Nftc

[saudipc-9]

Just curious if anyone has any feedback regarding NFTC. ie quality of training in Moose Jaw and Cold Lake. Is it working or in need of adjustment.

[DeaconBlue]

Coupla points on this subject....

From a previous post I made on this subject

1) Yes the NFTC Hawk 115s are lovely cockpits but unfortunately serviceability is not much good...(what do you expect with a 30-y old design). Recent furore in the Danish press about the huge cost of NFTC vs. the delay in generating pilots due to much poorer than planned Wx and inability to generate sorties due to 115 availability

2) You can't replace the Tucs with Hawks for the pure reason that they are knackered. They start to die off in 2007 and therefore you need to make a choice on new FJ now - Tuc will survive for the time being one suspects...

3) Despite there being a good field of candidates (MB-346 / T-50 / L-159 / etc) No doubt (much like A400M) the decision will be a political one (entirely unlinked from the fact that most Brough workers live in John Prescotts constituency) and that, I'm afraid means a wonderfully instrumented Hawk that won't last the life or meet the real expections of future fast jet training.

[OldBonaMate]

Hi DB

You sound like some kind of expert on this subject I wonder where you are getting your information from? And whether you speak from a position of personal knowledge or from hearsay?

You aren't Admin Guru resurrected by any chance, are you?

[DeaconBlue]

1) yes I would say I a bit of an FT expert in terms of understanding international FT and could be called an interested party in MFTS

2) all comments are from personal knowledge - especially in regard to Denmark / NFTC

3) I am no ones resurrection!

Cheers

DB

[navbag]

DB,

That's a pretty damning verdict on the Hawk! I assume that you are speaking about the 115 NFTC Hawk and not the new Hawk that is proposed for Valley.

With the present training system not meeting the requirements of FL aircraft, and most of the 'competition' you talk of not currently meeting them either, why do you say that the Hawk is 'a wonderfully instrumented Hawk that won't last the life or meet the real expections of future fast jet training.'? It sounds like a step in the right direction to me!

However, it is good to find someone willing to talk about the future of Flying Training....whoever you work for?

[DeaconBlue]

Nav,

Of course anything is an improvement if it has some genuine "glassness" about it so that our guys & gals are a little better prepared for Typhoon, Gr4, Gr9, JSF, C-130J, C-17, FTSA (whatever THAT may be), Apache, CH-47D, Merlin, etc etc etc

However, for the fast jet I think that there are two key operational elements + one key commercial one...

Op 1) - Needs to prepare the student for all the systems, sensor, cockpit and environment management of the modern FJ

Op 2) - Needs to enable to student to execute these skills within a flight envelop environment that replicates modern 4th & 5th generation a/c with adequate SEP etc.

Com 1) - Needs to be affordable in basic acquisition and LCC

I am sure that "new Hawk" is doing quite well on Op 1 but I have severe concerns on the other two. Add to that the inherent availablility problems (partly caused by a long MTTR due to the somewhat ancient design) and I am not sure this is the optimum solution for our knights of the skies...

However.... I am sure that politic will prevail over logic every time

[navbag]

DB,

Concur with Op1

Op2 ....isn't that what OCUs are for? Is it not more desirable to have configurable cockpits than configurable aircraft and sooner rather than later?

Com 1....Aah, cost! See Op2!

[Roger_Ovair]

New for Old

It's funny, having flown steam driven Hawks for as long as some Benelux fighter pilots have been alive, I am looking forward to anything that has real nav systems, HUD, moving maps and (hopefully) some real or synthetic sensors on it.

I agree that the Hawk 115 in NFTC is a funny compromise (chosen by the Canadians I understand) that gives basically only a nav and HUD upgrade. It would seem to me that doing that rather takes away all the difficult bits that I have been teaching for years. I mean, imagine actually knowing where you are? Unbelievable!! Consequently, it should be easier to operate the thing... it was always easy to fly.

Have NFTC added any seriously difficult stuff to make up for the lack of challenge, like big, realistic Maple Flag style missions, or large scale realistic air defence? No. There is the problem.

The Aussie Hawks (127s?) are a step in the right direction with a cockpit that replicates the F-18, and a lot of similar functionality. They have no real or simulated sensors, which is not so good, but the boys who fly and train in it love it. Now, I believe that that aircraft has a lot of serviceability problems!

Funny, I had heard that the NFTC Hawk 115 was really serviceable. According to my spies in NFTC, the aircraft are flying some 500 to 550 hours per aircraft per year. I had heard that the Harvard (PC-9) was the problem not the Hawk. At least that is what the Canadian National Audit Office claims. See their web site!

As for the old argument about SEP and turning performance, I am not so sure that I want to hurt my back even more than I already have! Realistic systems and sensor management, exposure to front-line tactics and procedures and lots of practice is what I want to give the youngsters. They can learn all about square turning when they get to the Typhoon, JSF or F-whatever. If we are going to try to teach everything, then we might as well fly front-line aircraft from minute one. And who could afford that?

Must go, my neck is hurting just thinking of it.

Roger Ovair

[Background Noise]

Can't see that the "30 yr old design" causes the serviceability problems - our actual 30 yr old Hawks have great serviceability.

[Flt Lt Spry]

Roger

The Hawk 115 is more than just a HUD and nav upgrade. The whole avionics suite has been upgraded to bring it in line with most RAF front-line aircraft and, although it is not comparable to EFA, that is not why the RAF subscribed to the scheme. The 115 bridges the gap between the clockwork Hawk and the next generation of fighters and bombers.

NFTC don't offer Maple Flag style COMAOs for one good reason - it would be too bloody difficult. Even Maple Flag organisers don't allow crews to participate unless they have 500+ hours. The course does go further than the equivalent Valley course, however, introducing bounced four-ships.

The jets are fitted with autonomous RAIDS pods and DATMs to aid debriefing and provide the capability to produce a synthetic radar picture. The ground attack kit is similar to that of the GR4 at least and even though it is rudimentary and not much good for real ops, does require similar thought processes to achieve the best possible end result.

[Roger_Ovair]

Flt Lt Spry

You are absolutely right. I know the 115 is more than just an upgrade, I have actually flown it. But I would disagree that it replicates the front-line aircraft. The 115 like all other current training Hawks has no sensors. I must say that I do like the No-drop Scoring, and the RAIDS system for the real-time fly-outs and the debriefing.

I consider that the avionics actually make the beast easier to operate than a "clockwork" Hawk. Therein lies the problem. Isn't part of the training task to actually push the students to their limits? Having to find your way round with a map and stopwatch adds a whole dimension of hurt to advanced flying.

So, my concern is how do you generate the same kinds of level of pressure as in an "no avionics" Hawk, when the kit in a 127 or 115 is doing so much for you? As a graduate of many Red and Maple flag exercises, and Cope Thunder, I know that you couldn't put a student into that environment. But what do you do to expand their leadership, SA and capacity? If I had the answers I could make a fortune, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts.


PS:

Just re-reading this has got me worried. I think I am starting to sound like my instructors did when I joined the Service! And I promised myself (at 19) never to do that

Roger Ovair

[DeaconBlue]

Noise,

The problem is that we are talking about an aircraft needing to last 30 years from 2007, which will make the Hawk design nearer 70 years old

[Flt Lt Spry]

Roger

There is NO WAY that you could do the time-honoured map and stopwatch flying in the Hawk 100 in Canada (prairies) - especially in Winter. I understand your point, though, those pressures may well be absent.

Bear in mind that the tac weapons course in Cold Lake is more like an APC - a very intensive detachment. The basic navigation skills have been learnt by all of the guys on the course at EFT/Linton/Valley and although they aren't consolidated much on the NFTC course, I don't think that they are lost either. Instead, the facilities there allow the emphasis to be placed on teaching the fundamentals of air-air and air-ground weaponeering and ensuring a very thorough debrief with no misdemeanours overlooked (unless the pod fails...)

Anyway, let's cut to the chase, why don't the RAF buy a squadron of 100s and re-open Chivenor...?

[Roger_Ovair]

Guys,

What a thought. Flying a 70 year old design! Like flying Gloster Gladiators now!! Good point DB.

I am with the concept of re-opening Chivenor, but I guess the only certainty about the MFTS is that Valley will stay open!

OK Spry. You win. I also cannot imagine flying thumb and stopwatch over the prairies. Sounds like the NFTC course is the way to go. Have we had any decent (printable) feedback from the guys who came back onto the OCUs recently.

Anyway, now all we need to do is convince the top-nobs to buy some new jets and let us get on with it. Wouldn't it be nice (therefore unlikely) that the whole flying training system might get renewed. We might even get a decent turboprop at the same time. Heaven forbid that we would buy anything that worked, or might come in useful.

Oh oh, another bad day in the office dear.

Yours Rog

[Wholigan]

And just what IS the problem with doing map and stopwatch out of Cold Lake!!! Spent 3 years doing just that with sorties up to and including 8-ships bounced by 4 (frequently different type) aircraft. We somehow managed not to get lost and to hit the targets! However, that is somewhat off thread --- sorry!

[BEagle]

Assuming that the Canuck version of the HS1182 'JP Mk 6' has a rather better compass system than we had in pre-AHAARS days, I suspect that it's just that the digi-kids can't read analogue stopwatches.....

[OldBonaMate]

Hi Spry,

Don't understand the problem with map and stopwatch; the best way to prove that it works is use it over largely flat terrain with minimal features. It certainly worked for us in the desert, so why not over the prairies?

Wholigan - hi mate! Drop me a line one day and tell me how things are going.

As ever -

[Roger_Ovair]

Makin' it easy!!

The problem with all these new variations on the Hawk (and other new trainers) is that they are basically easier to operate than previous versions. No more arbitrary roll-out headings (pre-AHRS), no more wads of crumpled up maps shoved down the side of the ejection seat, or trying to use the LCOSS to judge the release point from your off-range strike target. Do you remember trying to work out dimensions from the pictures, and allowing for approach angles. I am surprised we didn't write more of us off!

You have got to admit, these new aircraft know where they are all the time, so how do you pile the pressure onto the kids, (particularly over the flat terrain of the prairies). If you accept that putting guys under real pressure is good for the development of the soul, then what do you put in its place.



For me the answer has got to be increased mission complexity, and just looking back through the logbook, that would have to be very complex if we were to replicate the kind of stuff I was asked to do in the early days of the Hawk.

What are your thoughts?

[getupah]

Map & Watch?

How do you tell trees and scrub as far as you can see from trees and scrub as far as you can see, 50miles away?


Does the kit help?

Target acquisition is more difficult for the students, camoflagued Flag targets, "airfields" that were cut in the trees 10 years ago soon fill in with more trees (obscuring the 3/4 scale targets). No contours to give the BIG part of 'big to small'.
Yes the kit tells you where the target is. Accurate to 600' (assuming the plot is right - which with 15year old maps....)
It often doesn't help to have the kit.
The kit can easily draw a maxed out student away from the all important lookout.


How to max out a student?

Bounced 4 ships are part of NFTC, a big step for that stage of training. Add more distractions perhaps?


Hang on....it reads like I'm defending NFTC here....

Yes, some parts of the NFTC course are easier, the nav for example, but throw in the kit management, acquisition difficulties etc. and you end up with a course that still can max out the student (if the instructor so wishes).

[Roger_Ovair]

Getupah

I see your point! It is bad enough when your student gets himself distracted by the wrong bend in a river (but Sir, there was only 4 miles between them!) or takes the wrong heading, or reads the wrong minute mark. Does all this technology turn them into HUD monkeys, or do they get past that phase pretty quickly?

Do the guys at NFTC work tight TOTs, frag limits and so on?

Roger