Ascent urges the UK MOD to look for a Hawk T2 replacement.
They also closed the other airfields, Dunsfold, Hatfield, Filton, Woodford in order to make it look like they were still producing lots of aircraft. Now they need somewhere to set up a new production run of a new trainer, they have no capacity.
The following 2 users liked this post by chevvron:
I believe it is a little while since you taught on the Hawk T1 at Chivenor. I’m afraid you do yourself a disservice by imagining that times and requirements haven’t moved on since then.
I taught Tac Weapons on the Hawk T1, T2, 115 and 166. During my 15 years of Hawk instructing I saw many changes. The most obvious of which was a shift from a frontline consisting of Tornados, Jaguars and Harriers to one consisting of Typhoons and F35s. Whilst the T1 system was a good system and pushed out very capable pilots that could still provide value today, it would not be one that would provide the input standard desired of modern OCUs.
I love the Hawk T2 (that combined with the 166 make up the largest slice of my 3000+ Hawk hours) and I rate it very highly as a training platform. Notwithstanding its current serviceability woes, if I had a blank sheet of paper now to design a new trainer it wouldn’t come out looking like a Hawk. It would almost certainly look a lot more like a M346, T50 or Red Hawk and possess all of the advanced handling characteristics associated with such aircraft along with the modern avionics suites (which the Hawk T2 does have but could use a midlife update to incorporate some modern sensor simulation).
BV
I taught Tac Weapons on the Hawk T1, T2, 115 and 166. During my 15 years of Hawk instructing I saw many changes. The most obvious of which was a shift from a frontline consisting of Tornados, Jaguars and Harriers to one consisting of Typhoons and F35s. Whilst the T1 system was a good system and pushed out very capable pilots that could still provide value today, it would not be one that would provide the input standard desired of modern OCUs.
I love the Hawk T2 (that combined with the 166 make up the largest slice of my 3000+ Hawk hours) and I rate it very highly as a training platform. Notwithstanding its current serviceability woes, if I had a blank sheet of paper now to design a new trainer it wouldn’t come out looking like a Hawk. It would almost certainly look a lot more like a M346, T50 or Red Hawk and possess all of the advanced handling characteristics associated with such aircraft along with the modern avionics suites (which the Hawk T2 does have but could use a midlife update to incorporate some modern sensor simulation).
BV
Perennial UK short-sightedness.
The following users liked this post:
It is totally correct that I last instructed on the Hawk in 1983; an amazing 40 years ago; a lifetime.
However, do you not agree it is important for the instructor to have a good view out.
And a very fine instructor you were at Chivenor too, bluntie old chap! Missed you at TBs last Thursday though - once again I had your book with me for you to sign!
Quite how Valley QFIs coped with night manual touch and gos at Mona in the Gnat I cannot imagine! But they did - even with clumsy students like me!
Quite how Valley QFIs coped with night manual touch and gos at Mona in the Gnat I cannot imagine! But they did - even with clumsy students like me!
My first ever AEF trip (1962) was in a Piston Provost which rather 'spoilt' me for Chipmunk back seat rides; even when I grew taller I always thought what a crap view I used to get until the day I scrounged a Hawk ride so I could actually see something from the back seat.
Sharpend
I wholeheartedly agree that a good view from the back is a very desirable thing. Older Hawk competitors such as Alphajet and T38 were terrible from the back seat. The modern competitors have all seemingly learned that lesson though (at least I know the M346 has but with the T50 and Red Hawk I’m just basing my views on photos).
BV
BV
Decisions, decisions.
Martin, back when the decision had to be made (bearing in mind the timeline from contract award to start of student training on Phase IV) there weren’t many options other than new Hawks. Five years later then PC21 or M346 would have been realistic options. Another five years later the T50 might have been in with a shout.
All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.
BV
All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.
BV
Last edited by Bob Viking; 13th Nov 2023 at 13:48.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Martin, back when the decision had to be made (bearing in mind the timeline from contract award to start of student training on Phase IV) there weren’t many options other than new Hawks. Five years later then PC21 or M346 would have been realistic options. Another five years later the T50 might have been in with a shout.
All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.
BV
All of these points presume that, if Ascent were responsible for FJ purchase as well as all the other aircraft, they still would have chosen to make Phase IV FJ their first phase to start teaching. More likely, they would have pushed that down the line, let the Hawk T1 soldier on in RAF service and worried about the choice at a later date. There would then have been more options. And that would have made for some very interesting (and unpredicted) conversations regarding requirements versus platform choices.
BV
The following users liked this post:
DuckDodgers
I could write a thesis about downloading training from OCUs to other training establishments but it’s probably a bit off topic so I’ll leave it for now.
BV
BV
The Hawk T2 cockpit is designed to be representative of the Eurofighter and other 4th Gen types. For 5th Gen, the MFD-cockpit can be replaced by a large area display that was developed for the Indians and which I believe the Finns are taking up as they transition to the F-35. What else would make an improved version of the Hawk unsuitable?
Melmoth
As far as Typhoon is concerned, the Hawk T2 is perfectly adequate as a lead in trainer. Although a software upgrade to include additional sensor simulation would be good. For F35 though you need more than just a large display to make the Hawk a better lead in. It’s still a great trainer but not when we’re taking about lead in to fifth gen stuff. Having said that, that’s what the F35 simulators are for! So maybe, we don’t need a new training jet, we just need a simulated one. Maybe ACM Wigston had a point! 💣
BV
BV
Thanks Bob, all good points. If a Hawk isn't adequate for 5th gen training, then (as you say) arguably no LIFT aircraft is. However, IIRC Gen Brown was left bemused by Wigston's assertion that all training could be synthetic, as at some point you have to send the student up in a real aircraft and I'm not sure you would want the first time to be in an actual F-35.
The following users liked this post:
Melmoth
As I said, I could write a thesis about this stuff. However, it is all mostly moot since there is no money. We have Hawk T2s (and other overseas training solutions) and that isn’t going to change any time soon. We use what we have.
BV
BV
Give us a summary... maybe on another thread?
You can start by shooting down my thinking - which was a get a unit of Gripens that sit between Valley and the Typhoon/F-35s OCUs.
First short tour is to get lots of air time in the Gripen and build up 'real' experience levels on a cheap(er) platform - also Gripen of course has an excellent war role.
The Hawk T2 cockpit is designed to be representative of the Eurofighter and other 4th Gen types. For 5th Gen, the MFD-cockpit can be replaced by a large area display that was developed for the Indians and which I believe the Finns are taking up as they transition to the F-35. What else would make an improved version of the Hawk unsuitable?
Now if you were smart and looking at replacing the advanced trainer with something that could perform a red air role too, you'd need L16, radar, AAR, supersonic capability and a jammer, but that all costs money and that's something HMG isn't too keen to spend on capability in the short term. Much better to pay more over the long term for a significantly reduced output... Maybe I'm just being cynical, but this is not something I see us getting right in the future either.
Typerated
Since I have a little bit of spare time and I’m in the mood I’ll throw a few thoughts down. I won’t go for the full thesis but I’ll highlight a few things. I feel it is still on thread enough.
First, a quick précis of my experience and then a little history. I did six Hawk tours teaching mostly tac weapons but also AFT to staff and students in the RAF, RCAF, and RAFO. So, whilst I have been away from the frontline for a considerable time I do know a thing or two about FJ training.
Ascent took over Phase IV FJ training in about the 2010-11 timeframe. They were told that the Hawk T2 was their airframe. RAF QFIs wrote the early syllabus and commenced training the first batches of QFIs.
I know most people like to bash Ascent but I have never joined the chorus. I realise there is an element of not wishing to bite the hand that might feed you one day, but I also think that the MOD has to take a share of the blame. The major mistake from day one was asking a civilian consortium (with a few select ex-military individuals) to start a multi-year, multi-billion pound contract by taking over the process of producing Phase III and IV FJ pilots as their first taste of military flying training. That was a big ask to say the least.
You’ll also note that I don’t ever comment on any of Ascent’s dealings outside of the Hawk set up at Valley because I cannot comment with any authority about what goes on in other units.
