Replacing the Jet Provost

[uk 75]

This thread shows what might have replaced the Jet Provost in RAF service instead of the Tucano.
https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/bae-p-164.3803/#post-457314It seems that the Tucano was a wiser choice on economic and ergonomic grounds (cockpit closer to Tornado).
But a small jet would have gone well with Hawk in BAe's line up. Trainers don't feature much here.

 

[BlackBat242]

There was a slightly earlier candidate... the AAC Wamira A10 (side-by-side seating) for the RAAF and the A20 (tandem seating) for the RAF.

If chosen by the RAF they would be built by Westland.

In the end the RAF declined, and the RAAF did not want to pay for all the development, so it bought Pilatus PC9s.

 

[red admiral]

There were quite a few candidates in the competition but Tucano won out after being redesigned to UK spec. Although now RAF have ended up flying PC-9s anyway after it was retired.

I'm not sure a mini jet would have achieved much besides costing more money. Maybe some exports but likely in the few dozen at most?

 

[GTX]

Although now RAF have ended up flying PC-9s anyway after it was retired.

Errr...T-6C Texan IIs

 

[red admiral]

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet

 

[Hood]

Having written extensively on this subject I should perhaps make a comment (or two).

There was a lot of noise about Tucano Vs PC-9, much more so than any concern about not buying/building a 100% British design from BAe. I've seen a fair bit of criticism of the MoD's specs, especially the bird strike protection etc., as being nitpicky and making matters worse and more expensive than they needed to be.
Well the MoD/RAF/RN/Army having long highly detailed and specific requirements is not a rare thing and sometimes it does seem odd. At this time birds were regularly smashing up Jaguar fuselages (the Bacofoil Bomber) so quite logically the RAF wanted to be safe rather than sorry.
In fact the USAF went down exactly the same route with JPATS and did not buy a stock aircraft.
Arguably the Super Tucano and Texan II/PC-9M owe their current successes to both AST.412 and JPATS. It made them the aircraft they are.

I suspect that had the PC-9 been a little more mature (it was only just starting prototype flying) that it might well have won out.
I've seen criticism that Tucano was chosen only for Shorts to be sold at a loss - well that was the whole point, Tucano was chosen to make Shorts more attractive to prospective buyers. There were hopes Embraer might help Shorts with the 360 and follow on civil stuff but that never happened. Assembling PC-9s wasn't likely to seriously likely to make a huge contribution to BAe coffers.

As to jet versus turboprop, by 1983 the RAF were convinced turboprops were cheaper and the way to go and most air forces, even the USAF, were moving in that direction. A mini-Hawk makes less sense, its doubtful there was a mini-jet market (that was more of a post-Oil Crisis mid-70s phenomena that never materialised. I can't think of any minijet trainer that has been a success, the S.211/M245 probably did the best but only to a combined total of 81 aircraft in 40 years.

 

[Kiltonge]

Other options considered around 1983 included a SLEP to push the JP through until 1995, or using the Hawk as originally intended for straight-through training.

There was also an early proposal from Beech to have a "Northern Ireland company" build the T-34C, which was probably Shorts given the lack of other candidates.

Interesting enough the RAF had flown the Tucano well before AST.412 and reportedly liked it. In the end it wasn't actually 'big' Shorts that built the Tucano, but its Light Aircraft Division that had been established to build the Piper Tomahawk for the European market until that deal fell through. So they had a newly built factory and workforce available.

 

[Hood]

There was also an early proposal from Beech to have a "Northern Ireland company" build the T-34C, which was probably Shorts given the lack of other candidates.

Yes Beech did offer a licence to Shorts.

 

[Kiltonge]

Yes Beech did offer a licence to Shorts.

Would you have an approximate date? I'd guess around 1982 when the CFS flew the T-34C as a routine eval? I'm working on a chronology of Shorts.

 

[Hood]

The (informal) CFS evaluation of the T-34 was in May 1983.
The invitations to tender were not officially issued until September 1983, so the offer would probably have been in 1983. I'll check the files again and see if there is a more specific date.

 

[Kiltonge]

Found a Flight article, November 1983. 155 T-34 proposed as Future Basic Trainer in one of two standards, FBT and FBT(O).

Baseline FBT incorporated Hawk cockpit layout, three-position flaps, reinforced windscreen, electric trimming, prop and windscreen electric de-icing, ultrasonic gear-position indicator, ELT and baggage holds. Avionics to include dual UHF, AoA gauge and lights and British-sourced instruments.

FBT(O) with uprated engine, Stencel Ranger rocket harnesses ( as in the Firecracker ), NBC filtration, FDR, nicad battery and airframe fatigue recorder.

Same issue had a handy little table of early AST.412 contenders.