BAE Future Trainer
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
BAE Future Trainer
Who knew? Some bold, deceitful, and questionable claims in this response to the Defence Select Committee.
BAE Systems Evidence
BAE Systems Evidence
Given this length of service, we are working with the RAF to ensure the Hawk remains relevant to their requirements. In 2022, BAE Systems was awarded an 11- year Hawk support contract that included a mechanism to reinvest savings from the contract into Hawk capability development and to address obsolescence issues, in a similar way to the TyTAN support contract for Typhoon. The programme to deliver this is the Hawk Capability and Sustainment Programme (CSP).
The CSP will keep the Hawk relevant by providing state-of-the-art computing capabilities through our modernised Medulla mission computer combined with a substantial overhaul of the cockpit displays and controls, creating a modernised, agile and adaptable platform. Moreover, we are collaborating with partners on transformative Augmented Reality training technologies that will provide a step- change in immersive and dynamic training. This will reduce both the time spent in training and the number of Qualified Flying Instructors required. Furthermore, we intend to incorporate on Hawk some of the emerging technologies being developed through the FCAS programme, thus ensuring relevance and delivering value for money.
In summary, together with the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems will conclude analysis of the training system required in the era of 4th, 5th and 6th generation platforms before making a decision on a replacement training aircraft for Hawk. There is sufficient time for this analysis because of the Hawk OSD and the continued investment in its capability and sustainability.
The CSP will keep the Hawk relevant by providing state-of-the-art computing capabilities through our modernised Medulla mission computer combined with a substantial overhaul of the cockpit displays and controls, creating a modernised, agile and adaptable platform. Moreover, we are collaborating with partners on transformative Augmented Reality training technologies that will provide a step- change in immersive and dynamic training. This will reduce both the time spent in training and the number of Qualified Flying Instructors required. Furthermore, we intend to incorporate on Hawk some of the emerging technologies being developed through the FCAS programme, thus ensuring relevance and delivering value for money.
In summary, together with the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems will conclude analysis of the training system required in the era of 4th, 5th and 6th generation platforms before making a decision on a replacement training aircraft for Hawk. There is sufficient time for this analysis because of the Hawk OSD and the continued investment in its capability and sustainability.
Please, no. Hawk should be replaced, not upgraded. The airframe is obsolete, the engine doesn't work properly. No amount of avionics and synthetic crap can compensate for that.
The following users liked this post:
This looks to be a similar strategy to France, where the much older Alpha jets may retire in the 2040s.
I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?
I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
This looks to be a similar strategy to France, where the much older Alpha jets may retire in the 2040s.
I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?
I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?
Future trainer
My interest was piqued by the comment that the new training system would require less QFIs. I’m wondering how that would be achieved and if I need to start thinking about a different job!
I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.
BV
I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.
BV
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 9 Likes
on
8 Posts
My interest was piqued by the comment that the new training system would require less QFIs. I’m wondering how that would be achieved and if I need to start thinking about a different job!
I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.
BV
I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.
BV
The following users liked this post:
"BAE are making themselves the single arbiter of the future."
This could be what is required given examples of the apparent poor procurement process with other types.
Military thinking gets a changeover every few years - people and policy; civil servants, longer timescale, but with what expertise, and politically driven.
A choice; a specialist aircraft for one country, based on dated thinking,
or a commercial decision for national benefit based on manufacturing and operating expertise - note BAE overseas training support operations / simulation / computing.
If BAE are right then the military get what will be required at the time: if not … then BAE probably won't build it.
This could be what is required given examples of the apparent poor procurement process with other types.
Military thinking gets a changeover every few years - people and policy; civil servants, longer timescale, but with what expertise, and politically driven.
A choice; a specialist aircraft for one country, based on dated thinking,
or a commercial decision for national benefit based on manufacturing and operating expertise - note BAE overseas training support operations / simulation / computing.
If BAE are right then the military get what will be required at the time: if not … then BAE probably won't build it.
If I wanted a simulator, I'd go to CAE or Thales. If I wanted software, I'd go to a software house. BAES is an aircraft manufacturer which would like to establish itself in the aforementioned spheres to exercise ever greater control of the intellectual property it generates. It is not very good at either. How late is the new Typhoon sim?
This would be less objectionable if BAES's IP wasn't generated largely at public expense due to the risk aversion it shares with other large defence contractors. The MOD has been getting better at writing contracts which give it some IP rights, but ultimately BAES retains the whip hand through its ability to lean on ministers in the name of 'UK prosperity'.
Also, for the last 20-25 years or so, BAES has made a great shift towards generating revenue from in service support, rather than manufacture (admittedly, with the full connivance of MOD officials blind to the snake oil peddled by the big management consultancies). This means it is not incentivised in any way to develop training or simulation services which reduce the need for live flying: less flying equals less support revenue. How are we going to make a breakthrough into uncrewed military aviation (where the non-operational flying requirement is close to zero) when those incentives exist and BAES moves to strangle innovative competitors at birth?
This would be less objectionable if BAES's IP wasn't generated largely at public expense due to the risk aversion it shares with other large defence contractors. The MOD has been getting better at writing contracts which give it some IP rights, but ultimately BAES retains the whip hand through its ability to lean on ministers in the name of 'UK prosperity'.
Also, for the last 20-25 years or so, BAES has made a great shift towards generating revenue from in service support, rather than manufacture (admittedly, with the full connivance of MOD officials blind to the snake oil peddled by the big management consultancies). This means it is not incentivised in any way to develop training or simulation services which reduce the need for live flying: less flying equals less support revenue. How are we going to make a breakthrough into uncrewed military aviation (where the non-operational flying requirement is close to zero) when those incentives exist and BAES moves to strangle innovative competitors at birth?
Pity they didn't do something about a Hawk replacement 20 years ago
The following users liked this post:
