Ascent urges the UK MOD to look for a Hawk T2 replacement.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,967
Received 2,864 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
Ascent urges the UK MOD to look for a Hawk T2 replacement.
I bet this will fall on deaf ears the budget as it is.
https://aviationweek.com/defense-spa...e-hawk-trainer
Ascent Urges UK Defense Ministry To Explore Hawk Trainer Alternatives
LONDON–Ascent, the consortium created to run the UK’s Military Flying Training System (MFTS), has suggested that the UK defense ministry explore the procurement of an alternative advanced jet trainer to replace the BAE Systems Hawk T2. The company, a joint venture of Babcock and Lockheed Martin...
Top Answer
15th Nov 2023, 04:10
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
It would have to be critical and the money achieved by canning something else. AFAIK Hawk T.2 OSD is still 2040 so I presume no money will have been considered yet - and the expectation would be UAV platform dominance and quite likely participation in a multinational training programme for the few FJ pilots required.
I would assume any replacement could only be seriously considered if it were contractor supplied (owned or leased), LM doesn't make one - its failed T-X bid was a partnership with KAI for the T-50
Beyond the M-346 what are the options unless the UK was to accept a supersonic trainer? Resurrecting the HAL/BAES Advanced Hawk? AERALIS - Babcock France has recently signed a deal with them.
I would assume any replacement could only be seriously considered if it were contractor supplied (owned or leased), LM doesn't make one - its failed T-X bid was a partnership with KAI for the T-50
Beyond the M-346 what are the options unless the UK was to accept a supersonic trainer? Resurrecting the HAL/BAES Advanced Hawk? AERALIS - Babcock France has recently signed a deal with them.
Last edited by SLXOwft; 13th Nov 2023 at 15:43. Reason: senility
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Given its continued poor availability and an increased sovereign training demand, it would make sense these discussions are held sooner rather than later. I wonder if there has been talk of wider synergies across the training enterprises given the obvious capability enhancement both TF-50A or M346 could deliver?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 32,967
Received 2,864 Likes
on
1,228 Posts
Textron Scorpion 
.
.
Last edited by NutLoose; 11th Nov 2023 at 21:47.
The following users liked this post:
Coochycool
The Hawk production line closed a while ago. It will never re-open so new Hawks cannot be an option regardless. Buying some used ones is a possibility though!
This does all feel a little like some people at Aeralis and Ascent have been doing some back channel work to scratch each others backs perhaps.
BV
This does all feel a little like some people at Aeralis and Ascent have been doing some back channel work to scratch each others backs perhaps.
BV
The following users liked this post:
"It should really be a new UK airframe from a credible company."
Not a hope - who would build it? And who else can we sell it to?
Not a hope - who would build it? And who else can we sell it to?
The following users liked this post:
The Qatar-based Al Shamal 5 investment fund has taken a stake in UK aircraft development firm Aeralis, Janes has learned.
Companies House filings on 22 September revealed that the fund was the party behind the GBP10.5 million (USD14.3 million) investment that was first announced on 16 September. The investment in the company came with the allocation of 134,892 ordinary shares in the company, along with corresponding rights related to voting, dividends, and capital distribution. As a result, the investment equates to a 17.48% holding in the company.
Qatari registration documents reveal that the Al Shamal 5 fund's significant shareholder is Barzan Holdings QSTP-LLC, an arm of the Qatari Ministry of Defence's Barzan Holdings organisation. Barzan Holdings was launched in 2018 to help the country manage defence sector research and development (R&D) programmes and investments, as well as with strategic procurements.
Prior to the disclosure of the identity of the funding, Aeralis had said that the investment had been secured to help “support the design, development, and first flight of the Advanced Jet Trainer, Aeralis's first platform”, and that the fund “has committed to investing in the next generation of cutting-edge, market-disrupting solutions and the flexible, affordable, and connected aircraft systems designed by Aeralis [that] will serve the fast-evolving requirements across the future of flying training and light combat air”.
The Aeralis training aircraft has been developed as a modular system, which allows for the engines and outer edge of the wings to be changed as required to suit the curriculum. Partners for the aircraft include Rolls-Royce, which will be providing propulsion systems for the pre-production aircraft and potential future versions of the aircraft, KBR, and Atkins.
Companies House filings on 22 September revealed that the fund was the party behind the GBP10.5 million (USD14.3 million) investment that was first announced on 16 September. The investment in the company came with the allocation of 134,892 ordinary shares in the company, along with corresponding rights related to voting, dividends, and capital distribution. As a result, the investment equates to a 17.48% holding in the company.
Qatari registration documents reveal that the Al Shamal 5 fund's significant shareholder is Barzan Holdings QSTP-LLC, an arm of the Qatari Ministry of Defence's Barzan Holdings organisation. Barzan Holdings was launched in 2018 to help the country manage defence sector research and development (R&D) programmes and investments, as well as with strategic procurements.
Prior to the disclosure of the identity of the funding, Aeralis had said that the investment had been secured to help “support the design, development, and first flight of the Advanced Jet Trainer, Aeralis's first platform”, and that the fund “has committed to investing in the next generation of cutting-edge, market-disrupting solutions and the flexible, affordable, and connected aircraft systems designed by Aeralis [that] will serve the fast-evolving requirements across the future of flying training and light combat air”.
The Aeralis training aircraft has been developed as a modular system, which allows for the engines and outer edge of the wings to be changed as required to suit the curriculum. Partners for the aircraft include Rolls-Royce, which will be providing propulsion systems for the pre-production aircraft and potential future versions of the aircraft, KBR, and Atkins.
Replacing Hawks with Hawks sounds like a good idea.
Boeing Hawks sounds like a possibility.
Fifth generation trainer with an integrated ground training system all in one package.
Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen.
With a bucket of paint they could even come in all Red rather than just having a red tail.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/t-7a/index.page
Boeing Hawks sounds like a possibility.
Fifth generation trainer with an integrated ground training system all in one package.
Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen.
With a bucket of paint they could even come in all Red rather than just having a red tail.
https://www.boeing.com/defense/t-7a/index.page
Last edited by SASless; 12th Nov 2023 at 20:42.
Seeing as LM own a massive stake in Ascent, then buying T-50As seems the most likely scenario:
Then, what to do with a fleet of 28x Hawk T2s with life left to 2040…oh, yes, let’s paint them red…
Simples
Then, what to do with a fleet of 28x Hawk T2s with life left to 2040…oh, yes, let’s paint them red…
Simples
I instructed on Hawk T1 at Chivenor and consider it a fine aeroplane, perfect for advanced/tactical training. Nothing wrong with what we have. Pity we cannot have a Hawk Mk3. From an instructor point of view it is vital that the back-seater has a perfect view.
"Sorry about the lack of British designed, built thing but we know that just is not going to happen."
always struck me as odd that someone building a very successful aircraft never looked at developing a successor - same with the HS125 Biz jet
always struck me as odd that someone building a very successful aircraft never looked at developing a successor - same with the HS125 Biz jet
Sharpend
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