So what will be the next trainer?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Aeralis, great concept but without 9 figures of funding it’ll lead to nothing. I suspect Barzan are playing a classic debt to equity exchange to onshore the IP and know how back to Qatar. I also believe they have no intent in buying an air vehicle.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hampshire
Posts: 137
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It’s a shame this approach wasn’t taken with the Hawk TMk2 already, which might have both supported export customers and other nations as well as reducing the training timeline for UK aircrew. The Hawk production line is closed now, so that ship has sailed, but if Aeralis comes good then it still might be an approach with a future UK trainer.
If there isn’t a UK trainer after Hawk, continuing to endorse the existence of RAFAT will be more difficult. Taking a display team to back political messaging worldwide isn’t quite the same in an aircraft which showcases someone else’s engineering. I hope Aeralis do well, but they face a significant challenge.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
“Si mi abuela tuviera ruedas seria una bicicleta”
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/
Q165: Sarah Atherton: The Hawk trainer has been successful and has also been a successful export, but the MoD has started a comprehensive capability investigation into the future of combat aircrew training and a future aircraft. Would you like to give me an update on progress?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Sure. Hawk T2 was a derivative of the original Hawk. It came into service over 20 years ago, and right now it continues to meet our needs for fast jet training for Typhoon and F-35. But it was always planned to go out of service around the end of the next decade—2040 is the out-of-service date we describe. We are pretty clear that it will not meet the requirements for a Global Combat Air Programme solution. As a consequence, we need to plan now and start a programme for the replacement of Hawk as an advanced jet trainer.
The analysis is looking at the training system requirements: what is it that we need our pilots to be able to do, and what do we therefore need that aircraft to do? It is also looking at widening it. One potential opportunity that we are exploring is how we might use an aircraft that was principally bought and developed for training to provide what we describe as surrogate training for the in-service GCAP. Instead of flying the all-up combat aircraft every day, for some of those missions you could get all the training that you needed through what we describe as a surrogate platform. The benefits are that it is cheaper to fly and operate, and that it does not give away your tactics or have some of the electromagnetic emissions from the aircraft that GCAP would provide.
The second area where we might use a capability like that is to provide what we describe as “Red Air”, but a capability where we simulate another aircraft trying to attack the GCAP in this case. Thinking about the breadth of that requirement enables us to think through whether there might be a single solution. I know that you had Tristan Crawford from Aeralis in to give evidence. Tristan’s and the team’s model of a modular system would enable you to deliver capability for a number of different scenarios. It is something that we are very interested in.
I would like to bring that capability investigation to a conclusion before we get into the next spending review and defence review, because that would be the point at which we would need to establish a programme. Right now there is no money set aside in the defence budget for a replacement for Hawk, but 2040 is only 16 years away, so we will need to have our evidence gathered and developed to be in a position to make a case for investment as we go through the next spending review and defence review. The more widely that capability can support, the better the argument is. It is quite a complex area where there are quite a lot of trade-offs, but I am confident that we will get to the position where we can lay that out and initiate a programme once we have been through the spending review and defence review.
Q166: Sarah Atherton: We have been told that synthetic training will increase to 80% of the overall training, versus 20% live training.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: There will always be, in my judgment, a space for live training. There is a lot of good evidence from our own experience and from other countries that if you dial back too much on the live training—the interplay of the physiological effects of flying and the opportunity to train in that properly realistic context—you might find that you lose some of the skills, and then when it comes to people being brought into combat they are not as effective.
The 80:20 number is kicked around, but there is no definitive evidence that that is the right answer. Right now, we are looking at 50:50 as a target for live synthetic training at the frontline. We do a bit more training in the simulator at various points in the flying training programme.
It is unquestionable, to my mind, that we will rely on synthetic training for the flying training to get to the frontline, but also at the frontline. It is cheaper, and there are some things that you just cannot do in the live environment without giving away your tactics and your capability, so we have to do that in a synthetic environment. Our thinking around the training system will not be just about the aircraft; it will be about the synthetic solutions that sit alongside it as well.
Q167: Sarah Atherton: On military flight training, how are things going at Valley with Ascent?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Across military flight training, the situation has considerably improved since this time last year. I was at RAF Cranwell on Thursday last week. I sat next to the gentleman who won the sword of honour, who was about to start flying training. He graduated on Thursday and will start flying training in June. He expects, and I expect him, to run through that system, assuming he is good enough in his fast jet, without any breaks. So there is very significant improvement.
