PDA

View Full Version : BAE Future Trainer


DuckDodgers
24th May 2024, 12:39
Who knew? Some bold, deceitful, and questionable claims in this response to the Defence Select Committee.

BAE Systems Evidence (https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/128412/pdf/)

Given this length of service, we are working with the RAF to ensure the Hawk remains relevant to their requirements. In 2022, BAE Systems was awarded an 11- year Hawk support contract that included a mechanism to reinvest savings from the contract into Hawk capability development and to address obsolescence issues, in a similar way to the TyTAN support contract for Typhoon. The programme to deliver this is the Hawk Capability and Sustainment Programme (CSP).

The CSP will keep the Hawk relevant by providing state-of-the-art computing capabilities through our modernised Medulla mission computer combined with a substantial overhaul of the cockpit displays and controls, creating a modernised, agile and adaptable platform. Moreover, we are collaborating with partners on transformative Augmented Reality training technologies that will provide a step- change in immersive and dynamic training. This will reduce both the time spent in training and the number of Qualified Flying Instructors required. Furthermore, we intend to incorporate on Hawk some of the emerging technologies being developed through the FCAS programme, thus ensuring relevance and delivering value for money.

In summary, together with the Ministry of Defence, BAE Systems will conclude analysis of the training system required in the era of 4th, 5th and 6th generation platforms before making a decision on a replacement training aircraft for Hawk. There is sufficient time for this analysis because of the Hawk OSD and the continued investment in its capability and sustainability.

LateArmLive
25th May 2024, 04:32
Please, no. Hawk should be replaced, not upgraded. The airframe is obsolete, the engine doesn't work properly. No amount of avionics and synthetic crap can compensate for that.

PeterX60
25th May 2024, 06:04
Surely such a program would allow training RAF pilots to realistically operate the future fleets our defence budget allowed.

Stitchbitch
25th May 2024, 06:51
This looks to be a similar strategy to France, where the much older Alpha jets may retire in the 2040s.

I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?

DuckDodgers
25th May 2024, 10:22
This looks to be a similar strategy to France, where the much older Alpha jets may retire in the 2040s.

I’m not very knowledgeable about tomorrows requirements for fast jet pilot training, but would a glass cockpit Hawk T.2 with a large area display, synthetic systems and an upgraded helmet incorporating Red 6 argumented reality tech not be suitable for the role? Or would it be cheaper to buy a fleet of foreign trainers like Red Hawk (with decent seats), T.50 or M346?

Alpha Jet has retired in France beyond training Ukrainians and the Patrouille de France. All FJ training there is on PC-21, either the F21 or Mentor contracts.

Bob Viking
25th May 2024, 16:14
My interest was piqued by the comment that the new training system would require less QFIs. I’m wondering how that would be achieved and if I need to start thinking about a different job!

I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.

BV

DuckDodgers
25th May 2024, 16:48
My interest was piqued by the comment that the new training system would require less QFIs. I’m wondering how that would be achieved and if I need to start thinking about a different job!

I also noted that it didn’t seem to allude to a collaboration with another company such as Aeralis.

BV

Poetic BS in that paragraph where BAE are making themselves the single arbiter of the future. Don’t recall anybody in MOD asking for their input into the future of the flying training system. Turds, polishing and Pigs, lipstick all come to minds.

Fonsini
26th May 2024, 06:55
Tomorrow’s QFIs will be programmers, I wouldn’t invest in Martin Baker either.

safetypee
26th May 2024, 08:30
"BAE are making themselves the single arbiter of the future."

This could be what is required given examples of the apparent poor procurement process with other types.
Military thinking gets a changeover every few years - people and policy; civil servants, longer timescale, but with what expertise, and politically driven.

A choice; a specialist aircraft for one country, based on dated thinking,
or a commercial decision for national benefit based on manufacturing and operating expertise - note BAE overseas training support operations / simulation / computing.

If BAE are right then the military get what will be required at the time: if not … then BAE probably won't build it.

Easy Street
26th May 2024, 10:15
If I wanted a simulator, I'd go to CAE or Thales. If I wanted software, I'd go to a software house. BAES is an aircraft manufacturer which would like to establish itself in the aforementioned spheres to exercise ever greater control of the intellectual property it generates. It is not very good at either. How late is the new Typhoon sim?

This would be less objectionable if BAES's IP wasn't generated largely at public expense due to the risk aversion it shares with other large defence contractors. The MOD has been getting better at writing contracts which give it some IP rights, but ultimately BAES retains the whip hand through its ability to lean on ministers in the name of 'UK prosperity'.

Also, for the last 20-25 years or so, BAES has made a great shift towards generating revenue from in service support, rather than manufacture (admittedly, with the full connivance of MOD officials blind to the snake oil peddled by the big management consultancies). This means it is not incentivised in any way to develop training or simulation services which reduce the need for live flying: less flying equals less support revenue. How are we going to make a breakthrough into uncrewed military aviation (where the non-operational flying requirement is close to zero) when those incentives exist and BAES moves to strangle innovative competitors at birth?

Asturias56
26th May 2024, 11:36
Pity they didn't do something about a Hawk replacement 20 years ago