO wrong. I'd take a T1 grad with a bucket load of live hours over someone with few live fly hours and a load of HOTAS training in the sim any day!
I could not agree more. In my experience the T1 and T2 pilots coming to Typhoon were equally good and it's all about building captaincy at AFT and exposing them to jeopardy through live fly hours (and solos). I don't think anyone would argue that the T1 is the best answer to current woes but to write it off off as irrelevant is IMO wrong. I'd take a T1 grad with a bucket load of live hours over someone with few live fly hours and a load of HOTAS training in the sim any day!
LAL
LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?
What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.
LL navigation and IP-to-TGT are syllabus decisions, nothing to do with the platform. Don't teach them if they're not required. Lack of HUD was not a significant issue for the 30 years in which T1 fed HUD-equipped 3rd gen aircraft; if anyone can think of a an example of a student who failed to adapt to HUD flying then I'll take the point, but practically everyone who desires a career as a military pilot will understand the concept from countless hours of youthful computer gaming. I did. Lightning doesn't even have a HUD; should our trainers now have helmet mounted displays too?
What the FJ OCUs need from AFT is a pilot with some hours under their belt, captaincy experience, some evidence of ability to cope with the physical and spatial demands of air combat (sight handling is type specific so less important), proven ability to learn quickly (given expense of remedial training or withdrawal), and situational awareness (including fuel awareness) at high speed and under pressure. Lack of jeopardy in the synthetic environment is a big problem, as is low fuel consumption in turboprop trainers before anyone suggests sending studes direct from Texan. The T1 was brilliant for all of that and many of my generation will agree that they were never sharper than when they led a map-and-stopwatch 2v1 with a 5 second ToT on their TWU end of course check, even if they never again attempted such a thing! The specific skills might not all have read across, but it was a ruthless screening and the cost of a modern OCU demands nothing less.
If all you want is capacity testing, fine- bring back the T1. I wonder why no other modern Air Force is doing that though.
That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.
LAL,
In an ideal world of course you would screen students out on directly relevant skill sets, although I would be interested in your response to the report above that the Typhoon OCU couldn't distinguish T1 and T2 grads. But the RAF is obviously not in an ideal world at this particular moment in respect of its FJ training pipeline (and much else besides!) and my point is that the T1 remains a lot better than nothing, which if there's no quick fix to these engine problems and unless sufficient overseas training slots can be secured in a hurry is all the RAF will have.
In an ideal world of course you would screen students out on directly relevant skill sets, although I would be interested in your response to the report above that the Typhoon OCU couldn't distinguish T1 and T2 grads. But the RAF is obviously not in an ideal world at this particular moment in respect of its FJ training pipeline (and much else besides!) and my point is that the T1 remains a lot better than nothing, which if there's no quick fix to these engine problems and unless sufficient overseas training slots can be secured in a hurry is all the RAF will have.
Back in the early seventies before Preston Docks closed down many Russian cargo ships visited Preston, and we at Warton were alerted to their movements and closed down radar trials on the Tornado. They knew what was going on.
Wierd the US, according to you is in a worse postion. But US has to supply pilots for the UK F-35's as does Australia. Also hearing rumors the RAF are sending pilots to australia to go through flight training for both fighters and large multi traing because theirs is so backed
Wierd the US, according to you is in a worse postion. But US has to supply pilots for the UK F-35's as does Australia. Also hearing rumors the RAF are sending pilots to australia to go through flight training for both fighters and large multi traing because theirs is so backed
How about some of that "ruthless screening" on a core skillset that is actually relevant? Paper map and stopwatch IP-TGT runs... I think there's too much rose-tinted glasses wearing going on here!
If all you want is capacity testing, fine- bring back the T1. I wonder why no other modern Air Force is doing that though.
That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.
If all you want is capacity testing, fine- bring back the T1. I wonder why no other modern Air Force is doing that though.
That said, it's a difficult problem to solve. The USAF haven't done it yet, and they are in an arguably worse state than the UK in terms of current basic trainers. But at least theirs work for now.
The following users liked this post:
My Thoughts
It’s completely off topic but I can’t resist giving my thoughts on the syllabus and T1 vs T2 differences.
My credentials? Six tours teaching on Hawks (T1, T2, 115 and 166). Mainly tac weapons with a bit of AFT thrown in for good measure.
All this talk of which is best and whether or not you can get valuable training is overlooking some simple facts. The front line OCUs need competent, flexible pilots who possess the skill to make quick and correct decisions under pressure. That can be taught on any mark of Hawk. You also have to remember their position in the food chain. The Hawk is a stepping stone. Nobody is taking it to war.
Any tactics and procedures should mirror what the frontline does but with the understanding that, where that is not possible, something sensible is taught. Low level evasion is the perfect example. It was never about whether or not it was a valid tactic in the 21st century. It was more about what you were asking of the student. Anyone who could get through that phase was a good pilot. In fact the pilots that graduated 19 Sqn (as it was when I was there as a QFI) with a single seat recommend especially, were bloody good pilots and would cope with anything the frontline could throw at them.
The T1 may not have been great (and although I taught on it I don’t believe we should still be using it for training 21st century fast jet pilots) but it did a great job. The T2 could do an equally, if not better job, if the syllabus was more demanding. There has simply been too much meddling over the last few years from people at the stages beyond Valley who think they know best.
Every front line QWI will be spitting feathers when they read that and will say “what does a Hawk REMF know?”. But let me ask you this. Would you rather have a student starting the Typhoon OCU who can do Medium Altitude Level Bombing (MALB) in VMC or a student who could do low level CCRP deliveries with all the challenges the terrain and weather will provide?
I know I will be shouted down with cries of “what about radar handling?” And “who cares about visual evasion”. To which I would say we managed very well in Oman to teach a hybrid profile whereby we did low level evasion but using radar and GCI SA to ensure it was a step beyond simple visual evasion.
Basically, why did we stop asking the people who taught tac weapons how to produce students to an OCU input standard and just take the word of the end user?
Are there better jets than the Hawk T2? Yes of course. But can we produce excellent students using the Hawk T2? Absolutely.
I realise I’ll be shouted down and told I don’t know what I’m talking about since I’m just a dinosaur but maybe, just maybe, I did learn a thing or two in my 23 years.
BV
My credentials? Six tours teaching on Hawks (T1, T2, 115 and 166). Mainly tac weapons with a bit of AFT thrown in for good measure.
All this talk of which is best and whether or not you can get valuable training is overlooking some simple facts. The front line OCUs need competent, flexible pilots who possess the skill to make quick and correct decisions under pressure. That can be taught on any mark of Hawk. You also have to remember their position in the food chain. The Hawk is a stepping stone. Nobody is taking it to war.
Any tactics and procedures should mirror what the frontline does but with the understanding that, where that is not possible, something sensible is taught. Low level evasion is the perfect example. It was never about whether or not it was a valid tactic in the 21st century. It was more about what you were asking of the student. Anyone who could get through that phase was a good pilot. In fact the pilots that graduated 19 Sqn (as it was when I was there as a QFI) with a single seat recommend especially, were bloody good pilots and would cope with anything the frontline could throw at them.
The T1 may not have been great (and although I taught on it I don’t believe we should still be using it for training 21st century fast jet pilots) but it did a great job. The T2 could do an equally, if not better job, if the syllabus was more demanding. There has simply been too much meddling over the last few years from people at the stages beyond Valley who think they know best.
Every front line QWI will be spitting feathers when they read that and will say “what does a Hawk REMF know?”. But let me ask you this. Would you rather have a student starting the Typhoon OCU who can do Medium Altitude Level Bombing (MALB) in VMC or a student who could do low level CCRP deliveries with all the challenges the terrain and weather will provide?
I know I will be shouted down with cries of “what about radar handling?” And “who cares about visual evasion”. To which I would say we managed very well in Oman to teach a hybrid profile whereby we did low level evasion but using radar and GCI SA to ensure it was a step beyond simple visual evasion.
Basically, why did we stop asking the people who taught tac weapons how to produce students to an OCU input standard and just take the word of the end user?
Are there better jets than the Hawk T2? Yes of course. But can we produce excellent students using the Hawk T2? Absolutely.
I realise I’ll be shouted down and told I don’t know what I’m talking about since I’m just a dinosaur but maybe, just maybe, I did learn a thing or two in my 23 years.
BV
The following 2 users liked this post by Bob Viking: