Jump to content

Red arrows to get new aircraft


cathasatail

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, magwitch said:

 

What are they for then? I am baffled as to what return the UK gets for the 10m+/year it spends on them. There also over 100 full time service personnel assigned to them which seems ridiculous.

 

Just about any British defence project. Why do you think the tours are generally aimed eastwards? Because that's UK plc's market, particularly for aviation assets such as Hawk 100+ and Typhoon. It showcases the product and the professionalism and skill of those who manufacture, maintain and operate them.

 

It's about influence.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It certainly is.

 

The red arrows are the shop window of the RAF, the

home page if you like. The grey jets go relatively unseen

on a daily basis, which is probably as it should be.

We still have some RAF open days and all eyes

still turn skywards as they perform. I live not far from Scampton,

I still look skywards and I see vehicles stopped on the

A15 as the occupants watch practice flights.

They also have been used as promotional tools

at international airshows to great effect, as was said above.

Fast jet pilots aspire to get onto the team. In my time in the RAF,

a posting onto the 'Reds' wasn't casually offered to technicians,

it was a plum job and a compliment to your skills. One hundred

personnel, broken down into trades, is not a lot for what you get.

And full time personnel means you get continuity of knowledge and

skills in an engineering environment, vital with military aircraft.

And here I can speak from almost forty years on military aircraft.

 

Arguments and disagreements on here will not influence the

future choice of aircraft for the team. I just hope there will still

be a team for the near and long term future.

 

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting turn of discussion recently, which has made my braincell tick over...

 

If the Red Arrows are in fact for Public Relations purposes, surely having them do more than just fly around in pretty formations on random days?

Added to this is the cost of operating the aircraft after the obvious purchase price to the taxpayer, so perhaps a "different business model" needs to be explored?

 

A suggestion would have to be the types used in the Red Bull air races (according to wiki:  such as the Zivko Edge 540, MXS-R, and the Corvus Racer 540, equipped with Lycoming engines) painted up in RA colours.

 

Benefits:

1: purchase price.

2: Operating costs.

3: Seriously good flight performance characteristics.

4: Excellent low level performance (UK grotty weather days)

 

Couple with this would be the ability to enter into the air race circuit (Publuc Relations exposure!).

 

Food for thought.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AWFK10 said:

 

On the contrary, John is exactly right.................

Chopped for brevity of the thread.

 

The PR bit on behalf of UK PLC is by no means solely about Defence Contracts and what Military 'clout' we can deliver,  whatever Naval Enthusiasts may believe.  

 

Published aims of the MoD include  

  • project our global influence
  • promote our prosperity (does not specify Military Industries only)

That's why we have thing like the Reds, chasing Elephant Poachers in Africa, hunting Drug Barons in Columbia, Warships calling into Ports in odd parts of the world and having cocktail parties and building schools, Military exercises in odd parts of the world.

 

Whether the Armed Forces are in a position to be able to do this these things without impacting on other tasks is another issue, and if we need to, but cannot, carry out all of these tasks, it is at the feet of the people we all have elected into positions of power (and that is as near Political as I am going !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, FIGHTS ON said:

 I can assure you that there are other holes in Defence (and arguably NHS etc) where £10m+ a year would be better spent. Apart from London Ceremonial Duties (which generate Tourist income for UK PLC) EVERY other Public display function in Defence has pretty well long since dried up - and rightly so.

So.......

 

HMS Victory

Edinburgh Tattoo

Any Military Band

Any Military Ceremonial Uniform

Any Naval Open Day

Any Air Show with a Military presence

500 horses in the Army, 2 for every tank we have.

BBMF

Attendance at any function outside of the Military environment ( Rememberance Day, Lord Mayors Parade London...)

 

And thats without thinking......... 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, junglierating said:

 

Scupper me the poop decks awash ,Starting to get nasty now.....in order to ask when rights on was turned down by the RAF presumably you have been in the armed services.

 

 

I ain't say nuffin coppa.....:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can I add;

Humanitarian missions; currently the Med rescuing immigrants from the sea. Recently; the Ebola crises in Africa. Their skill and devotion to aiding people is seen by everyone and upholds the nation as a caring civilisation.

Museums; RAF Cosford & Hendon, FAA Yeovil, Bovington, Army Air Corps, Regimentals; Shows a pround history, the future sometimes, brings in tourists to the country.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a past life, I was the Hawk desk officer.  One of my major tasks, along with the engineering section, was to identify the means of keeping the RAFAT flying until end of season 2018.  As has been mentioned, part of the role of RAFAT is as a method of demonstrating/promoting UK industry.  Clearly, a non-UK flying platform would be totally self defeating but, with a purchase of onlt 28 Hawk T2s there are no spare airframes to set 12 aside for RAFAT.  

 

The initial point that I didn't make, was the difficulty in keeping sufficient spare parts available for RAFAT to last until end of season 2018.  Whatever you may perceive, the main U/C legs and the canopies of Hawks are 'show stoppers'.  The Hawks in storage may have low airframe hours but they are misding all the parts necessary to keep the current fleet going.  Truth is, the Hawk T1 was suppossed to be replaced in 2001 (the airframe was lifed to 25 years) clearly it wasn't.  

 

Reflect, if you will, that media reports every year, for at least the last 10, have reflected upon the future of RAFAT.  I may be wrong - but I think 2018 will be RAFATs last season. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, junglierating said:

Well I seriously hope it isn't the last season....but when they got rid of command field gun competition.....the navy kinda changed.

Ah well what will be will be.

 

That was always good to watch, when I met a few of the guys they were like monsters, big old boys.

 

Fair play to the guys......and their missing fingers !

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we're looking at this all wrong. I think we all agree ( I only put this in so people can freak out saying they don't) that as we can barely blow anyone up very much or very badly for very long any more we should get rid of the rest and keep the arrows as that would save money which would satisfy what appears to be the prime directive of all our armed forces (or at least the MOD) these days. Feel free to discuss. 

Edited by spaddad
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, before I add anything more I should advise you that I retired from the RAF (and, obviously, the Hawk Desk Officer - FT2A) 10 years ago.  So, you will appreciate that, if the RAF was concerned about the longevity of the Hawk T1 back then and even then spares were becoming an issue, by now FT2A must have a very difficult challenge keeping 208 Sqn, 100 Sqn and the RN unit running.  The Tucano is going to be replaced as that aircraft is worn out and, as I understand it, that replacement will act in the Basic and Advanced Flying Training role prior to the students moving to Hawk T2.  

      All of this is second hand information gleaned from friends still associated with the Flying Training system.

 

I think Spaddad is commenting along the right lines.  It would be a difficult thing to justify the cost of buying aircraft 'just' for the purpose of keeping The Reds going.  2018 was always 'the year' because it is the 100th anniversary year of the RAF.

 

Junglierating (that took some double checking until I realised it wasn't a difficult foreign name) when I left RAF Valley, the T2 was a brand new aircraft, when I left the RAF 2 years later it was just going through course development.  That it has parts support issues is news to me not least because I have no contact with anyone at Valley or flying the T2.  I daresay any spares are sent to overseas operators to keep them sweet.  

 

Note: I reiterate: my comments are based upon my experience from a decade ago plus information gleaned by  casual conversation from contacts in the Basic Flying Training world.  It could ALL have changed in the meantime! 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have it... The B&Q Sovereign 90L Wheelbarrow ( in Orange but re paintable at small cost).

Pro's ; Fully air transportable en mass so no ferry flight costs, only one flight needed.

           Highly manoeuvrable and agile.

           Environmentally friendly.

           Swing role, can carry it's own pilots luggage pod.

           Peace time dividend, can build houses and pavements or carry out humanitarian work.

           Small unit costs( tax man and public friendly)

           Low maintenance costs.

           Third level defence role supporting REME, etc

           Low pilot training costs.

          

Con's;  Low level only( minor issue )

 

Link here:

http://www.diy.com/departments/bq-sovereign-orange-90l-wheelbarrow/254663_BQ.prd

 

 

           I have seen more wacky ideas, like Scarlet F35's.....I tell you!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

H i n t,

  you have overlooked the cost of redeveloping this item into an acceptable MOPO (Military operated, Publicly owned) item.  The necessary modifications, spares - probably prioritised for supply to an overseas country to whom we have sold the same wheelbarrow (WB) WB Tmk51.  All of these will drive up the cost of initial WB Tmk1, with the supply problems limiting the serviceabilty and availability of the WB.  This will also be an untried platform, requiring extensive testing at Boscombe Down furthermore, the transition from the WB Tmk1 to Hawk Tmk2 might well require a transitional platform.

 

The RAFAT might find some of their manoeuvres somewhat limited 'Concord' to 'Concourse', 'Roll off the Top' to 'Roll of turf off the front',  'Diamond 9' to 'Diamond paving slabs', 'Leaders benefit' to 'Leaders top soil' etc, etc.

(This'll be an interesting line of discussion, me thinks!)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TeeELL said:

H i n t,

  you have overlooked the cost of redeveloping this item into an acceptable MOPO (Military operated, Publicly owned) item.  The necessary modifications, spares - probably prioritised for supply to an overseas country to whom we have sold the same wheelbarrow (WB) WB Tmk51.  All of these will drive up the cost of initial WB Tmk1, with the supply problems limiting the serviceabilty and availability of the WB.  This will also be an untried platform, requiring extensive testing at Boscombe Down furthermore, the transition from the WB Tmk1 to Hawk Tmk2 might well require a transitional platform.

 

The RAFAT might find some of their manoeuvres somewhat limited 'Concord' to 'Concourse', 'Roll off the Top' to 'Roll of turf off the front',  'Diamond 9' to 'Diamond paving slabs', 'Leaders benefit' to 'Leaders top soil' etc, etc.

(This'll be an interesting line of discussion, me thinks!)

 

Very valid points but they are what one would expect for a military platform, the cost as you say may be inflated but that does seem to be the way with new military hardware. On the up side, spares should be readily available from the extensive B&Q supply network, maybe a downgraded version could be offered for overseas military.

I think you do have a point however with it being an untried platform, hopefully this will not extend the in service date too far.

 

As for transitional training may I be so bold as to suggest this;

Flying Jeep Rotabuggy 2

 

This unit will have full interoperability with the WB TMk1 therefore maintaining most points made in Pro's column although fuel efficiency and green credentials have just fallen through the floor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

15 hours ago, Pete in Lincs said:

The red arrows are the shop window of the RAF, the

home page if you like.

 

The point of a shop window is that it showcases what the shop has in stock. Some people may take it at face value but if they urgently need something that's in the window and find that in reality there's only an empty box, then they're going to be in trouble. Other people may know that the shelves are empty but humour the shopkeeper, because he's an old bloke who used to be a prominent member of the community back in the day and they don't want to upset him - or maybe because, if they pretend to believe his boasting about what he's got in the back, he buys them a pint down the pub. Someone else might have an acquisitive eye on the shop and be planning to take over the lease, as he's well aware that the shopkeeper hasn't actually got two pennies to rub together and would never be able to buy him out, leaving him free to flatten the place and build rental property on the site. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wot?

 

Wheelbarrows? What about the smoke?

If you're burning something in the barrow

then H & S will insist the pushers/Jockeys

must wear a respirator. This could seriously

mess up their hair. We don't want to go there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎01‎/‎11‎/‎2016 at 5:13 PM, bhouse said:

Frankly I wouldn't be surprised if the goverment chose to replace the Hawks with Cessna 150s. Much cheaper to buy and run, you see. 

You are probably right, except they would likely lease the Cessna's!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone thinks that binning RAFAT would result in a saving of £10 million they are living in cloud cuckoo land - the personnel will still need to be paid.

 

Even if it did save £10 million, anyone who thinks that saving would be fed back into the Defence Budget is living in a different universe.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...