Ascent urges the UK MOD to look for a Hawk T2 replacement.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
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
DD
It’s not my circle to square. As I said, I last flew at Valley in 2017 and stopped flying the Hawk last year. My flying rate never suffered as a result of Hawk serviceability and I never operated on a Sqn where we were unable to meet a task as a result of jet issues.
My points that I raised were about what I believe could and should happen with regard to training. I can’t speak for how you achieve the task with 28 airframes because I don’t know anything about the current challenges at Valley.
As an aside, if the MOD were to heed the request for a new fleet of training aircraft do you really think they’d buy more than 28 of whatever aircraft was selected? I’d be very surprised if numbers ever went up! The other thing that really would need to happen would be that more than two full mission simulators would need to be procured. And they can be more expensive than aircraft.
One other thing that really dissapointed me was a total disregard by the RAF of certain other Air Forces with good training opportunities (driven by CFS ‘experts’). There is more than one country in the Middle East for instance that operates the same mark of Hawk (essentially identical except for a couple of minor, irrelevant switches) as the RAF that have good weather and large airspace. It just amuses me when I think of some of the solutions they went with and some of the potential ones they ignored. Again, CFS know best.
BV
My points that I raised were about what I believe could and should happen with regard to training. I can’t speak for how you achieve the task with 28 airframes because I don’t know anything about the current challenges at Valley.
As an aside, if the MOD were to heed the request for a new fleet of training aircraft do you really think they’d buy more than 28 of whatever aircraft was selected? I’d be very surprised if numbers ever went up! The other thing that really would need to happen would be that more than two full mission simulators would need to be procured. And they can be more expensive than aircraft.
One other thing that really dissapointed me was a total disregard by the RAF of certain other Air Forces with good training opportunities (driven by CFS ‘experts’). There is more than one country in the Middle East for instance that operates the same mark of Hawk (essentially identical except for a couple of minor, irrelevant switches) as the RAF that have good weather and large airspace. It just amuses me when I think of some of the solutions they went with and some of the potential ones they ignored. Again, CFS know best.
BV
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
A couple of RAF students have just gone solo during their jet training at Deci
https://www.forces.net/services/raf/...-flight-school
Two student pilots have become the first Royal Air Force trainees to fly solo at Nato's flying training school on the Italian island of Sardinia.
The pair made their solo flights on the twin-engined Aermacchi T-346 Master at the International Flight Training School in Decimomannu, having completed their basic flying training on the Texan T1 in the UK earlier this year.
Launched in 2020, the Nato Flight Training Europe High Visibility Project helped to link up and coordinate training between member states.The UK joined the initiative at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels in October 2023.
Air Commodore Ian Sharrocks, the head of UK Military Flying Training, said: "Access to alternate flying training systems across Europe, which NFTE membership gives us, not only enables us to address periodic fluctuations in demand but also delivers the flexibility for us to increase our support to Nato".
He added: "Crucially this will deliver greater resilience to the RAF frontline, UK defence and all of our Nato partners.
"It is essential that we work together to get the very best out of the assets we have."
Following their first solo flights on the T-346, the first two trainees have now progressed to flying air-to-air and air-to-ground combat training sorties.
They will be posted to either the Typhoon or Lightning frontline Operational Conversion Units upon successful completion of the course.
Twelve RAF pilots will be trained over the next three years at the air base on the Mediterranean island.
The pair made their solo flights on the twin-engined Aermacchi T-346 Master at the International Flight Training School in Decimomannu, having completed their basic flying training on the Texan T1 in the UK earlier this year.
Launched in 2020, the Nato Flight Training Europe High Visibility Project helped to link up and coordinate training between member states.The UK joined the initiative at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels in October 2023.
Air Commodore Ian Sharrocks, the head of UK Military Flying Training, said: "Access to alternate flying training systems across Europe, which NFTE membership gives us, not only enables us to address periodic fluctuations in demand but also delivers the flexibility for us to increase our support to Nato".
He added: "Crucially this will deliver greater resilience to the RAF frontline, UK defence and all of our Nato partners.
"It is essential that we work together to get the very best out of the assets we have."
Following their first solo flights on the T-346, the first two trainees have now progressed to flying air-to-air and air-to-ground combat training sorties.
They will be posted to either the Typhoon or Lightning frontline Operational Conversion Units upon successful completion of the course.
Twelve RAF pilots will be trained over the next three years at the air base on the Mediterranean island.
The following users liked this post:
Bob V
I have just read your previous comments - I am well out of what is currently going on in the RAF, but I found your thoughts interesting and informative - unlike many of the current ramblings on PPRuNe.
So thank you, and I wish we could return to worthwhile comments such as yours and even banter, the way it used to be on this Forum!!
So thank you, and I wish we could return to worthwhile comments such as yours and even banter, the way it used to be on this Forum!!
The following 4 users liked this post by ex-fast-jets:
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,068
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Pardon me for my ignorance but as Bob says.
I might be totally wrong and have no experience at all to back this up, but surely what is going on in Ukraine against Russia, who let’s face it would be our main threat , is proving that low level operations and pop ups in such a theatre is the way to go as it appears to be the norm for both sides, or is it because of the Wests supposed superior weaponry that we believe we no longer need to train in these realms?
I also wonder if operating 28 aircraft are not enough to cope with the current training scenario, how will it cope in training Ukrainian pilots that Rishi has committed us too?
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.
I might be totally wrong and have no experience at all to back this up, but surely what is going on in Ukraine against Russia, who let’s face it would be our main threat , is proving that low level operations and pop ups in such a theatre is the way to go as it appears to be the norm for both sides, or is it because of the Wests supposed superior weaponry that we believe we no longer need to train in these realms?
I also wonder if operating 28 aircraft are not enough to cope with the current training scenario, how will it cope in training Ukrainian pilots that Rishi has committed us too?
How about the L-15 lol, I saw the new UAEAF one during Dubai Air Show this week (my pics below)
cheers
cheers
The L-15 looks like it comes in Red Bull colours.
Perhaps the Ferrari variant would suit the Reds.
And the McLaren version would provide good Student Avoidance for Valley.
[oops, almost said Training Command.]
NutLoose
The French are doing the fast jet element on Alpha Jet: https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidax...h=1104f9632540
The UK is doing language training, ground school and elementary/semi-basic flying training prior to Alpha Jet as per the article.
Fear naught, you can’t pin this Hawk debacle on Rishi Sunak! You need to look back at 2 Jags Prescott who stepped in to ensure that BAe Brough (that subsequently closed!) could get the contract for T2 to buy more votes in Humberside. We should have bought the M346 instead!
BBC NEWS | Business | BAE wins key aircraft deal
I also wonder if operating 28 aircraft are not enough to cope with the current training scenario, how will it cope in training Ukrainian pilots that Rishi has committed us too?
The UK is doing language training, ground school and elementary/semi-basic flying training prior to Alpha Jet as per the article.
Fear naught, you can’t pin this Hawk debacle on Rishi Sunak! You need to look back at 2 Jags Prescott who stepped in to ensure that BAe Brough (that subsequently closed!) could get the contract for T2 to buy more votes in Humberside. We should have bought the M346 instead!
BBC NEWS | Business | BAE wins key aircraft deal
The following 2 users liked this post by Lima Juliet:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Whether 28 aircraft is enough comes down to availability. So even pre-current woes with that platform and the historic support behind it, it simply doesn’t cut the mustard. Look to IFTS as to what availability rates should and could look like if MOD were to be so bold. Parallels can be drawn with Australia with Hawk 127 availability rates, that’s with a slightly larger fleet of 33 aircraft.
