Saudi Hawks update sign of the times for RAFAT
 

https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2024/02...rld-defense-sh

The Saudi Hawks have changed to the Hawk T65, interesting that our own peerless Red Arrows are unable to do the same.. Before anyone points out the fact that the RAF still can deliver effect, or whatever choice of terminology is in current use, and not there to entertain, this is still a drastic and embarrassing example of the UK's enfeeblement. That we can't do anything due to, as has been highlighted currently, our pointlessly small military posture.

FB

The RSAF display team have been using the BAe Hawk 65, 65A for around 3 decades now, but will now be transitioning to the 165.
They have been using the 165 for aircrew training etc. for a number of years already.

Who cares and who, in the UK, would want to look at Saudi as a guide of what should be done on any given topic. A murderous regime, dripping in money, oil and blood, gets to have some new shiny toys. It means nothing. Nobody* sane would look at Saudi as a beacon, or a guide or as a trusted friend. What they get up to usually tends towards the horrific so it's probably not worth getting distracted by this kind of thing.


(* Ok, there are a few prepared to work with the Magic Kingdom but they tend to be interested in one of the aforementioned specialities of murder, oil or money.)

Apart from their being our allies, you've skipped round the point as I would expect. The fact is they can, we can't! Look at it another way, do we ever look at potential adversaries, no matter how bad, and say we don't give toss about their "shiney new toys". I look forward to the next disastrously fashionable recruitment campaign on behalf of the RAF.

FB

The Saudis had enough money to buy extra hawks for their AT. We didn't

Maybe BAE would like to ‘lease’ (at a substantial discount) some shiny new Hawks to the Reds for the obvious PR benefit of their aircraft being displayed by the premier AT?

Interestingly the T2 is g-limited to I think 7g and was one of the reasons it wouldn't be suitable for the Reds. Does anyone know the g-limit of the Mk165?

If we had any cash to buy Hawks, or indeed replacement engines for our existing Hawks then perhaps they should go to RAF Valley!

I think you have a warped sense of what an ally is - we share no values, culture, loyalty, common history or have any mutual defence treaties with the House of Saud. UK PLC's interest in that land is oil, money & regional influence. If you think we would have any dealings with them should they be devoid of oil & money then you may need to drink stronger coffee.

Having seen the Saudi Hawks in action, g-limits wouldn't be a concern of theirs.

I have no such dellusions of what kind of country Saudi Arabia is, I worked directly with the RSAF from 1991 to 1993 and unlike many western chaps in the Jeddah community, refused to attend any of the barbarous public executions, I was able to withold my curiosity sufficiently. However, ally is a statement of fact, it is perhaps an irrelavant point, which is that they a tiny country, have so much more give militarily. Someone posted earlier that if we could afford more Hawks, they should go straight to RAF Valley, that in itself, makes my point entirely.

Our armed forces, as has been reflected upon daily over the what seems like months, are in a deeply weakened and abandoned state. We have two aircraft carriers, neither can be deployed for reasons of either maintenance or manning, not without abandoning other ships. Frigates and Destroyers can't be deployed because they can't be re-supplied, the only veesels we had capable of doing that our safe pair of hands government sold off to Egypt in 2021. Enough said. Typically, traditionally, the RAF has been more man power intensive than the Naval Services, not any more and the RN is alarmingly short of personnel. Whoever you chose to compare HM Forces with now, we might have, through decades of political and leadership folly, reached the bottom I can't imagine it getting any worse, or can it?.

FB

There's nothing wrong ...
 

...
There's nothing wrong with the Red Arrows' Hawks Mk 1 ...
... that 'front seat command eject' (of the back seater) and the 'gas shackle ejection seat mod' wouldn't cure.

Frankly yes ... We ain't seen nothing yet ... wait til we're properly challenged ...

The Manchurian Candidate ... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/27402
...
LFH

Hawk facts
 

The Hawk T2 has the same G limits as the T1.

Hawk 165/166/167 are effectively identical to the Hawk T2.

There will never be any new build BAE Hawks ever again. Ever.

Can I dispel any other nonsense facts while I’m here?

BV

Well said BV! There’s a very obvious solution to all this, ditch T1, move T2 to RAFAT and transition to a new AJT.

HAL has stated it would need 2 years notice to restart its production line for the IAF, maybe Rish!'s father-in-law could talk to them nicely. :E

Replacement for Red Arrows Hawks, no problem.
A T2 leader +8 of these, if at all.

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...156791.article
,

UK 6th largest defence budget in the world.

Hardly abandoned, more like badly mismanaged .

Well quite! Mind you it wasn't too long ago our esteemed parliamentarians were hiding behind the claim of fourth largest. But it has always glared that for all these claims of financial output there is so little to show for it.

FB

We are never ready for War. I seem to recall still having some bi-planes in fighter command in 1939 and various obsolete types like Battle and Blenheim.
We seem to come through it.

I think your understanding is lacking.
The Battle and Blenheim had only flown 3 and 4 years before. And were revolutionary at the time.
Yes they were very vulnerable but that was much more a reflection of poor usage and lack of understanding how vulnerable day bombers would be. I think you are confusing not fit for purpose and obsolete. Now if we had fielded Heyfords and Hinds they would have been obsolete !

THe RAFAT also fly an obsolete aeroplane!

Maybe
 

I may be wrong but my understanding of the IAF Hawks were that the first batch were built in the UK and then ferried whilst the remainder were machined in the UK and assembled in India. I am not aware of Hawks being built from scratch in India but, as I said, I may be wrong.

BV

The Fairy Battle was mauled so severely and it's crews slaughtered to the extent that they were withdrawn very swiftly from service, as were the Defiant crews who were relegated to night operations. The Blenheim struggled on through the mauling.
RAF Bomber Command switched to night time bombing for the same reason until the Butt report demonstrated Bomber Command couldn't hit it's targets due to lack of bombing aids. Even our AA defences couldn't hit anything and were told by Churchill to "Keep firing for the morale of the people". The Battle of Britain was definitely a "Close run thing" having only recently being upgraded with Spitfires all be it with fixed props.
If this is not an indication of being unprepared and only just rising to the challenge at the last moment I don't know what is?
Today is no different.

Don't forget the radar stations, observation posts and the integrated commamd and control network that co-ordinated it all, as well as nearly all of our day fighter squadrons being equipped with eight-gun monoplanes fitted with radio.

But that is for another day. Back to the Hawk.

My understanding is Hawk Mk.132: IAF 24 Directly supplied by BAES, 42 built from BAES supplied kits by HAL, 40 built by HAL and INAA 17 built by HAL. The HAL built ones including sub-systems provided by BAES. But equally I may be wrong.

I respect of the BoB lets not forget that the Hawk has in its antecedence the Hurricane. which was responsibly for 55% of kills, predominantly the bombers that caused the real threat.

And in respect of the Fairey Battle:
*Probably then Pilot Officer Peter Ward-Hunt in K7562.

106 converted to the Battle from the Hind in July 1938, it then started converting to the Hampden the following May. The Battle was built to P,27/32 for a 1000 lb/1000 mile/200 mph light bomber - the requirement that resulted in the Gloster Gauntlet was issued the following year. THe 300 mph fighter wasn't a factor.

Here endeth the lesson...

You obviously really don't know!
so the Tornado GR1 being withdrawn from low level attacks in GW1 was a sign of being unprepared and the Tornado being obsolete? or was there another reason maybe?

The problem is the constant errosion over the last three+ decades. The cause of all the bother is the political will to cash in on the "Peace Dividend". The attitude following the 1989 collpase of the Berlin Wall was that the world was moving on forward into sunlit uplands. Nothing which would intervene along the way was allowed to interfere with that. This has been the way of it for all western democracies, with the noticeable exception of the USA. However, the UK has a particular knack for asset stripping while wisely, perhaps, still investing in hidden assets. Intelligence, cyber warfare,and countering international terrorism have been seen as the only game in town while seriously thinking the days of industrial machine warfare was gone forever, despite all the evidence to the contrary. The decision to withdraw the Tornado early in all roles was purely a matter of the spending priority da jour. The decision to arbitrarily reduce the RAF's frontline to just two types instead of three was typical of that thinking.

FB
PS I now read on UK Defence Journal, that the government is looking to re-commit to the full order of 138 F-35s.

I hope they can find enough drivers for 138 airframes.

Ditto, it would be a sad indictment of the UK if we simply couldn't. A more realistic recruitment drive perhaps when I left the RAF in 1990, we had more than 300 Tonka drivers, and still a shed load of Phantom, Buccaneer, Jaguar and Harrier ones as well. Oh and three or four times as many Nimrod crews, compared to the number of Poseidon crews now. Its the mindset which needs to change, hopefully that's all, if it is education that is the are of concern, then we do have a problem.