Anyway, at about the same time as Ascent was taking hold of the reins at Valley, the UK Government was busy slashing front line fighter fleets. Harriers and F3s were binned with not enough front line cockpits elsewhere to go around.
This is the point where I unleash some brutal honesty.
Lots of otherwise thrusting and capable front line pilots and instructors were left with nowhere decent to thrust. Several of them (of varying ranks and from various fleets) went to Valley. They then saw it as their mission to make their mark on the fledgling system there. Hence the idea of downloading training from OCUs and the frontline was born. It almost became an obsession to make the Hawk T2 ‘force’ become ready for war. Forgetting that the raisin d’etre of the Hawk T2 was as a training platform. It would be fair to say there was a little competition to prove who knew the most about being a fighter pilot instead of focussing on how to take Tucano pilots (as they were then) and turn them into a pilot capable of starting an OCU.
None of that can be blamed on Ascent. In fact you could argue they had to exercise extreme patience when their only customer continually changed their mind about what they wanted.
Anyway, downloading training from more expensive aircraft types is, of course, a great idea. In theory. Trying to slavishly copy and recreate how frontline types operate was not such a great idea. Especially when the new kid on the block (the Typhoon force) was in a phase of continual change in their tactics and operating procedures, as was to be expected from a new force and one that had just been thrown into its first major operational deployment in Libya.
At about the same time as all this was going on, the RAF binned all stocks of dumb bombs. We were also (rightly) becoming much less of a low level oriented FJ force. This meant the frontline was definitely not in the business of practicing old school 2v1 or 4v1 low level evasion sorties with low level lay down and pop attacks. It would be fair to say that the Hawk T1 fleet used a students ability to operate as a wingman and formation leader in a low level, opposed environment (with map and stopwatch mostly but latterly with the help of a very basic bolt on GPS) with all the vaguaries of the UK weather thrown in as extra spice as their final arbiter of whether the young pilot was going to make a good frontline pilot.
People argued until they were blue in the face about how pointless it was to keep teaching such legacy tactics that were completely unrepresentative of frontline business. People such as myself might have tried to point out that what you teach wasn’t quite as important as how you teach it. In fact many pilots (from a few years back) will admit they were never as sharp in pure flying terms as when they were leading formations at low level in poor weather with a ToT to achieve. But, of course, a voice such as mine could always be trumped by someone with more recent frontline experience.
So that meant that, for instance, instead of students being asked to do these very demanding low level sorties they were then focussing more on medium level, level bombing sorties. The early ones were of course unopposed. When you have no simulated targeting pod and no symbology to simulate a Paveway type weapon this was basically a medium level, unopposed NAV ex (with simulated SAMs later on and then opposed subsequently as well) with a manual pickle from a straight and level profile. Because that’s what the frontline were doing (well actually not really but it was the only aspects that could be copied in the absence of better weapons and targeting simulation).
So when I hear downloaded training I think “great idea” if (big IF) the training aircraft can accurately represent what the frontline are doing. This means you either need a new trainer (not going to happen) or a significant software update (probably not going to happen) or you need to invest in some sort of simulated platform that can help you out (more on that later). If you can’t do any of this (usually because of budgetary restraints) then my recommendation would be to listen to the experts. The people that know how to turn Tucano pilots into OCU input standard pilots. Not people who have (I’m sure very expertly) taken already trained and combat ready pilots and taken them to war on their actual frontline platform.
So, what would I do?
I would use the platform we have (Hawk T2 which is a very good FJ trainer - notwithstanding current serviceability issues and I have no idea if and when they will be resolved). I would take those T6 pilots (no longer Tucano) and I would put them through a course that is both challenging and as operationally relevant as I could make it. That involves compromise.
If you want to see if the trainee pilots are going to make good frontline operators you need to stretch them. You do that by using the tools (factors) you have at your disposal. In the UK that means weather, terrain, airspace etc. You use sortie profiles that will stretch them even if it doesn’t perfectly replicate what the frontline do. Yes, that means potentially using low level and old school targeting methods. Not because it has anything to do with what Typhoon and F35 do in Operations but because it teaches key skills such as operating and targeting under pressure in a high threat environment. It also exposes them to captaincy and airmanship decision making that will make some later flying seem incredibly straightforward. They already do alot of radar work and are currently limited by only being able to target airborne assets. It would be great if this could evolve to include additional simulated target groups but that is all part of the software upgrade idea that would need significant funding.
