Hawks replaced by Falcons?

[XV107]

I'd rather see the Reds disband and swallow their pride in their 50th anniversary year rather than have the F-16 in red!! I can't imagine a more boring RIAT with one F-16 after another already at such shows let alone another 7 or 9 red ones tearing around the sky added. Just not the same.

I sincerely hope it is the media getting it wrong as always.

Lightening it up a bit, who will be the first with a model one here in any scale???

It's not the media getting it wrong, Paul - it's the media making it up! As noted above, what's happened is that the replacement of the Hawk T1 in one particular role has been mentioned and some journalist has decided to write the story up despite the fact that there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone has ever considered replacing the Hawks with F-16s when the Hawk T1 reaches its out of service date.

In fact, that's being charitable - simply put, the readers of the original story have been lied to and the readers of those newspapers which have produced their own version of the story without bothering to check it have been misled.

[magwitch]

If they are to remain operating, I think BAE Systems and others would do a 'special price' deal.

Yes, BAE Systems are well known for their charitable benevolence when dealing with the UK govt.

[Max Headroom]

Yes, BAE Systems are well known for their charitable benevolence when dealing with the UK govt.

I did have my tounge somewhat in my cheek at that point! The fact remains that if they are to continue then the T.2 is the only realistic option. Funding is another issue though.

Trevor

[heloman1]

The quote referred to in the article actually came from a piece in October's Air Forces Monthly about the Fleet Air Arm's 736 Squadron which suggested the F-16s might be considered as replacements for that unit's Hawk T.Mk1s; it didn't make any reference to the Red Arrows even though the main stream media know that the RAFAT is the only operator of the Hawk!

Sounds like it might have been the same military correspondant that reported earlier this year (?) about the 24 British destroyers assembled in the Gulf of Hormuz.

Colin

[wyverns4]

Sounds like it might have been the same military correspondant that reported earlier this year (?) about the 24 British destroyers assembled in the Gulf of Hormuz.

Colin

Apologies for being 'slightly' OTT, but...

Do we still have that many floating targets left in the entire dark blue service?

Christian the Married and exiled to africa

[Pin]

Hawk is a subsonic two seated trainer, Viper is a suprtsonic single seater fighter. How can you simple replace one with another?

[davidelvy]

Having watched Guy Martin's programme, what about replacing the Hawks with newly-built Spitfire's. OK, slower than the Hawks, but 9 Spits flying in formation would be a real crowd-pleaser. They would not be cheap, but as they depend upon simpler technology they lon-term costs would be much lower that jets.

(Please note, this is just the product of 3 minutes of happy musings. It will never happen and it cannot happen, but the thought of it happening is very pleasing.)

[andym]

Apologies for being 'slightly' OTT, but...

Do we still have that many floating targets left in the entire dark blue service?

Christian the Married and exiled to africa

6 Destroyers (Type 45) and 13 Frigates (Type 23), which ignorant journalists no doubt consider "destroyers", I think. Chuck in the two Helicopter Landing/Carrier ships and the two Landing Dock platforms and you just about scrape 23 capital warships in total, (not including MCMV and Patrol vessels in this).

Andy

[magwitch]

I did have my tounge somewhat in my cheek at that point! The fact remains that if they are to continue then the T.2 is the only realistic option. Funding is another issue though.

Trevor

Ultimately they will be funded because scrapping the RAs will cause a political poo-poostorm. It'll probably be funded by scrapping another squadron of something that actually does something useful. eg Chinook squadron disbanded = nobody cares, Red Arrows disbanded = half the country in emotional meltdown.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Mike
No swearing please.

[Bobski]

thanks for that richard .. does BAE still make hawks ?? .

Yep. BAE still manufactures Hawk.

I wonder how many Gnats could be made airworthy? That would be interesting!! I expect it will be Hawk T2's though because the Reds T1's have/had a secondary war role so 10 red T2's would be easy to re-spray Air Defence Grey if necessary. Not as pretty as the T1 IMHO - mabe okay with the T1 nose?

Simon

For the Reds to use Hawk T2 the RAF would need to buy a lot more of them. The recent "behind the scenes" documentary about the Reds suggested that they needed 12-13 aircraft to guarantee the availability of 10 aircraft for a display (9 plus a spare). With the RAF's current fleet of T2s standing at just 28, that would mean almost 50% of the entire RAF Hawk fleet being used for the Reds. Not going to happen.

Short of the unlikely scenario of the RAF buying more T2s specifically for the Reds (too expensive), we're left with three possible outcomes in my mind:

1) The Reds disband in 2020 when their Hawk T1s go out of service.

2) The Reds continue, but with either Tucanos or whatever aircraft the RAF buys to replace Tucano when it goes out of service

3) The Reds continue with surplus Tranche 1 Typhoons.

For me, option 3 is a non-starter. As cool as it would be to see nine Typhoons flying formation aeros, the cost of running the team would increase exponentially. Option 2 is the most likely possibility if the Reds were to continue beyond the retirement of the Hawk T1, but I can't help but think that Option 1 is the most likely scenario. Sure, there would be the usual outcry from the Daily Fail and the Daily Express, but the overwhelming majority of the public would get over it very quickly (assuming they cared in the first place) and the cost savings to the RAF would be significant.

[HP42]

Having watched Guy Martin's programme, what about replacing the Hawks with newly-built Spitfire's. OK, slower than the Hawks, but 9 Spits flying in formation would be a real crowd-pleaser. They would not be cheap, but as they depend upon simpler technology they lon-term costs would be much lower that jets.

(Please note, this is just the product of 3 minutes of happy musings. It will never happen and it cannot happen, but the thought of it happening is very pleasing.)

I like to think of the Red Arrows as a showcase for UK as well as an advert for the Hawk, a great British sales success. If the current load need replacing then the best candidate is another tranche of Hawks of whatever variant is suitable. It would be too negative a public message if the Reds were to fold, you'd struggle to bury that story and you'd go down as the politician who killed a British institution.

Having said that, Spitfires would be a fabulous alternative. They would be expensive to make but not as expensive as a Hawk. You'd need to make more than 9 for serviceability reasons as I bet they'd go tech at the drop of a hat. Flying skills training and routines would be vastly different and depart from current training/experience, but I bet more pilots would want to fly the Spitfire than the Hawk. They'd also have to operate differently, not so easy to zoom over to Cyprus etc. to train and display.

Spitfires can be built pretty much from scratch and a short production run of authentic machines would bring the unit cost down, probably sufficient to allow further machines for the private market. Forget data plates, just find a way around it, it would be worth it for comparatively so many new aircraft. Bringing the unit cost down would also help the BBMF, the Canadian flight (i.e. Merlin engines and their derivatives) and the private market would appreciate the supply of spares.

The original story has no legs but possibly this has.... Joe public would turn out at an airshow to see 9 (or more) Spits doing a routine.

[Max Headroom]

Re the Spit Arrows, here's a thought

You get the idea.

I still think that some form of public/private deal with industry sponsoring is the way forward. Imagine BAES sponsor the airframe, RR the engines, MB for the bang seats, Sainsbury's for the unleaded, showcasing their products to the world. The MOD could find say 50%?

Trevor

[HP42]

I still think that some form of public/private deal with industry sponsoring is the way forward. Imagine BAES sponsor the airframe, RR the engines, MB for the bang seats, Sainsbury's for the unleaded, showcasing their products to the world. The MOD could find say 50%

Love the model, is that a whif scheme or was it authentic?

Could you actually fit a bang-seat in the Spitfire? As much as it should be an accurate nod to the original, a better method of escape would be a sensible move especially given the number of hours they'd be flying as well as the inherent nature of the flying routines. If you could hide the seat and make no external changes then fine, Joe Public wouldn't know the difference and there'd be no outcry we lost an airframe but saved the pilot.

The Vulcan is 'state of the ark' and in terms of its time line the basic design is actually closer to Queen Victoria's reign than the present day, yet it is still viewed with awe and wonder, many associating it with modernity. It still carries the banner of GB Plc and has been a huge feature in national pride. It fills airshows and has even coined the term 'the Vulcan effect'. Has anyone else noticed how the crowd actually goes quiet when the Vulcan displays...and then makes for the exit afterwards? My hunch is that a squadron of Spitfires (wa-hey a squadron!!) would have a similar effect, especially if displays were less than sedate. Being new aircraft without an individual antique history you could be quite robust with their handling as long as you factored in the reduced fatigue life.

The more I think about this the more I like it....

[Max Headroom]

HP42

The Spit is pure WHIF. See here....

http://www.britmodeller.com/forums/index.php?/topic/234927279-silver-spitfire-i-1-sqn-templehof-september-1939finished/#entry1136518

Trevor

[Bobski]

It would be too negative a public message if the Reds were to fold, you'd struggle to bury that story and you'd go down as the politician who killed a British institution.

It would be a small amount of bad press and then everyone would move on. Aviation enthusiasts like us would be cross, but unfortunately the majority of the public wouldn't be that bothered. They'll be angry initially because the newspapers will tell them to be angry, but as soon as the next episode of Britain Lacks Talent or whatever comes on they'll forget.

[HP42]

It would be a small amount of bad press and then everyone would move on. Aviation enthusiasts like us would be cross, but unfortunately the majority of the public wouldn't be that bothered. They'll be angry initially because the newspapers will tell them to be angry, but as soon as the next episode of Britain Lacks Talent or whatever comes on they'll forget.

...actually, you're probably correct. However, 'Thatcher, Thatcher the school milk snatcher' is still in many people's minds. Just needs a catchy slogan, answers on a postcard...