UK Defence Forum

News, History, Discussions and Debates on UK Defence.

ASDOT

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 30 Jun 2018, 19:16

Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10932
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 30 Jun 2018, 19:32

Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this


At the time of the decision (to extend) IHS Janes wrote about it, quoting RAF sources:
"The 24 T1 aircraft that were extended from 2019 to the wider Typhoon out-of-service date (OSD) of 2040 in the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR) of November 2015 will be formed into two distinct air defence squadrons, rather than being mixed with other T2 and T3 aircraft in other multirole units, Deputy Commander of Operations Air Marshal Greg Bagwell told reporters on 30 March.

"The issue was how to operate the Tranche 1 alongside the Tranche 2 and 3 as there is very little spares commonality between them, so it was decided that the plan [should be] for two new squadrons of Tranche 1 Typhoons," AM Bagwell said.

Given the software limitations of the T1, the RAF has decided not to try and upgrade these particular platforms with the Phase Enhancement upgrade packages that will afford the T2 and T3 platforms with the full swing-role capability set. As such, they will be used solely for air defence duties, and perhaps for adversarial air combat training for other RAF aircraft types."
- from the SDSR itself I seem to remember that the extension was to 2030 (not to the 2040+ which is the fleet's overall "expiry")?
- those bidding for the ASDOT contract were quoting crazy yearly flight hours for the tiffies in that role (generally, not just for the older ones)

Jake_Grafton
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 12:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Jake_Grafton » 30 Jun 2018, 21:23

Don’t think Leonardo realise quite what they’ve gotten themselves involved with. Top Aces (Discovery Air Defence Services) are in all sorts of issues in Canada due, in part, to their complicit behaviour in the entire Clairvest debacle.

The ensuing class action in the Ontario Superior Court should be interesting if this filed Affidavit is anything to go by:

http://www.ksvadvisory.com/assets/Uploa ... 202018.pdf

Have got to question Inzpire’s due diligence too.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 01 Jul 2018, 18:43

Maybe the RAF should keep "Aggressor" training in house, and then offer its services to other European and NATO nations.

Jake_Grafton
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 12:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Jake_Grafton » 02 Jul 2018, 16:04

Pretty sure an element will......

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10932
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 02 Jul 2018, 17:30

Lord Jim wrote:the RAF should keep "Aggressor" training in house, and then offer its services to other European and NATO nations.


It all depends ; how do you read the "RAF"
- Cobham flies a fleet of 15
- 10 of these are usually on contract to the RAF (AEW/ EA)
- the other 5 work on contracts with other airforces
- the fast jets, so far, have been in-house

Going forward; what does the newly framed RFP say (and why was it changed)?

Spinflight
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 01 Aug 2016, 03:32
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Spinflight » 03 Jul 2018, 09:09

Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.


Money.

Not sure what the hourly rate for a Tiffie is but would be surprised if it wasn't 6x that allocated for ASDOT. Which works out at about £7000 per hour IIRC. With no capital involved hence... Sure you can buy or lease new build platforms if you wanted to bid but then your running costs will have to be much less than £7000 per hour, which when the vast majority of new builds work out at a minimum of £15-£20 million and you'll get about £50 million per year for multiple platforms just doesn't really work.

Hence as I probably said earlier in the thread think searching through scrap yards and storage for third gen platforms with low running costs. Preferably ones you can upgrade to electronically represent threat aircraft otherwise you'll need to fly a suitably equipped biz jet alongside to do so. And ones whose engines etc are still supported by the OEM.

ArmChairCivvy wrote:Going forward; what does the newly framed RFP say (and why was it changed)?


It's been put back again, probably as some of the down selected bidders don't actually have aircraft to offer!

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 03 Jul 2018, 18:44

Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.


The point is that a different type of aircraft is flown by aggressors. Typhoon pilots get enough practice fighting Typhoons in their own squadrons. They need a different opponent.

Jake_Grafton
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 12:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Jake_Grafton » 03 Jul 2018, 21:59

The budget simply doesn’t cover anything new build such as a M346 let alone anything approaching Gripen Aggressor nor those mythical ex-Netz F-16s that have been promised since 2014.

This is worth a read: http://www.ksvadvisory.com/assets/Uploa ... 202018.pdf

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 05 Jul 2018, 17:23

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.


The point is that a different type of aircraft is flown by aggressors. Typhoon pilots get enough practice fighting Typhoons in their own squadrons. They need a different opponent.


The appearance of the platform flown by the "Aggressors" is not the main issue it is how they are flown and what tactics they used. I used to visit the 527th at Alconbury regularly when they were based there as one of my neighbours was a member and got to know a number of others. Also the USAF and USN use F-15s and F-16s as their main "Aggressors", these days to match the performance of possible enemy platforms. Yes private companies use A4s and Alpha Jets as they are cheap to purchase and operate but do in no way have the ability to mimic the performance of Mig-29s and SU-27s. They can provide basic DACT only.

Ron5
Senior Member
Posts: 3639
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
Location: United States of America

Re: ASDOT

Postby Ron5 » 06 Jul 2018, 01:41

Lord Jim wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.


The point is that a different type of aircraft is flown by aggressors. Typhoon pilots get enough practice fighting Typhoons in their own squadrons. They need a different opponent.


The appearance of the platform flown by the "Aggressors" is not the main issue it is how they are flown and what tactics they used. I used to visit the 527th at Alconbury regularly when they were based there as one of my neighbours was a member and got to know a number of others. Also the USAF and USN use F-15s and F-16s as their main "Aggressors", these days to match the performance of possible enemy platforms. Yes private companies use A4s and Alpha Jets as they are cheap to purchase and operate but do in no way have the ability to mimic the performance of Mig-29s and SU-27s. They can provide basic DACT only.


Nonsense. The platform makes a great deal of difference which is why air forces spend umpty billions buying new aircraft every year.

The US pits F-16s against F-15s & F-22s on a regular basis. Practicing against someone flying your own type of aircraft only goes so far and that's done within the squadron.

indeid
Member
Posts: 270
Joined: 21 May 2015, 20:46

Re: ASDOT

Postby indeid » 06 Jul 2018, 08:00

Ron5 wrote:Nonsense. The platform makes a great deal of difference which is why air forces spend umpty billions buying new aircraft every year.

The US pits F-16s against F-15s & F-22s on a regular basis. Practicing against someone flying your own type of aircraft only goes so far and that's done within the squadron.


The UK has an added complication, a lack of national airspace to conduct the routine training. Often the most you can get is a 50nm split, and much more than a 2v2 can start to limit evasion options. The areas were changed when Typhoon came into service, no idea if anything similar is being considered for the F35.

The internal Squadron training is usually to take you up to Limited Combat Ready, in which the serials allow training to be conducted on both sides. As you move to CR though the ability of the crews playing Red to get any training is limited, thats where I think the aggressor role is needed in routine training. Its not unusual to get 100 Sqn Hawks and Cobham joining in during Squadron level work, obviously a must for anything involving EW.

Be interesting if the dispersed simulator project which is ongoing will include the same aggressor units that ASDOT produces.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 06 Jul 2018, 18:50

Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:
Ron5 wrote:
Lord Jim wrote:Why don't we just use the T1 Typhoon squadron(s) for this to maximise their utility and provide a proper threat for training.


The point is that a different type of aircraft is flown by aggressors. Typhoon pilots get enough practice fighting Typhoons in their own squadrons. They need a different opponent.


The appearance of the platform flown by the "Aggressors" is not the main issue it is how they are flown and what tactics they used. I used to visit the 527th at Alconbury regularly when they were based there as one of my neighbours was a member and got to know a number of others. Also the USAF and USN use F-15s and F-16s as their main "Aggressors", these days to match the performance of possible enemy platforms. Yes private companies use A4s and Alpha Jets as they are cheap to purchase and operate but do in no way have the ability to mimic the performance of Mig-29s and SU-27s. They can provide basic DACT only.


Nonsense. The platform makes a great deal of difference which is why air forces spend umpty billions buying new aircraft every year.

The US pits F-16s against F-15s & F-22s on a regular basis. Practicing against someone flying your own type of aircraft only goes so far and that's done within the squadron.


We will have to differ on this one. The Pilots of the 527th always said that their main role when training other units was to fly as "Russian" pilots would and so allow the other units to understand how a possible opponent would act in any conflict. The F-5 was used as it mimicked the then smaller Warsaw Pact aircraft but now F-16 and F-15 are used to simulate Fulcrums and Flankers respectively, as the are able to provide a reasonable simulation of the platform that compliments the tactics now used by the aggressor pilots. The "Aggressors", do not fly using standard western fighter tactics so flying against a Red Team F-16 is not like flying against a Squadron buddy in any way.

Jake_Grafton
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 12:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Jake_Grafton » 15 Jul 2018, 14:28

It would appear that at least one of the consortia are getting desperate. That’s the Thales/QQ/Textron team talking to Potulski about his very pointless, and unsupportable, mk58 Hunters.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Jul 2018, 01:07

You need to have a platform that roughly matched a potential adversaries aircraft in performance as a base line. If we plan to train against lower tier opposition we still need to look at Mig-29 stand ins. The benefits of training against subsonic advanced trainers has been greatly reduced by current simulator technology where pilots can gain basic DACT far cheaper. Using a contractor to spice up an exercise does have some uses but the same could be said for having the USAF or French bounce a occasional training sortie. Full blown DACT requires a large investment, which the MoD cannot afford to do on its own. If NATO wants to jointly fund an updated European DACT range then fine, but the opposition platforms need to be able to offer the right training opportunities.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10932
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jul 2018, 08:11

Lord Jim wrote: Using a contractor to spice up an exercise does have some uses


as in... on the EW side of things Cobham flies 15 old Falcon jets for the RAF, to simulate Flankers, and there is another 10 flying (on and off) for several other airforces
- OK, they are due to be retired when the new contract will be won by someone... when might that be :problem:

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 16 Jul 2018, 09:17

FRADU was still in existence during my time and I was always fascinated by the idea of a Falcon flying at low level with two Hawks tucked in close, which at a given time accelerated, dropped even lower and played the role of an Exocet flying straight at the target at wave top height. Talking to a couple of the Pilots it was great fun. When I first started working the Hunters were still their, possible my second favourite plane after the Lightning.

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: ASDOT

Postby Dahedd » 16 Jul 2018, 11:18

Used to see the FRADU Falcons over the house a lot when they visited Kinloss.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10932
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 16 Jul 2018, 20:30

Dahedd wrote:Used to see the FRADU Falcons over the house


Seen an A-400M and a pair of USAFE F-15s below the level of the house... never expected that as the gentle sloping sides of the valley hide the difference in elevation between the tops of the sides and the lowest point

Well; absolutely nothing to do with ASDOT... worth a mention, though

Jake_Grafton
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Joined: 19 Apr 2017, 12:03
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Jake_Grafton » 09 Sep 2018, 11:52

This is interesting - Tab 2B makes for some pretty shocking reading. Wonder if MoD’s due diligence has picked up on it? Amazed Leonardo MW are having anything to do with them. Wonder if Berlin has picked up on this too given existing contracts there?

http://www.ksvadvisory.com/assets/Uploa ... 202018.pdf

User avatar
RichardIC
Member
Posts: 561
Joined: 10 May 2015, 16:59
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby RichardIC » 20 Mar 2019, 07:29

Oh, it’s dead.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... n-against/

Defence chiefs ditch contract for 'private airforce' for RAF to train against

A defence contract to provide a “private airforce” for the RAF to train against has been ditched by the Ministry of Defence.

The deal worth up to £1.2bn and known as Air Support to Defence Operational Training (ASDOT) would see fighter pilots dogfighting against jets supplied by industry.

One of the main aims of the 10-year contract was to save money as the MoD would pay only for the time its pilots were flying against the privately operated jets, eliminating maintenance and storage costs.

An added benefit of the scheme - which would also provide air support services to Royal Navy and Army pilots - was that they would likely face aircraft different to those operated by the British military.

This “dissimilar type” training is more reflective of real world combat situations British pilots might face, as they would be going up against aircraft whose capabilities they were unfamiliar with.

Bidders were lining up highly experienced ex-forces fliers for their aircraft, meaning that British pilots would be going against veterans with many years of hard-won experience.

It also meant that millions invested in flight training for pilots who had left the services would be put to use in a military environment, rather than being lost to airlines and other civilian aerospace jobs.

Three consortiums were bidding for the deal: Babcock working with Israel’s Elbit Systems; Cobham with QinetiQ and Draken International, and Leonardo in combination with Inzpire and Canada company Top Aces.

The contract - which was originally expected to be awarded in 2020 but had been delayed - fell into line with the MoD’s Modernising Defence Programme, a key part of which was improving how the forces buy equipment and services to get the best value.

It is unclear whether ASDOT has been scrapped entirely and the pilots will train against colleagues, or if the contract will be retendered at a future date. A less comprehensive version of ASDOT is currently supplied by Cobham.

One defence source said: “If the MoD wants to save money, then surely ASDOT is a good way to do it as they only pay for what they use.

“It also means our pilots are likely to be better trained, as they fight against different aircraft, instead of the Typhoons that they fly themselves.”

Sources said that the that bids to fulfil the MoD’s requirements were higher than defence chiefs had expected, causing them to balk.

Companies leading the teams competing for the contract declined to comment.

The MoD said: “We received a number of industry proposals in response to the ASDOT invitation to negotiation. We will now re-assess the parameters for the programme.”

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 10932
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby ArmChairCivvy » 20 Mar 2019, 09:35

RichardIC wrote:The MoD said: “We received a number of industry proposals in response to the ASDOT invitation to negotiation. We will now re-assess the parameters for the programme.”


That does not sound 'totally' dead to me. More like using the Tr1 Tiffies as a bridge, rescoping ASDOT (=narrower) while perhaps also adding the currently running EW training contract into that same scope - rather than have two, running in parallel.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 3503
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
Location: United Kingdom

Re: ASDOT

Postby Lord Jim » 20 Mar 2019, 15:26

Do we know which platforms the three bidders were intending to use?

Dahedd
Member
Posts: 501
Joined: 06 May 2015, 11:18

Re: ASDOT

Postby Dahedd » 22 Mar 2019, 13:11

Pity, I rather liked the Scorpian. Thought it had plenty of potential.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 5862
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Location: Pitcairn Island

Re: ASDOT

Postby shark bait » 16 Apr 2019, 14:04

potential for what? It's hardly preparing pilots for a peer fight.
@LandSharkUK


Return to “Joint Service”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: tqw3feuj78io and 1 guest