Originally Posted by BEagle
(Post 11373735)
Did Sky pay you well for your information, Warren Peace?
C’mon old guy, you are better than that. This was never gonna be kept quiet. MoD sat in this fir a week. Since I knew, loads of folk knew. |
There's only a penny packet full of them as well. Perhaps another contributory factor to the pilot training, or rather availability, shortage.
FB |
Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store?
|
Be having problems with C/T soon then; have to get some T1s out of storage.
|
Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.
|
Originally Posted by LateArmLive
(Post 11373862)
Hawk engine problems? Surely not... Time to bin that tired old dog and get something more relevant. And please, before the old and bolds pile on, this is 2023.
|
When CAS gets his inevitable summons for a bollocking from SofS, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. And then go on to say that RAF capability in general would benefit from rather less manipulation of procurement by ministers with constituencies near BAES plants. I mean, it's not as if Wiggy has a shot at CDS, so he has nothing to lose, and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience...
|
"and he might even be able to retire with a slightly clearer conscience..."
yeah but he'd lose a grade in the "Retirement Honours" stakes |
So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT? I do recall the late, great John Farley writing on here as to why the T2 was the wrong choice.
Advanced Hawk? T-50? T-7? |
Originally Posted by Easy Street
(Post 11373899)
, I wonder if he will have the cojones to point out that the RAF didn't want the Hawk T2, and was forced to buy it following the political intervention of a certain J. Prescott, then Deputy PM with a constituency near a BAES plant. ...
Thankfully, Mr. Prescotts intervention provided continued work for 1000's of people for another 15+years, not only in East Yorkshire, that must be worth something? |
A simple solution for all of this.
Originally Posted by Davef68
(Post 11374091)
So, if not the T2, what should the RAF be using for AJT?
Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1. As for losing the Reds, who's mad enough to prevent the training of more pilots, just to show what the RAF was once able to produce, but nowadays can’t? |
Arguably the Finns ended up with the best Hawk upgrade variant after fitting the Ex Swiss Mk66's with a glass cockpit.
The T2 has too much gubbins squeezed into too little space (amongst other problems). |
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....
|
Originally Posted by GeeRam
(Post 11374103)
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's) |
Originally Posted by GeeRam
(Post 11374103)
They clearly haven't been grounded, as ZB131 & ZB133 are currently flying around North Wales right now.....
The aircraft that are grounded have a different engine. |
Originally Posted by Warren Peace
(Post 11374094)
Bae Systems should have the decency to resolve T1 spares problems, as it’s their product, fitted with a Rolls Royce engine, that has created a need to use the T1.
At the time, and for decades thereafter, MoD default policy was to seek 15 years guaranteed support. If it wanted more, then it had to provide ample notice, and contract it. If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1, who would pay for it? This is dangerously close to the Health and Safety Executive's formal position in the Sean Cunningham case (which MoD did not disagree with) that when MoD cancelled Martin-Baker contacts in 1983 the company should have continued doing the work free of charge. That, having accepted the initial contract, their liability remained in perpetuity and was 'non-delegable', regardless of contract cover. |
Originally Posted by teeonefixer
(Post 11374104)
]
They are Qatarii Mk.167's (T.2A's) I suppose they can afford the stuff that works....:rolleyes: Time to get the rattle cans out then, for some quick in the field repaints and press those shiny old red things into service as a stop gap. |
Solution
Tucumseh, I am not suggesting thet Bae Systems provide parts free, as the warranty on the T1 fleet is well expired. They have been reluctant to sell the spares, to promote the sales of T2 which now turns out to be no use.
This is just a solution, which is what the SofS instructed the RAF to find. Some guys went from T1 at Leeming to Typhoon OCU so the T2 is not essential. The alternative is for RR to say the existing engine is safe to fly. Based on last week, who is going to sign that off? |
Less than 40 T1s available
Wonder how many T Mk 1s we have in store? ... have to get some T1s out of storage. If BAeS are to resolve problems on T.1, At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice. LFH |
Originally Posted by Lordflasheart
(Post 11374157)
At a guess, other than RAFAT, no more than a handful could be made available to fly safely, at less than a few months notice.
LFH 100 Squadron only had six jets available most days, yet they taught pilots, as well as doing the red air task at the same time. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 18:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.