Re: Is Hawk 128 "yesterday's jet"?

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
tedster > wrote:

>Is the Hawk 128 good enough for training pilots for fly-by-wire
>aircraft (is that even an issue)?

Yes. And avionics-wise it's not a 1970's aircraft any
more.

>BAE is not entirely blameless. If the company intends to stay in the
>jet trainer business - and it should, given the widespread
>international acceptance of the Hawk - it must develop a more advanced
>version, with thin wings and afterburners for supersonic performance,
>making it an even better stepping stone to high-performance frontline
>aircraft.

But the problem with that is that then it sort of _is_ a
high-performance frontline aircraft -- and has a similar
price tag both when you purchase it and when you fly it.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.

[Ben Full]

"Jim Brown" > wrote in message
om...

> Ok I'm just an armchair pilot but considering the big step up between
> a trainer jet of any description and a front line jet, why not do away
> with fast jet trainers totally? Initial training could be completed on
> something like a PC-21 which is claimed to replicate a fast jet
> trainer in everything but speed and then the trainee pilots can
> continue training on two seater versions of whatever frontline jet
> they'll be flying. The cost of the extra two seaters should be covered
> by not having to buy/support the fast jet trainers.
>
> Comments please?

Sure. The fast jet trainer is there to shorten the gap between elementary
flying training and going into the fast jet world. The Hawk is used by the
RAF as an advanced jet trainer. It is third in the line of aircraft that a
pilot will fly before going onto the likes of Tornado or Harrier. THe first
begins at Elementary Flight Training, EFT, with the Grob Tutor. They then
progress to the Tucano and then to Hawk, where they learn operational
tactics such as air combat manuevres, air to ground combat and low level
flying. it is an operational weapons platform where they can fire AIM9,,
rockets and drop dumb bombs. The Tucano T1 does not have this function and
as such , the Hawk is required in this sense to provide that capability to
the pilot before advancing to their operational type.

The Hawk 128 will feature what is required to provide pilots with the
operating environment for moden fast jets such as the Typhoon, GR4 and
eventuall JSF. That will include the glass cockpit, HOTAS and improved
navaids like GPS.

The best way to train pilots for fast jet is probably to put them into an
advanced jet trainer, rather than a turbo prop. I am sure there are pilots
out there who will concur with me, but i cant say for sure - i only get to
fix what they break, not break them myself!

Hope this helps

BMFull

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Jim Brown > wrote:

>Ok I'm just an armchair pilot but considering the big step up between
>a trainer jet of any description and a front line jet, why not do away
>with fast jet trainers totally?

Good question. One can also point out that there's not
really any need for propeller trainers since it's quite
feasible to start the pilot training on something like a
Hawk which _may_ make economic sense as the fewer types
you train someone on, the fewer total hours are needed.

>Initial training could be completed on
>something like a PC-21 which is claimed to replicate a fast jet
>trainer in everything but speed and then the trainee pilots can
>continue training on two seater versions of whatever frontline jet
>they'll be flying.

I agree. A trend towards fewer types used in training
should make sense, but I don't see it globally. Reasons
include tradition and the baggage air forces carry in the
form of aircraft they already own.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
Just because something is obvious doesn't mean it's true.

[John Halliwell]

In article >, Ben Full
> writes
>The best way to train pilots for fast jet is probably to put them into an
>advanced jet trainer, rather than a turbo prop. I am sure there are pilots
>out there who will concur with me, but i cant say for sure - i only get to
>fix what they break, not break them myself!

Sounds sensible to me. Presumably a Hawk is much cheaper to operate than
a front line jet?

I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo
prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard'
fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether
they'll make it rather than sticking them in one of several front line
two-seaters (that and the cost of a handful of two-seat trainers for
each type).

--
John

[Marcus Andersson]

(Urban Fredriksson) wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Jim Brown > wrote:
>
> >Ok I'm just an armchair pilot but considering the big step up between
> >a trainer jet of any description and a front line jet, why not do away
> >with fast jet trainers totally?
>
> Good question. One can also point out that there's not
> really any need for propeller trainers since it's quite
> feasible to start the pilot training on something like a
> Hawk which _may_ make economic sense as the fewer types
> you train someone on, the fewer total hours are needed.
>
> >Initial training could be completed on
> >something like a PC-21 which is claimed to replicate a fast jet
> >trainer in everything but speed and then the trainee pilots can
> >continue training on two seater versions of whatever frontline jet
> >they'll be flying.
>
> I agree. A trend towards fewer types used in training
> should make sense, but I don't see it globally. Reasons
> include tradition and the baggage air forces carry in the
> form of aircraft they already own.


Didn't the Swedish air force once have the idea that the Gripen would
be used for initial flying training as well, and thus replace the saab
105 in that role?
I read that somewhere sometime...

[Ben Full]

"Marcus Andersson" > wrote in message
om...
> Didn't the Swedish air force once have the idea that the Gripen would
> be used for initial flying training as well, and thus replace the saab
> 105 in that role?
> I read that somewhere sometime...

BAE Systems/Saab were offering the Gripen and Typhoon as one package, the
Gripen being the 2 set variant and for use as advanced jet trainer for the
crews to use as a transition to the Typhoon. A good plan for aircraft sales
if you can pull it off.

rgds

BMFull

[Jim Brown]

John Halliwell > wrote in message >...

>
> I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo
> prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard'
> fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether
> they'll make it
Thats a good point; but is fast jet flying so different this couldnt
be extrapalated from their previous performance on a fast prop?
Actually thinking about it the RAF use the fast jet training to select
where they want to send the pilots and then type conversion is
undertaken by other units. Hmm I think I've almost convinced myself
its a bad idea...

> rather than sticking them in one of several front line
> two-seaters (that and the cost of a handful of two-seat trainers for
> each type).
Also a good point but in the RAF at least there is likely to be only 3
fast jet types concurrently and one of those, Harrier/JSF, will need
specialised training for new pilots anyway

[Urban Fredriksson]

In article >,
Jim Brown > wrote:
>John Halliwell > wrote in message >...

>> I don't know if it's an issue, but not all pilots qualifying on a turbo
>> prop may be suitable for fast jet work. Sticking them in a 'standard'
>> fast jet trainer may give a better opportunity to determine whether
>> they'll make it

>Thats a good point; but is fast jet flying so different this couldnt
>be extrapalated from their previous performance on a fast prop?

Actually, not everyone think you need to put them in an
aircraft at all in order to determine they'll be good
fighter pilots.

The Swedish air force used to make every student pilot a fighter
pilot, some of which became transport or helicopter pilots
when older. (Well, for a couple of decades, before that
there was a washout rate.)

Now, there's no upper age limit (apart from the retirement
age of 60) for being a fighter pilot and some pilots are
reqruited directly as helicopter or transport pilots. I
think for economical reasons, mainly.
--
Urban Fredriksson http://www.canit.se/%7Egriffon/
To get rid of an enemy, make him a friend.