I would also ensure that all students have operated from unfamiliar and preferably overseas bases by the way, before they reach an OCU and I know that certainly did happen but I don’t know to what extent it happens now.
I have been away from Valley for a few years now and left the Hawk over a year ago. This means that some of what I say may be out of date and I realise that it is very unlikely that any current Valley QFI is going to come on here anyway so I’m basically howling at the moon. But I still felt it was worth saying.
As for your Gripen question I would say no. An extra fleet will not help anyone unless it is also your trainer and red air aircraft all rolled into one. What I think could help would be an extra stage between Valley and OCUs (assuming a Hawk software upgrade does not happen) that makes use of simulation to open the eyes of the student to life beyond Wales. I know that there are some things on the horizon that have received funding to help with this (Red 6 for those that know what I’m talking about) and I hope they can come to fruition and be incorporated successfully into the equation.
Anyway, with all of the above (if you’re still reading!) I have to add that I’m yesterday’s man when it comes to Hawk training. I don’t keep fully up to date and most of my views are from (fairly recent) historic experience and I hope that much of what I’m talking about has been taken into account anyway and I just don’t know about it.
To ensure this post has at least some relevance to the thread I must add that I still don’t think the MOD needs to buy a new platform. They just need to sort out the one they already have.
BV
First, a quick précis of my experience and then a little history. I did six Hawk tours teaching mostly tac weapons but also AFT to staff and students in the RAF, RCAF, and RAFO. So, whilst I have been away from the frontline for a considerable time I do know a thing or two about FJ training.
Ascent took over Phase IV FJ training in about the 2010-11 timeframe. They were told that the Hawk T2 was their airframe. RAF QFIs wrote the early syllabus and commenced training the first batches of QFIs.
I know most people like to bash Ascent but I have never joined the chorus. I realise there is an element of not wishing to bite the hand that might feed you one day, but I also think that the MOD has to take a share of the blame. The major mistake from day one was asking a civilian consortium (with a few select ex-military individuals) to start a multi-year, multi-billion pound contract by taking over the process of producing Phase III and IV FJ pilots as their first taste of military flying training. That was a big ask to say the least.
You’ll also note that I don’t ever comment on any of Ascent’s dealings outside of the Hawk set up at Valley because I cannot comment with any authority about what goes on in other units.
Anyway, at about the same time as Ascent was taking hold of the reins at Valley, the UK Government was busy slashing front line fighter fleets. Harriers and F3s were binned with not enough front line cockpits elsewhere to go around.
This is the point where I unleash some brutal honesty.
Lots of otherwise thrusting and capable front line pilots and instructors were left with nowhere decent to thrust. Several of them (of varying ranks and from various fleets) went to Valley. They then saw it as their mission to make their mark on the fledgling system there. Hence the idea of downloading training from OCUs and the frontline was born. It almost became an obsession to make the Hawk T2 ‘force’ become ready for war. Forgetting that the raisin d’etre of the Hawk T2 was as a training platform. It would be fair to say there was a little competition to prove who knew the most about being a fighter pilot instead of focussing on how to take Tucano pilots (as they were then) and turn them into a pilot capable of starting an OCU.
None of that can be blamed on Ascent. In fact you could argue they had to exercise extreme patience when their only customer continually changed their mind about what they wanted.
Anyway, downloading training from more expensive aircraft types is, of course, a great idea. In theory. Trying to slavishly copy and recreate how frontline types operate was not such a great idea. Especially when the new kid on the block (the Typhoon force) was in a phase of continual change in their tactics and operating procedures, as was to be expected from a new force and one that had just been thrown into its first major operational deployment in Libya.
