Perhaps Bombardier need to quickly build a trainer eh?

How much is a T2?

Seems like the right answer for all the wider reasons to have the Reds showcasing the UK.

Surely the delta costs of supporting 10 more T2 on top of the current fleet would be far less than introducing a whole new aircraft?

Is it easy to give the T2 smoke?

I don't know. New pilots coming out of the sausage machine from 2012, so perhaps it's not at all long now. There are T2-trained pilots on 100 Sqn flying T1s for a living already.

Giving a T2 smoke would be cunningly similar to the mod to turn a black T1 into a red one, at least as far as the pipework goes. There would need to be some new work for suitable switching in the cockpit, and presumably they'd want an engine control system mod like the current red engine. The T2 flies with a centreline tank for range as standard fit: without that, assuming it's lost for a smoke pod, range might be a bit more of an issue.

Assuming that a significant part of the logic to sustain a new red fleet would be to lend national support to industry, there may be some parts which industry could be invited to contribute towards.

I have probably been involved with the Hawk as long as anyone. I wrote the production test schedule for the flying controls in the wing and was involved in testing the first wing at Brough early in 1974. I finally retired from Brough (probably for the last time) in February this year.

I am as sad as anyone to see the end of a project that has played a large part in my career and probably the end of the Brough site, which is the longest standing aircraft manufacturing plant in the world. However while the current T2 is undoubtedly still a very capable trainer I think the airframe is showing its age and this has been apparent for some time. In many potential customers eyes the aircraft is seen as 'old' and this outweighs the advantages of its mature and well developed capability.

There has been a noticeable slowing down of orders over the last 10 years after the T Mk 2 and Mk 132. I find it very disappointing that BAE Systems have never, to my knowledge, really started to develop a follow on aircraft. I am sure in this day and age, using modern materials and technology it would be possible to design a trainer that is easier and cheaper to build, easier and cheaper to maintain, lighter and capable of better flight performance. Had this exercise started 10 years ago we would have been in the position to offer current Hawk customers operating 50, 60 and 100 series aircraft a more attractive proposition than the T2 variants. I think it would be better to invest some company and possibly government money in developing a new trainer now rather than delaying even longer in order to build a few more aircraft for the Red Arrows.

If there is still 13 years life left in the Red Arrows Hawks, maybe there is still time to develop a new aircraft that they could showcase. However I could understand that their high profile operation might not want to take on the risk of using a new and relatively unknown aircraft. Some of the risk could be mitigated by using a development of the relatively new and capable T2 mission system in a new airframe, a route that was being considered by Northrop Grumman for the USAF TX programme,

Unfortunately BAE Systems is probably now too big, bureaucratic and risk averse to go down this route. However some companies do seem to have successfully taken bolder steps along this path, notably Pilatus who over a similar time period have developed the PC 7, PC 9 and PC 21 trainers which have provided significant steps in airframe capability alongside developing the training capability of their products. If we are going to make a success of Brexit we need to be bold and be prepared to develop engineering technology and capability to compete with the rest of the world. If I am still around when (if?) the Red Arrows ever get a replacement aircraft I will be particularly disappointed, but not surprised, if it turn out to be a USAF TX variant. I just hope we don't try and put our own engine in it like we did with the Phantom.

Walbut

"I find it very disappointing that BAE Systems have never, to my knowledge, really started to develop a follow on aircraft"

It's always amazed me - you have a great best selling product and then you make no plans to replace it . Presumably the problem is they'd have had to put in their own money rather than the tax-payers......................

Pretty well all military aeroplanes are developed using customer money, for the simple reason that thge development costs are so huge that the risk/return equation just doesn't add up. Then you have the detail that every air farce has different requirements for everything from the shape of the stick to the rubber in the tyres (never mind details like the weights, ranges, runway performance, cockpit type, tool and part standardisation, mainetenance philosophy etc) which means that developing a private venture essentially just guaranteeing that the wrong aeroplane has been developed.

In the UK the government also restricts profits on MoD contracts to a level that just about services the contract risk and doesn't allow any capital recovery (it's called "QMAC" and typically restricts profit to 7-10%). This is a very different environment to (say) the USA where the customer will not only pay for development, but even funds multiple protoypes to be evaluated in fly-offs. But I don't think anyone operating in the western-world business environment develops military jet trainers as a private venture.

PDR

PDR1

Well said.

Yes, those who say companies make huge profits from MoD work should have a quick look at a typical QMAC schedule. In my experience, companies (and Westland were a good example) keep a close eye on projected profit on a job, as they don't want post-costing to reveal, say, 11%. Typically, they will have a quiet word and ask what nice-to-haves remain on the the shopping list, and do them for nowt. In this case, my gut tells me walbut is right - BAeS have missed a trick. But I also don't like international collaborative projects, so accept it is a difficult call.

Undoubtedly one of the main reasons a Hawk replacement was not pursued by BAE Systems was that after the initial RAF Hawk order there was never another potentially winnable order that was big enough in its own right to justify the investment. The T2 and the Mk 132 together might have been big enough but it had taken so long to get the Indian AF on board, changing the spec of the aircraft they understood was a non starter.

There are no doubt other reasons for holding back on a replacement, including wanting to get the maximum return on the existing investment and not wanting to prejudice potential sales by the prospect of something better coming along.

Speaking as a confirmed 'Broughie' I also feel there were organisational reasons why it never happened. The BAE Systems aircraft division has always been very Warton centric. They have lots of expertise in expensive, complicated multi national projects but the hierarchy recognised that a similar approach was not going to be practical or cost effective with a jet trainer. Unfortunately they never had the confidence to delegate a much smaller new project in its entirety to another site on the other side of the Pennines.

The main reason I think a Hawk replacement could have been justified was that we have a big customer base who, most of the time were happy with the performance of the Hawk and the support that they got from the manufacturers. Usually, its easier to sell something to an existing customer than to a completely new one - unless of course your product or support is awful.

Despite having our differences of opinion with HSA Kingston in the 1970's I have to say that one of the main reasons for the Hawk's success was that they got the original design concept right from the start, with one or two minor exceptions, and also they were prepared to build into the design the potential capabilities that export customers would want, i.e. they took a risk by designing something beyond the RAF spec aircraft, not the absolute minimum capability (and therefore cost) required by the RAF. Probably the engineers had more influence than the bean counters in those days.

Walbut

There used to be quite a few hawks in storage at Shawbury. I wonder if they are still there?

RAF Shawbury ? Storage and DHFS « Air Base Photography « Fast Air Photography

Completely agree with your points. It seems the norm that BAE acquired assets then in effect asset strips them and then shuts them down rather than having a long term plan to develop and enhance their product line.
They also have a reputation of being highly arrogant with potential customers. Added to that they have a reputation of being extremely expensive.
It is no wonder that they are experiencing a rapid slow down in aircraft orders and as usual it is their workers who bear the brunt with their jobs.

I ssupectthey'd like to get out of thee aircraft development & building business long-term. The big profits in the aerospace business are in studies, R&D and making bits for other people

Just look at the annual "Flight" numbers on large companies - people in avionics make 20% a year, airframers about 7%

So how much is a Hawk?

Chatter elsewhere about the likes of the Daily Fail setting up a Buy British fund and financing them publicly...
Would you get 12 for the price of 10?

I also remember a story in Flight(?) ages ago at BAe looking at a Hawk T1.5 for another countries aerobatic team, (Saudi?) a T2 airframe without some of the unused avionics?

Which is an interesting point when discussing the Hawk as, in many ways, it was an aircraft developed by the company rather than with/for first-customer money. I would argue the the Hawk's success was built on this forward-thinking premise rather than the RAF writing a brilliant requirements set. Whilst meeting the RAF requirements was clearly in mind (although in truth the customer was not sure what it wanted) the company chose to design, manufacture and support a far more capable aircraft at an attractive price.

Even with hindsight there is very little I would change about the Hawk, other than the engine. I understand why they went with the 'safe' option but the aircraft would have been better served with the 199. Again, hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Designing something ahead of customer demand still lives on (just) and has given us Predator & Reaper.