RAF No 11 Squadron Typhoon at Green Flag, USA. The Typhoon is loaded with enhanced Paveway 2 bombs, Litening 111 designater pod and drop tanks. No 11 Squadron has detached to Nellis Air Force base in the Nevada desert for this exercise in the US. Photo credit © 2010 Eurofighter Typhoon
it to be used flexibly to emulate the systems and operating environment of a number of different aircraft with minimal disruption to training time and also provides for significantly increased ‘downloading’ of training time from OCU to the training pipeline. This contributes to increased cost- effectiveness, which will run into hundreds of millions of pounds through the life of MFTS, according to Bell.
The aircraft also lends itself more easily than its doughty predecessor to training pilots in the platforms on which the future RAF will depend – the Eurofighter Typhoon and Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter. “Aircraft have changed and are becoming easier to fly. However, the environment in which they operate is becoming more complex and tactically challenging and as such ‘Train the Brain’ is critical to defence success in the future. This means the training system has to be adaptable,” Bell said. Ian Reason is Business Development
Director for Hawk at BAE Systems. “Upgrading Hawk T1 to meet current training requirements is certainly a viable option for some operators. However, T1s in RAF service have been true workhorses and are approaching the point in their fatigue life at which significant life extension programmes would be needed in addition to upgrades. While such
52 G3 DEFENCE
a solution might overcome capital expenditure problems, this is not an option that would have enabled the AJT component of MFTS to offer the sort of downloading capabilities – moving training from expensive operational assets to dedicated training facilities – that can be achieved with T2,” he said. Control of through-life costs has become a mantra for any complex flying training system – hardly surprising when £1 in original equipment procurement leads to between £7 and £8 in through life support costs. Those support costs would be considerably increased by having to support legacy aircraft, which would be unable to deliver the levels of capability of a more modern, agile and capable AJT.
As well as technology and cost-
effectiveness issues, emerging training requirements require agility and flexibility in their resolution. “Increasingly, with aviation costs rising and future flying being more demanding and less available, Defence must make every minute of every hour count. Air forces must focus on delivering capability and not just [flying] hours, which will enable aircrew to train for the most testing environments,” Bell said. There is also a benefit accruing to the defence industrial base from the development of Hawk T2 and
the experience gained in shaping the MFTS programme to date. Not only has the capacity for sovereign development of an essential training platform been made possible, but the potential for export of the type offers ‘UK plc’ the option of significant economic benefits and an additional soft foreign policy tool in support of national strategic interests. As well as an Indian order already on the books, Hawk T2 is well placed to address directly the US requirement for a new trainer aircraft – a requirement that could run into several hundred airframes.
All in all, history shows the decision
to procure Hawk T2 was the right one for the MoD and for government, given that industrial policy and strategic requirements play a part in every government procurement decision. Air Marshal (retired) Sir Dusty Miller, senior military advisor to Ascent, is convinced. “Hawk T2 is the right aircraft at the right time for the requirements we have to meet – it offers everybody involved in MFTS the right capability and will certainly be a crucial component of the way MFTS transforms training for UK aircrews,” he said. And with over 4,000 flight hours and several senior training and capability appointments under his belt – he should certainly know!
Tim Mahon Defence Journalist
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64