Next Generation's New Fighter Trainer
Thread Starter
Next Generation's New Fighter Trainer
I've been looking through the Sunday Chipwrapper again.....
It seems that there's about to be a right old tussle about what to replace the Hawk with. BWoS favours Yet Another Hawk, but there are more modern alternatives such as the Lockheed Martin/Korean T-50 Golden Eagle and AerMacchi M-346 on offer. Strangely enough, with BWoS Brough being in Two Jags' constituency, there seems to be some preference for 't Hawk, tha' knows, in certain parts.
But really, shouldn't the question be why hasn't 't Bungling Baron WasteO'Space been getting off his complacent jacksie and designing something somewhat newer? Wasn't HS1182 first designed back in the late 60s/early 70s?
Try a search under Google or similar for these new ac and then ask yourself whether the Hawk is really going to be the right jet for the future....or just to keep 't lads at 't werrks in Two Jags Land from 't dole?
It seems that there's about to be a right old tussle about what to replace the Hawk with. BWoS favours Yet Another Hawk, but there are more modern alternatives such as the Lockheed Martin/Korean T-50 Golden Eagle and AerMacchi M-346 on offer. Strangely enough, with BWoS Brough being in Two Jags' constituency, there seems to be some preference for 't Hawk, tha' knows, in certain parts.
But really, shouldn't the question be why hasn't 't Bungling Baron WasteO'Space been getting off his complacent jacksie and designing something somewhat newer? Wasn't HS1182 first designed back in the late 60s/early 70s?
Try a search under Google or similar for these new ac and then ask yourself whether the Hawk is really going to be the right jet for the future....or just to keep 't lads at 't werrks in Two Jags Land from 't dole?
Last edited by BEagle; 18th May 2003 at 15:30.
How about in keeping with current trends...
... We have FlightSim 2000 for FJ BFT, and a really gucci CAE/MSHATF type facility for FJ AFT. (At Coningsby maybe?)
This solution would provide fantastic savings by retiring 2 Hawk Sqns and closing down the economy of Anglesey!! (Don't worry about the Griffins: do SARTU at Chivenor)
Introduction to FJ flying can be done on type.... the OCU!!!
Giz an MBE
... We have FlightSim 2000 for FJ BFT, and a really gucci CAE/MSHATF type facility for FJ AFT. (At Coningsby maybe?)
This solution would provide fantastic savings by retiring 2 Hawk Sqns and closing down the economy of Anglesey!! (Don't worry about the Griffins: do SARTU at Chivenor)
Introduction to FJ flying can be done on type.... the OCU!!!
Giz an MBE
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: A PC!
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BEagle -the Hawk is a bit like the Morgan Plus 8 - it may look like the old one but there have been so many updates over the years that it is still a VERY competitive machine.
If the alternatives were any better, why did the USN use the Hawk as the basis for it's machines? US buying outside of the US industry for this kind of thing is almost unheard of.
If the alternatives were any better, why did the USN use the Hawk as the basis for it's machines? US buying outside of the US industry for this kind of thing is almost unheard of.
Harriers? Fireflies?
I've never flown in the state of Colorado (USAF Academy location) and I don't have easy access to an atlas so I can't check the elevation. So can anyone else comment on the wisdom of locating a base for EFT/BFT in high mountainous terrain??
I'm presuming that this was a factor in the USAF grounding the Slingsby Firefly after a few were written off. Again, anyone else better informed?
(Now that I think about it, they might have been lost to poor spin recoveries; something I never saw or heard of at Church Fenton.)
I'm presuming that this was a factor in the USAF grounding the Slingsby Firefly after a few were written off. Again, anyone else better informed?
(Now that I think about it, they might have been lost to poor spin recoveries; something I never saw or heard of at Church Fenton.)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But really, shouldn't the question be why hasn't 't Bungling Baron WasteO'Space been getting off his complacent jacksie and designing something somewhat newer? Wasn't HS1182 first designed back in the late 60s/early 70s?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: East East Anglia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The fact that the hawk airframe is an old design is not really the issue when it comes to AFT. Its the systems in the a/c that need to be up to date to learn us new pilots our jobs. I've just shifted from the T1 (moggie is quite right) to the 115 in Canada at NFTC. It's basically the same airframe, a little heavier but with more grunt and sparkly 'combat flaps' to help it round corners. The main difference is inside - it has a baby F18 set up which means getting used to the kind of instrumentation that we'll be using from now on (till we get sent back to valley for our second tour). It's this that makes the difference, not the airframe.
'What if there were no hypothetical questions?'
'What if there were no hypothetical questions?'
It's all fair and well saying that the 115 has a spangly avionics suite which is nice and useful for what comes in the future, but I remember a wise man making a good point to me about training once. He said that the advantage of 19(F)'s syllabus still being map and compass based was that it put the full emphasis on the pilot. You did all the work; it was hard mental stuff. It meant that once you knew how INS/GPS/blah worked and were flying around using that, you thought "god, glad I don't have to use just a map and compass and my brain again."
Train hard, fight easy?
Also means you always have the ability to pull out a map, click on your stopwatch and still do the job if everything breaks, I suppose.
The problem with this as far as I thought it that an awful lot of training is uploaded to OCU level. Maybe the best alternative is to use a companion trainer paired up with front line types to keep hours down? Something with similar flight characteristics but a bit cheaper?
Train hard, fight easy?
Also means you always have the ability to pull out a map, click on your stopwatch and still do the job if everything breaks, I suppose.
The problem with this as far as I thought it that an awful lot of training is uploaded to OCU level. Maybe the best alternative is to use a companion trainer paired up with front line types to keep hours down? Something with similar flight characteristics but a bit cheaper?
The reason the Hawk is a suffering an image problem regarding its age is because it is simply too expensive to run. Do what you like with the guts, unless attention is given to running costs, it will be outgunned by new designs.
The point made regarding map/compass is valid and there is a strong argument for retaining the 'basics' however the real issue is how/when to shift pilot skill sets. At what point do we say 'that sequence is redundant because it does not reflect what happens in operations?' Don't ignore basics, but at the same time focus on the new skills.
The point made regarding map/compass is valid and there is a strong argument for retaining the 'basics' however the real issue is how/when to shift pilot skill sets. At what point do we say 'that sequence is redundant because it does not reflect what happens in operations?' Don't ignore basics, but at the same time focus on the new skills.
Whilst stop watch and map may be valid for honing basic airmanship skills, isn't it's retention at AFTS stage a Cold War hangover?
On current Ops if you get nav etc dump then you are out of it, to continue makes you a bloody nuisance and risks snagging the ATO for all involved.
You would also never be allowed a weapons pass with degraded kit for collateral damage reasons.
Pressing on regardless with degraded nav kit was indeed relevant in Cold War days of yore, did it (pracrice of course) many a time out of Bruggen in good old FGR2 days, but that mission has gone, we don't train for it and we no longer have the buckets of instant sunshine for which it was REALLY relevant.
My experience of electric jets is limited, as I suppose is the RAF's, GR7 and Hawk 115 apart, but we do need to make sure what what we train for today is relevant.
On current Ops if you get nav etc dump then you are out of it, to continue makes you a bloody nuisance and risks snagging the ATO for all involved.
You would also never be allowed a weapons pass with degraded kit for collateral damage reasons.
Pressing on regardless with degraded nav kit was indeed relevant in Cold War days of yore, did it (pracrice of course) many a time out of Bruggen in good old FGR2 days, but that mission has gone, we don't train for it and we no longer have the buckets of instant sunshine for which it was REALLY relevant.
My experience of electric jets is limited, as I suppose is the RAF's, GR7 and Hawk 115 apart, but we do need to make sure what what we train for today is relevant.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think BEagle has hit the nail on the head - at the end of the day it will be political expediency that buys us Hawks, whether they're up to the job or not.
My contacts in the FJ OCU world intimate that Valley's output remains adequate. Entertaining though the map and stopwatch debate is, the question is can we afford to pay over the odds for Hawk - especially as there are better, cheaper (but less British) alternatives available. From the RAF's view, it needs to save where it can. Given the WasteofSpace's other big ticket contracts (how are the ASTUTE, MRA4 and TYPHOON programmes coming along?), they cannot afford govt parsimony on such a low-risk programme.
Given previous experience, the RAF'll be saving on paper clips soon to make up for the price difference between what it wanted, and what it was obliged to buy.
My contacts in the FJ OCU world intimate that Valley's output remains adequate. Entertaining though the map and stopwatch debate is, the question is can we afford to pay over the odds for Hawk - especially as there are better, cheaper (but less British) alternatives available. From the RAF's view, it needs to save where it can. Given the WasteofSpace's other big ticket contracts (how are the ASTUTE, MRA4 and TYPHOON programmes coming along?), they cannot afford govt parsimony on such a low-risk programme.
Given previous experience, the RAF'll be saving on paper clips soon to make up for the price difference between what it wanted, and what it was obliged to buy.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought that the new trainer would come through the MFTS mechanism, rather than as a direct buy now? The arguments so far here seem keen to lump the Hawk business in with cock-ups like the MRA4; a bit unfair, surely?
What are the serious rivals to the Hawk - remember it has won its last few competitions, and that wasn't down to Two Jags, was it? Do you go for the T-50 (Korean, with late US assistance and less than 100 flights so far), the Aermacchi (a tarted-up Yak, essentially, and only rolled out in production guise at the weekend), or drop to something like a Pilatus PC-21; cheap to run and smart avionics? Surely if you want a Hawk...
What are the serious rivals to the Hawk - remember it has won its last few competitions, and that wasn't down to Two Jags, was it? Do you go for the T-50 (Korean, with late US assistance and less than 100 flights so far), the Aermacchi (a tarted-up Yak, essentially, and only rolled out in production guise at the weekend), or drop to something like a Pilatus PC-21; cheap to run and smart avionics? Surely if you want a Hawk...
The only significantly cheaper realistic alternative to the Hawk is the Aero L-159....... whose reliability and performance ought to rule it out.
The twin-engined M-346 may be cheaper to buy, up front, but will cost much more to run than the Hawk.
The T-50 and Mako will not be available for years, and are far more advanced than the RAF require, and inferior in key areas. Why have radar when a radar emulator will do? Why have supersonic performance in an advanced trainer.
The new generation Hawk is a great aeroplane, and it has been selected on merit in most major trainer competitions in recent years. To paint it as some kind of second-rate product being foisted on an unwilling RAF is bizarre in the extreme.
My only reservation is in the way we're planning to acquire it - through some half-arsed, get rich quick lease scheme that will benefeit only BAE's shareholders.
The twin-engined M-346 may be cheaper to buy, up front, but will cost much more to run than the Hawk.
The T-50 and Mako will not be available for years, and are far more advanced than the RAF require, and inferior in key areas. Why have radar when a radar emulator will do? Why have supersonic performance in an advanced trainer.
The new generation Hawk is a great aeroplane, and it has been selected on merit in most major trainer competitions in recent years. To paint it as some kind of second-rate product being foisted on an unwilling RAF is bizarre in the extreme.
My only reservation is in the way we're planning to acquire it - through some half-arsed, get rich quick lease scheme that will benefeit only BAE's shareholders.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: West Sussex
Posts: 262
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey, Jacko, we're not agreed on something are we?!
As you suggest, the question isn't whether the Hawk Mk 128 will be any good, but whether by opting to buy it now the UK will be tying itself to giving BAE the MFTS contract by the back door.
Perhaps I'll see you somewhere French later this week?
As you suggest, the question isn't whether the Hawk Mk 128 will be any good, but whether by opting to buy it now the UK will be tying itself to giving BAE the MFTS contract by the back door.
Perhaps I'll see you somewhere French later this week?