James Cartlidge: Can I say something on that? As you know, I was recently in Wales. Part of my visit was to Hightown barracks in your constituency, but I also had the pleasure of going to Valley and discussing these matters there. It was stressed to me that for the first time we were at a stage where the number of people being trained exceeded the number who were on holds. Obviously we would not have wanted to be in that situation anyway, but that is the first time it has been like that for some time. There is still more progress to make, but generally, particularly with improved availability from the Hawk—that itself is improving but still not absolutely where we want it to be—all these factors have led to that improvement. As you know, there was a significant increase in holds, above where we would want it to be.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: On Hawk specifically, we still have problems with engine availability. That constrains aircraft availability, which limits the number of pilots that we can put through that system. I am expecting us, for the next few years, to continue to need to put pilots through international systems, for example the NATO system in the US and Italy. We continue to drive Rolls-Royce, Safran, which is responsible for the components that have failed, and BAE Systems hard to improve the output from Hawk.
Q168: Sarah Atherton: I know that at Valley they have only 60% of the QIs they require. They want 10 QIs; they only have six. That is obviously going to have an impact on flow. What are you doing to monitor Ascent and the progress, as you have highlighted, that has already been made?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: The air and space commander is responsible for oversight of the aircrew pipeline steering group and also chairs a quarterly management board with the most senior people in Ascent. Below that level, there are multiple governance structures around that in order for us to keep absolutely on top of their performance. We have absolutely no question over what their performance is and are able to see precisely how things are going. The drive and determination— actually, on both sides—to improve matters is something that I am very comfortable with.
The fundamental problem we have right now with Hawk is that we do not have the components to build the engines and to put enough of the engines into our aircraft, and that is going to be a problem for at least the next three years and potentially longer. That is why we will have to export some of that training. It is not where I want to be, but we are finding a way through it to ensure that we have enough pilots flowing through the system to get to the frontline. Ultimately, what I want is Hawk to perform to the level that it was originally designed, built and contracted for. If we can do that, we will be back to that position.
Q165: Sarah Atherton: The Hawk trainer has been successful and has also been a successful export, but the MoD has started a comprehensive capability investigation into the future of combat aircrew training and a future aircraft. Would you like to give me an update on progress?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Sure. Hawk T2 was a derivative of the original Hawk. It came into service over 20 years ago, and right now it continues to meet our needs for fast jet training for Typhoon and F-35. But it was always planned to go out of service around the end of the next decade—2040 is the out-of-service date we describe. We are pretty clear that it will not meet the requirements for a Global Combat Air Programme solution. As a consequence, we need to plan now and start a programme for the replacement of Hawk as an advanced jet trainer.
The analysis is looking at the training system requirements: what is it that we need our pilots to be able to do, and what do we therefore need that aircraft to do? It is also looking at widening it. One potential opportunity that we are exploring is how we might use an aircraft that was principally bought and developed for training to provide what we describe as surrogate training for the in-service GCAP. Instead of flying the all-up combat aircraft every day, for some of those missions you could get all the training that you needed through what we describe as a surrogate platform. The benefits are that it is cheaper to fly and operate, and that it does not give away your tactics or have some of the electromagnetic emissions from the aircraft that GCAP would provide.
The second area where we might use a capability like that is to provide what we describe as “Red Air”, but a capability where we simulate another aircraft trying to attack the GCAP in this case. Thinking about the breadth of that requirement enables us to think through whether there might be a single solution. I know that you had Tristan Crawford from Aeralis in to give evidence. Tristan’s and the team’s model of a modular system would enable you to deliver capability for a number of different scenarios. It is something that we are very interested in.
I would like to bring that capability investigation to a conclusion before we get into the next spending review and defence review, because that would be the point at which we would need to establish a programme. Right now there is no money set aside in the defence budget for a replacement for Hawk, but 2040 is only 16 years away, so we will need to have our evidence gathered and developed to be in a position to make a case for investment as we go through the next spending review and defence review. The more widely that capability can support, the better the argument is. It is quite a complex area where there are quite a lot of trade-offs, but I am confident that we will get to the position where we can lay that out and initiate a programme once we have been through the spending review and defence review.
Q166: Sarah Atherton: We have been told that synthetic training will increase to 80% of the overall training, versus 20% live training.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: There will always be, in my judgment, a space for live training. There is a lot of good evidence from our own experience and from other countries that if you dial back too much on the live training—the interplay of the physiological effects of flying and the opportunity to train in that properly realistic context—you might find that you lose some of the skills, and then when it comes to people being brought into combat they are not as effective.
The 80:20 number is kicked around, but there is no definitive evidence that that is the right answer. Right now, we are looking at 50:50 as a target for live synthetic training at the frontline. We do a bit more training in the simulator at various points in the flying training programme.
It is unquestionable, to my mind, that we will rely on synthetic training for the flying training to get to the frontline, but also at the frontline. It is cheaper, and there are some things that you just cannot do in the live environment without giving away your tactics and your capability, so we have to do that in a synthetic environment. Our thinking around the training system will not be just about the aircraft; it will be about the synthetic solutions that sit alongside it as well.
Q167: Sarah Atherton: On military flight training, how are things going at Valley with Ascent?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Across military flight training, the situation has considerably improved since this time last year. I was at RAF Cranwell on Thursday last week. I sat next to the gentleman who won the sword of honour, who was about to start flying training. He graduated on Thursday and will start flying training in June. He expects, and I expect him, to run through that system, assuming he is good enough in his fast jet, without any breaks. So there is very significant improvement.
James Cartlidge: Can I say something on that? As you know, I was recently in Wales. Part of my visit was to Hightown barracks in your constituency, but I also had the pleasure of going to Valley and discussing these matters there. It was stressed to me that for the first time we were at a stage where the number of people being trained exceeded the number who were on holds. Obviously we would not have wanted to be in that situation anyway, but that is the first time it has been like that for some time. There is still more progress to make, but generally, particularly with improved availability from the Hawk—that itself is improving but still not absolutely where we want it to be—all these factors have led to that improvement. As you know, there was a significant increase in holds, above where we would want it to be.
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: On Hawk specifically, we still have problems with engine availability. That constrains aircraft availability, which limits the number of pilots that we can put through that system. I am expecting us, for the next few years, to continue to need to put pilots through international systems, for example the NATO system in the US and Italy. We continue to drive Rolls-Royce, Safran, which is responsible for the components that have failed, and BAE Systems hard to improve the output from Hawk.
Q168: Sarah Atherton: I know that at Valley they have only 60% of the QIs they require. They want 10 QIs; they only have six. That is obviously going to have an impact on flow. What are you doing to monitor Ascent and the progress, as you have highlighted, that has already been made?
Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: The air and space commander is responsible for oversight of the aircrew pipeline steering group and also chairs a quarterly management board with the most senior people in Ascent. Below that level, there are multiple governance structures around that in order for us to keep absolutely on top of their performance. We have absolutely no question over what their performance is and are able to see precisely how things are going. The drive and determination— actually, on both sides—to improve matters is something that I am very comfortable with.
The fundamental problem we have right now with Hawk is that we do not have the components to build the engines and to put enough of the engines into our aircraft, and that is going to be a problem for at least the next three years and potentially longer. That is why we will have to export some of that training. It is not where I want to be, but we are finding a way through it to ensure that we have enough pilots flowing through the system to get to the frontline. Ultimately, what I want is Hawk to perform to the level that it was originally designed, built and contracted for. If we can do that, we will be back to that position.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
The engine issue is convenient and masks the real issues relating to that platform. As a taxpayer no more ££££ should be spent on T2 or with BAE and the U.K. should exit it and move it sideways at a convenient juncture, around 2030-2033.
How convenient an engineer CAS name drops Aeralis, did his mate Julian Young tell him to too? Is he a NED?
How convenient an engineer CAS name drops Aeralis, did his mate Julian Young tell him to too? Is he a NED?
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Before anyone blames Military Flying Training System for it, useful to remember Hawk T2 is the one training aircraft that contractor did not pick. They were saddled with it. MOD is responsible for delivery of 6-7K Hawk T2 flying hours x year and that is not currently possible.
As a ppl with a few hours to my credit, I don't see myself as a professional aviator. However, may I offer a few thoughts and questions on behalf of we who pay for all this.
1; NATO and others seem to be standardising on the F35 as it's main combat vehicle;
2 Some pilots are already being trained in the Us and parts of Europe to what I assume is a standard level.
3: Italy is producing two trainers T345 and T346 (?) that are pretty state of the art.
Isn't it time that all NATO got together and pooled resources?
It was done for the Tornado 40+ years ago, so the precedent is there.
Surely this would negate the need for national training organisations, freeing up trained pilots to fill the gaps in the front line.
Whilst this may (will) appear simplistic, maybe the time has come to do the obvious.
As I said at the start, I'm just a low hour ppl, who has been paying taxes for over 50 years, and would really like to see people making better use of my pension!
Retreats quickly to wind neck back in.
1; NATO and others seem to be standardising on the F35 as it's main combat vehicle;
2 Some pilots are already being trained in the Us and parts of Europe to what I assume is a standard level.
3: Italy is producing two trainers T345 and T346 (?) that are pretty state of the art.
Isn't it time that all NATO got together and pooled resources?
It was done for the Tornado 40+ years ago, so the precedent is there.
Surely this would negate the need for national training organisations, freeing up trained pilots to fill the gaps in the front line.
Whilst this may (will) appear simplistic, maybe the time has come to do the obvious.
As I said at the start, I'm just a low hour ppl, who has been paying taxes for over 50 years, and would really like to see people making better use of my pension!
Retreats quickly to wind neck back in.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Often in Jersey, but mainly in the past.
Age: 79
Posts: 7,810
Received 136 Likes
on
64 Posts
Memories of the Alpha Jet concept? Why not, if you could get NATO Air forces to agree on a common type and capability.
What Europe must avoid is the kind of wasteful competition that has the Hawker Siddeley Hawk and Dassault-Breguet/Dornier Alpha Jet battling against each other in the world market.
— John W. R. Taylor, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1975–1976[77]
— John W. R. Taylor, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1975–1976[77]
The following users liked this post:
Bobward
I have two points for you.
1. M346 is great in many ways and will beat Hawk in a dogfight easily but it’s of the same generation of trainers in terms of capability. If they could be produced in large numbers though they could certainly offer a decent solution.
2. Our NATO partners are struggling just as much as us for pilots and especially instructors. Pooling our resources may help a little but the problem won’t go away.
BV
1. M346 is great in many ways and will beat Hawk in a dogfight easily but it’s of the same generation of trainers in terms of capability. If they could be produced in large numbers though they could certainly offer a decent solution.
2. Our NATO partners are struggling just as much as us for pilots and especially instructors. Pooling our resources may help a little but the problem won’t go away.
BV
The French won't accept anything that's not majority French; Mind you, Hawk was probably the last aircraft wholly designed and built in the UK to enter service, so maybethey have a point.
The following users liked this post:
Kind of ironic the own truly transnational integrated military aircraft procurement program was done by the Soviet Union.
The following users liked this post:
The following users liked this post:
I find it staggering that the dumb politicians are still waffling on about UK jobs and keeping skills when they don't want to spend the money buying in the volume that will do that....basic maths isn't their strong point.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.
T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.
Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.
T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.
Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
I find it staggering that the dumb politicians are still waffling on about UK jobs and keeping skills when they don't want to spend the money buying in the volume that will do that....basic maths isn't their strong point.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.
T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.
Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.
T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.
Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.
The following 4 users liked this post by Dan Gerous:
Nike are better Dan.....
Maybe the Romanians can help...?
Maybe the Romanians can help...?
Attended a RAeS lecture last night by the Aeralis Chief Engineer.
Design is pretty much frozen, Hamble Aerostructures have done all the airframe CAD work (traditional aluminium airframe, very little composites), systems design is well advanced.
Change from mid to low wing followed wind tunnel work to reduce drag, and increase speed for aggressor role.
Expected that most aircraft will stay in the format they are built in with little role change in use.
Much emphasis on life cost savings if there's a mixed fleet of trainer/aggressor etc.
Options for easy change of engine as new designs mature.
Core aircraft is up to 85% common across versions.
Aiming for 55mins/flying hour maintenance - 92% availabilty.
It appears they just need someone to order it...
Design is pretty much frozen, Hamble Aerostructures have done all the airframe CAD work (traditional aluminium airframe, very little composites), systems design is well advanced.
Change from mid to low wing followed wind tunnel work to reduce drag, and increase speed for aggressor role.
Expected that most aircraft will stay in the format they are built in with little role change in use.
Much emphasis on life cost savings if there's a mixed fleet of trainer/aggressor etc.
Options for easy change of engine as new designs mature.
Core aircraft is up to 85% common across versions.
Aiming for 55mins/flying hour maintenance - 92% availabilty.
It appears they just need someone to order it...