Military Flying Training

Contains threads on Joint Service equipment of the past, present and future.
arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Contact:
Niue

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by arfah »

..........
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Gabriele »

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

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Contact:
Niue

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by arfah »

...............
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

jimthelad
Member
Posts: 451
Joined: 14 May 2015, 20:16
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by jimthelad »

Generally flames coming out the engine is classed as a technical emergency!!!!! :lol:

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by bobp »

Glad they all got out safely.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2295
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Contact:
Niue

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by arfah »

................
-<>-<>-<>-

Forum signature removed. - Miss Armchair Soldier

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Ron5 »

arfah wrote:
jimthelad wrote:Generally flames coming out the engine is classed as a technical emergency!!!!! :lol:
Cough* "Airwolf" Cough!"
Image

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Timmymagic »

arfah wrote:Helicopter from RAF Valley suffers technical emergency, lands, then catches fire.
That will buff out, right?


Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Ron5 »

What are they for?

BTW, very elegant.

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by shark bait »

Multi-Engine Training at RAF Cranwell
@LandSharkUK

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by marktigger »

replacing the King airs?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by shark bait »

Yep 5 out 5 in I believe
@LandSharkUK

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6329
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Ron5 »

Thanks SB..

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by bobp »

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

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4630
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by marktigger »

what was wrong with the King Air ?

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6106
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by shark bait »

Phenom is closer to most of the multi engine fleet, turbofans over turboprops and a much newer cockpit.
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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
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)

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by bobp »

UK receives first of new Trainers for MFTS. http://www.defensenews.com/articles/uk- ... t-training

bobp
Senior Member
Posts: 2331
Joined: 06 May 2015, 07:52
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by bobp »

Textron Scorpion flies new production standard aircraft but no customer yet....
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ir-432726/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6250
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Lord Jim »

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.

User avatar
Poiuytrewq
Senior Member
Posts: 2153
Joined: 15 Dec 2017, 10:25
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by Poiuytrewq »

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
It's hard to believe it's got this bad. A new low?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47420 ... ssion=true

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Poiuytrewq wrote:
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
It's hard to believe it's got this bad. A new low?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-47420 ... ssion=true
It was looking all rosy in 2016:
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)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

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.
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)

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2688
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Military Flying Training

Post by SW1 »

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.

Post Reply