Military Flying Training
Re: Military Flying Training
..........
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Military Flying Training
Thanks. Not that i expected differently, but... one can at least hope.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum
Re: Military Flying Training
...............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Military Flying Training
Generally flames coming out the engine is classed as a technical emergency!!!!! ![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Re: Military Flying Training
................
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: Military Flying Training
arfah wrote:Cough* "Airwolf" Cough!"jimthelad wrote:Generally flames coming out the engine is classed as a technical emergency!!!!!
![Image](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/RzbLYVtjbKU/maxresdefault.jpg)
-
- Donator
- Posts: 3249
- Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
Re: Military Flying Training
That will buff out, right?arfah wrote:Helicopter from RAF Valley suffers technical emergency, lands, then catches fire.
- The Armchair Soldier
- Site Admin
- Posts: 1755
- Joined: 29 Apr 2015, 08:31
- Contact:
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Military Flying Training
Scorpion Testing continues in USA full article here
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lfire.html
In separate news limited production has begun mentioning the uk as a possible customer.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tex ... ntract-yet
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... lfire.html
In separate news limited production has begun mentioning the uk as a possible customer.
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/tex ... ntract-yet
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4640
- Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
- shark bait
- Senior Member
- Posts: 6427
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Re: Military Flying Training
Phenom is closer to most of the multi engine fleet, turbofans over turboprops and a much newer cockpit.
@LandSharkUK
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Military Flying Training
Let's see what happens with the already "off-loaded" 28 initial trainer a/c - the German manufacturer has declined to provide spares to the prospective buyer (their newer model partook in an evaluation where it - along with the others - were judged bad value for money).
- sour grapes?
- let's see if the EU exemptions for anti-competitive behaviour in military kit will reach this far
- sour grapes?
- let's see if the EU exemptions for anti-competitive behaviour in military kit will reach this far
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Military Flying Training
UK receives first of new Trainers for MFTS. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk- ... t-training
Re: Military Flying Training
Textron Scorpion flies new production standard aircraft but no customer yet....
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-432726/
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-432726/
Re: Military Flying Training
Well just listened to a programme on Radio 4 about the MFTS and it seems to be in an absolute shambles that make the Army's problems seem minor. It is taking up to NINE year to train a fast jet pilot to a level he or she can join a squadron. Trainees are leaving before completing the courses and it is costing the MoD ten of millions of pounds with nothing to show for it at the end. Courses are being paid for with nobody on them. Contracts are be subcontracted out because there isn't capacity. All current multi-engine training is one case where the Company contracted under MFTS cannot do it and so L3 in Bournemouth is picking up the slack. IF you want to here the programme I recommend you do so it will probably be available on BBC Sounds in the near future.
-
- Senior Member
- Posts: 4108
- Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
Re: Military Flying Training
It's hard to believe it's got this bad. A new low?Lord Jim wrote:Well just listened to a programme on Radio 4 about the MFTS and it seems to be in an absolute shambles that make the Army's problems seem minor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47420 ... ssion=true
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Military Flying Training
It was looking all rosy in 2016:Poiuytrewq wrote:It's hard to believe it's got this bad. A new low?Lord Jim wrote:Well just listened to a programme on Radio 4 about the MFTS and it seems to be in an absolute shambles that make the Army's problems seem minor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47420 ... ssion=true
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-nor ... s-35475585
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
- ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: Military Flying Training
In the Red Air aggressor training context... I wonder where we are at with that contract? Namely, there was a recent statement that the two Typhoon Tr1 squadrons (no mention of them being mixed, between types) would be mainly tasked with QRA and Red Air.
Here's a USAF philosophy on the same matter, from 2017
"Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mike Holmes said “in a perfect world” the Air Force would “have the resources to maintain the aggressor squadrons it used to have” and “do it in-house with modernized threats.” But, in the world we’re living in now, we’re limited in personnel and end strength.
In the late 1970s, right after the Vietnam War, the Air Force had four aggressor squadrons, but dwindling budgets forced the service to shut down the 26th AGRS at Clark AB, Philippines, and the 527th AS at RAF Alconbury, UK, leaving one aggressor squadron at Nellis and, later, one in Alaska.
"I'd have to trade an operational fighter squadron for an aggressor squadron if I was going to do it in-house right now,” because of limited amounts of funding, time, and people, Holmes told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September. He added, “If we can bring on some contract Red Air, then not only do we get some dedicated people to train against, we also reduce the amount of time that our crews are spending … pretending to be somebody else instead of training for their primary skills,” all in the context of a “zero-sum budget for flight hours.”["]
It is often claimed that outsource contracts for the service are 'full of hot air' as the bidding companies do not have the aircraft. In that same, quoted article http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... arket.aspx there is a nice overview of what has been bought lately, in the way of fast jets.
Here's a USAF philosophy on the same matter, from 2017
"Air Combat Command boss Gen. Mike Holmes said “in a perfect world” the Air Force would “have the resources to maintain the aggressor squadrons it used to have” and “do it in-house with modernized threats.” But, in the world we’re living in now, we’re limited in personnel and end strength.
In the late 1970s, right after the Vietnam War, the Air Force had four aggressor squadrons, but dwindling budgets forced the service to shut down the 26th AGRS at Clark AB, Philippines, and the 527th AS at RAF Alconbury, UK, leaving one aggressor squadron at Nellis and, later, one in Alaska.
"I'd have to trade an operational fighter squadron for an aggressor squadron if I was going to do it in-house right now,” because of limited amounts of funding, time, and people, Holmes told reporters at AFA’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference in September. He added, “If we can bring on some contract Red Air, then not only do we get some dedicated people to train against, we also reduce the amount of time that our crews are spending … pretending to be somebody else instead of training for their primary skills,” all in the context of a “zero-sum budget for flight hours.”["]
It is often claimed that outsource contracts for the service are 'full of hot air' as the bidding companies do not have the aircraft. In that same, quoted article http://www.airforcemag.com/Features/Pag ... arket.aspx there is a nice overview of what has been bought lately, in the way of fast jets.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
Re: Military Flying Training
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/20 ... n-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.
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.