FB

Perhaps it's time for the RAF to cut the educational qualifications and concentrate on finding people from a wider pool?

The RAF has (had?) a good reputation for training it's people to be professionals, perhaps it's time to repair the foundations before worrying about the roof?

Maintainers will be more of an issue I fear.

The politicians have been living on the dividend ever since 1989 without realising that it was all spent within the first couple of years.

I mean, they're only asking for 2 A-levels at C or above, and it's been like that for around 3 decades I think?

To dive into the numbers a little:

Between 75 and 80% of A-levels taken score C and above and 89% of students sit 2 or more A-levels (most - 70% take 3 or more) Source gov.uk Around 240,000 students take A-levels each year in England (not counting Wales, Scotland or NI). Source - BBC.

​​​​​​So you're looking at a recruiting pool of probably 250k people each year out of a pool of about 700k between England/Wales (650k births per year) Scotland (40k) and NI (20k).

Meaning you don't even look at approx 450K, the RAF is limiting it's choices, and I'm sure missing out on a great many motivated, capable individuals who for an equal number of reasons don't achieve the A level requirement.

Intellectual capacity, reasoning, problem solving, leadership and many other attributes can all be evaluated without the need for 2 A levels to conduct a quick filter.

As I said the RAF should train it's people to be who and what they need, and to do that it should cast its net further and wider.

[QUOTE=pba_target;11594822]I mean, they're only asking for 2 A-levels at C or above, and it's been like that for around 3 decades I think?

To dive into the numbers a little:

Between 75 and 80% of A-levels taken score C and above and 89% of students sit 2 or more A-levels (most - 70% take 3 or more) Source gov.uk Around 240,000 students take A-levels each year in England (not counting Wales, Scotland or NI). Source - BBC.

​​​​​in the eighties it was 5 o levels passes including maths and english.

Yes, but that was O-levels, not GCSE.

With today's grade inflation, and teaching to the exam, sorry I mean better students, anyone who got 5 O-levels in the 1980s would achieve 2 A-levels at grade C today.

I have two questions.
 

1. Why has a thread about Hawks in Saudi been completely hijacked by conversation about GCSEs?

2. Why does everyone think that the education system should stay unchanged for 40+ years? Why would the GCSEs of today be exactly the same as the GCSEs of the 1980s or earlier?

For information, my eldest son is currently in year 10. The maths that I see him doing is every bit as hard as some stuff I did at A Level in the early to mid 90s.

Maybe everyone should stop believing what they want to believe and what they read in the Daily Mail and trust that the kids of today are every bit as smart as the kids of yesteryear. But maybe in different ways. Well that’s good right? Because the world has changed anyway. Requirements have changed. Challenges have changed.

Anyway, good luck to the Saudi Hawks with their newer jets. It would seem their future is safe for a while yet.

BV

Two answers and a question
 

BV,

Two replies:

1. ALL threads on pprune drift, often within 4 comments! This thread has already discussed preparations for the Batlle of Britain, the Fairey Battle, RAF pilots numbers, the Peace Dividend. To say it has been "completely hijacked" by a conversation about GCSEs is a gross exaggeration!

2. I don't read the Daily Mail, and I really don't care how hard your son's maths is. The fact that 10% of A-levels achieved an A grade in 1980, and today it's around 25% is a documented fact, not a Daily Mail scare story:

https://www.alansmithers.com/reports/AL2014.pdf

Then there's the percentage of degrees now being awarded a 1st class honours, approaching 40% in some universities.

Once again I would ask the question, are kids so much cleverer now? (I never said they weren't AS clever!). If the kids are as clever today as they were in the 80s, then the exams are easier to pass (for whatever reason), which comes back to my point that 5 O levels in 1980 would equate to 2 grade C A levels today.

While I'm not a teacher myself, I know many people who work/worked in education, including my wife and my best friend from school days who became head of Science at a secondary school (or whatever they're called these days).

There's a difference between being aware/informed and buying into the conspiracy theories.

Anyway, back to the thread on Hawks....

It's over the 30+ year of the programme, so they don't need to find enough drivers for 138 airframes.

The kids don't have to be cleverer, but one would hope that the teaching methods etc have improved over time, so you would expect better results - isn't that what it's about, continuous improvement.

Agreed, the A levels my son's did were tougher than the one's I did 30 years earlier. And the standard of teaching was way better in their large comprehensive compared to the grammar school I went to.