At about the same time as all this was going on, the RAF binned all stocks of dumb bombs. We were also (rightly) becoming much less of a low level oriented FJ force. This meant the frontline was definitely not in the business of practicing old school 2v1 or 4v1 low level evasion sorties with low level lay down and pop attacks. It would be fair to say that the Hawk T1 fleet used a students ability to operate as a wingman and formation leader in a low level, opposed environment (with map and stopwatch mostly but latterly with the help of a very basic bolt on GPS) with all the vaguaries of the UK weather thrown in as extra spice as their final arbiter of whether the young pilot was going to make a good frontline pilot.
People argued until they were blue in the face about how pointless it was to keep teaching such legacy tactics that were completely unrepresentative of frontline business. People such as myself might have tried to point out that what you teach wasn’t quite as important as how you teach it. In fact many pilots (from a few years back) will admit they were never as sharp in pure flying terms as when they were leading formations at low level in poor weather with a ToT to achieve. But, of course, a voice such as mine could always be trumped by someone with more recent frontline experience.
So that meant that, for instance, instead of students being asked to do these very demanding low level sorties they were then focussing more on medium level, level bombing sorties. The early ones were of course unopposed. When you have no simulated targeting pod and no symbology to simulate a Paveway type weapon this was basically a medium level, unopposed NAV ex (with simulated SAMs later on and then opposed subsequently as well) with a manual pickle from a straight and level profile. Because that’s what the frontline were doing (well actually not really but it was the only aspects that could be copied in the absence of better weapons and targeting simulation).
So when I hear downloaded training I think “great idea” if (big IF) the training aircraft can accurately represent what the frontline are doing. This means you either need a new trainer (not going to happen) or a significant software update (probably not going to happen) or you need to invest in some sort of simulated platform that can help you out (more on that later). If you can’t do any of this (usually because of budgetary restraints) then my recommendation would be to listen to the experts. The people that know how to turn Tucano pilots into OCU input standard pilots. Not people who have (I’m sure very expertly) taken already trained and combat ready pilots and taken them to war on their actual frontline platform.
So, what would I do?
I would use the platform we have (Hawk T2 which is a very good FJ trainer - notwithstanding current serviceability issues and I have no idea if and when they will be resolved). I would take those T6 pilots (no longer Tucano) and I would put them through a course that is both challenging and as operationally relevant as I could make it. That involves compromise.
If you want to see if the trainee pilots are going to make good frontline operators you need to stretch them. You do that by using the tools (factors) you have at your disposal. In the UK that means weather, terrain, airspace etc. You use sortie profiles that will stretch them even if it doesn’t perfectly replicate what the frontline do. Yes, that means potentially using low level and old school targeting methods. Not because it has anything to do with what Typhoon and F35 do in Operations but because it teaches key skills such as operating and targeting under pressure in a high threat environment. It also exposes them to captaincy and airmanship decision making that will make some later flying seem incredibly straightforward. They already do alot of radar work and are currently limited by only being able to target airborne assets. It would be great if this could evolve to include additional simulated target groups but that is all part of the software upgrade idea that would need significant funding.
I would also ensure that all students have operated from unfamiliar and preferably overseas bases by the way, before they reach an OCU and I know that certainly did happen but I don’t know to what extent it happens now.
I have been away from Valley for a few years now and left the Hawk over a year ago. This means that some of what I say may be out of date and I realise that it is very unlikely that any current Valley QFI is going to come on here anyway so I’m basically howling at the moon. But I still felt it was worth saying.
As for your Gripen question I would say no. An extra fleet will not help anyone unless it is also your trainer and red air aircraft all rolled into one. What I think could help would be an extra stage between Valley and OCUs (assuming a Hawk software upgrade does not happen) that makes use of simulation to open the eyes of the student to life beyond Wales. I know that there are some things on the horizon that have received funding to help with this (Red 6 for those that know what I’m talking about) and I hope they can come to fruition and be incorporated successfully into the equation.
Anyway, with all of the above (if you’re still reading!) I have to add that I’m yesterday’s man when it comes to Hawk training. I don’t keep fully up to date and most of my views are from (fairly recent) historic experience and I hope that much of what I’m talking about has been taken into account anyway and I just don’t know about it.
To ensure this post has at least some relevance to the thread I must add that I still don’t think the MOD needs to buy a new platform. They just need to sort out the one they already have.
BV
The following 10 users liked this post by Bob Viking: