Top Aces A-4N AESA Radar
 

Interesting article in The Drive by Thomas Newdick about Top Aces A-4N Skyhawks, an advanced aggressor mission system, and an AESA radar. Might pique interest in Air Command as a capability if they seek to withdraw Hawk T1 sooner rather than later as identified in the Command Paper.

Top Aces’ Aggressor A-4s Are Now The World’s Most Advanced Skyhawks

Might see some Draken skyhawks in the UK one day.

Some of the Draken A4's are ex RNZAF which had an upgrade to basically F16 avionics. When it came time to sell them there were restrictions on who was allowed to buy them.

Whilst it's a step in the right direction, you still need a high performance airframe to maintain a credible red air. The AESA is nice, but it's still mounted to a 1950s era airframe that can't fly high or fast enough to do anything other than provide a piece of aluminum for Blue to shoot at.

This! However, sadly the RAF leadership refuse point blank to acknowledge this issue because they think they know better.

Well the RAF does have the Tatty Ton as well as some contracted bizjets... what more does a 5gth gen airforce need?

How about low and slow then? Go to 3:40 for the part where they successfully evaded F-15s for two weeks during an exercise.

There are other options coming.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zon...f-a-18-hornets

Ahhhh, nostalgia from 30 years ago! Not really relevant anymore.

This is more like it, but still not really a challenge for a 5th Gen Blue force. Now integrate them with some actual 5th Gen on red with red EA-18 playing and you've got something more challenging.

Doubtful, Don Kirlin doesn't have the capital to progress the transaction which is why he's trying to sell his Hawk mk67s as a portfolio acquisition for the ludicrous price of $2MM for each of the 10 complete jets, $500K for each of the 2 parts aircraft (there is only one as one was written off at Yuma), and $48MM for the spare parts! His MiG-29UB is also for sale too.

The Hornets all need a centre barrel replacement, lots of very good documents on the real condition of these aircraft on the ANAO website - basically they're shagged.

You mean that leadership who believe synthetics are the holy grail and that the only live flying should be 'operational'? If only they had a 4th Gen Aggressor Sqn, oh wait, isn't that the one they're getting rid of?

All the (ex) Aussie F18As have had the centre barrel replacement done.

Incorrect, AIR 5376 Phase 3.2 (HUG 3.2) Reassessment revised this to 10 airframes only from the original plan of 49. The remaining airframes have been managed out to a max of 6,000hrs or a specific Fatigue Life Expended Index (FLEI) of 0.64 for ARDU jets, 0.85 for all non-CBR jets, and 1.0 for CBR jets through restrictions on use, scheduling and monitoring. The RCAF have received the 18 jets with the lowest FLEI.

Very true DuckDodgers. I understand the Hornet deal has either completely stalled or it’s fallen through as the costing for them to run as COCO red air was prohibitively expensive. Not to mention as you point out, those Aussie Hornets have been hammered and are indeed shagged out.

I still cannot get over the supposedly clever and sharp RAF leadership not seeing that an 80/20 synthetic/live mix is a disaster. Well, I do understand because they’re just trying to make a name for themselves and are refusing to face reality, which is 80/20 is retarded. The amusing point is that the RAF followed the USAF down the road of synthetics and now the USAF understand this is not the solution it was expecting. Therefore, they’re buying up every piece of live red air on offer! What do the RAF leadership do, stubbornly refuse to listen and plough on regardless, because admitting failure or changing their mind isn’t in their lexicon.

Back to Red Air, the tatty ton are going soon and to be fair, they’re not really capable red air, they’re just bits of tin. The Biz Jets offer a great EA capability to train against which must continue, but there needs to be a fast jet red air capability mixed in with the Biz Jets and plenty of it. IX can’t provide all the red required and relying on sqns to provide their own is expensive.

I stand corrected, thanks!

As for synthetic vs live training, I almost hate saying this, but you can actually get more benefit from the sim these days than you can against most live red air presentations. Unless you invest in a modern and capable aggressor fleet as discussed above, you've just got a bunch of bizjets cruising around in the 20s at 0.5M and some mates in actual fighters who are probably flying fuel-conserving profiles in their assigned blocks (usually!) with set tactics and action ranges. Blue aren't able to use all their toys, neither can Red for various reasons.
Compare that to the sim, where you can fight the "real" threat in greater numbers and use the full capabilities of your aircraft, actually throw switches and have things die, rather than arguing with the RTO.

I don't believe an 80/20 mix is the right answer by any means, but I can honestly say I have gotten far more tactically out of my last 10 sims than my last 10 flights. We need both, but I can't give you an actual percentage breakdown yet.

That’s just not true Late Arm Live, you can’t mostly get more from the sim than you can from ‘most’ red air presentations. Whilst yes, obviously the sim does have its benefits, you ask any current fighter pilot on the front line and they’ll tell you that the sim is fine but it’s not that good. There’s so many issues with the sim when it comes to operating as a 4-ship, which I can’t be bothered to go into here - those that know, know. As for getting more out of your last 10 trips in the sim vs live, I simply refuse to believe that - what platform are you currently operating?

I’m going to question when the last time you flew red air or against red air? You don’t fly fuel conserving profiles as red air and the Falcons are not doing 0.5M either. The set tactics are briefed to achieve the DLOs which are stipulated in the CRWU syllabus, you can’t go off piste and rage. I feel you’re working from old experience and old knowledge.

Foghorn,

As we all know there are different levels of quality in Air-Air training (News flash, Cobham and Hawks can be useful, but aren’t great), as much as there are different levels of quality in Simulators.

without providing the reference points that you are talking about, we aren’t necessarily comparing apples and apples.

maybe you can clarify, with appropriate detail, your argument.

Last flew as red air about a month ago. Last flew against red air today. Current platform F35. I assume you've not seen the F35 sim and are talking about legacy platforms with legacy sims. On both of my previous types I would have agreed with you, but not anymore.

I can lead and teach 4 ship tactics probably better in the sim for many reasons that I won't discuss here - those that know, know :)

Of course there are many things you can't get from the sim and need to go flying to experience - dip plans, fallout, actual weather, fear, ATC issues, civil traffic, NOTAMS etc etc.

Don't get me wrong, I'll take a flight over a sim any day. But you need to realise the world has progressed since the 1980s F3 sim...

Guess there's now a genuine 4th Gen (platform) contracted aggressor available. How long before it is pitched to Air Cap?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....2c56546001.jpg
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....a18a8ecdb0.jpg