Red Arrows Hawks to be replaced by F16s!
Discussion
.jpg)
as ever my favourite part of the article are the comments below from the public who seem so well informed of such matters, this was my favourite...
"I worked in aerospace, the Goshawk/T4 has a beefed up fuselage and landing gear, the Red Arrows use a Hawk which is beefed up everywhere, there are in fact 3 extra aircraft and 2 sets of wings for every plane because of the stresses they put them through."
It would make my job a lot easier if someone would tell me where those extra aircraft and wings are....
"I worked in aerospace, the Goshawk/T4 has a beefed up fuselage and landing gear, the Red Arrows use a Hawk which is beefed up everywhere, there are in fact 3 extra aircraft and 2 sets of wings for every plane because of the stresses they put them through."
It would make my job a lot easier if someone would tell me where those extra aircraft and wings are....
The actual author of the article that was butchered by the daily rags has said this:
Dear all.
As the author of the Airforces Monthly article on 736 Naval Air Squadron I would like to clear up a couple of points;
At NO time during my interview with the CO did he, or I, mention the RAF Red Arrows! Why would we when the article focus is the role carried out by the naval 'Aggressor' squadron. I still have the recorded interview on my dictaphone and the original article which I submitted to the editor. Both prove that the 'Reds' were never spoken of.
The mention of future replcement of FAA and RAF 100sqn Hawk T1 / T1A for their respective roles being older 'Block' F-16 was a wishful thinking idea. As most of you will know, the possible replcement aircraft is on-going and no formal announcment has been made, and is not expected for some time.
I have been inundated with messages and phone calls today regarding the very poor on-line article and I'm very annoyed that again the 'Daily Fail' and others can write such drivel!
Again I will state that at NO time did Lt Cdr Flatman mention the RAF Red Arrows.
Dear all.
As the author of the Airforces Monthly article on 736 Naval Air Squadron I would like to clear up a couple of points;
At NO time during my interview with the CO did he, or I, mention the RAF Red Arrows! Why would we when the article focus is the role carried out by the naval 'Aggressor' squadron. I still have the recorded interview on my dictaphone and the original article which I submitted to the editor. Both prove that the 'Reds' were never spoken of.
The mention of future replcement of FAA and RAF 100sqn Hawk T1 / T1A for their respective roles being older 'Block' F-16 was a wishful thinking idea. As most of you will know, the possible replcement aircraft is on-going and no formal announcment has been made, and is not expected for some time.
I have been inundated with messages and phone calls today regarding the very poor on-line article and I'm very annoyed that again the 'Daily Fail' and others can write such drivel!
Again I will state that at NO time did Lt Cdr Flatman mention the RAF Red Arrows.
Modern fighter aircraft are quite agile. The F-16 was the world's first Fly By Wire agile jet fighter.
And it is used by the USAF Thunderbirds display team.
Before the Red Arrows became the official display team of the RAF (in 1965), the RAF had made use of their fighter squadrons as the main "showcase" of formation display flying. This was a tradition that dated back to the 1920s and 30s when the biplane fighters of the day performed tight, combined aerobatics at displays such as the Hendon Air Pageant. The aircraft they used were aircraft such as Gloster Gamecocks, Bristol Bulldogs and Gloster Gauntlets.
All this stopped during World War 2 so we never got to see formation aerobatics from Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons.
The tradition was revived in the 1950s but by now the fighter squadrons were equipped with jets. Initially the single seat Vampire squadrons were favoured for formation aerobatics but the later Hunter proved to be an excellent display aircraft. By the end of the 1950s, both 92 squadron (the Blue Diamonds) and 111 Squadron (the Black Arrows) had become famous for their displays at Farnborough and other airshows.
When the Lightning entered service, the display teams continued (74 and 56 squadron both had formation teams using Lightnings) but it wasn't really suitable as it was big, heavy and expensive.
The decision was made, mainly on cost grounds, to form a team using trainers - which eventually became the Red Arrows. Initially they used Gnats and then switched to Hawks from 1980 onwards.
And it is used by the USAF Thunderbirds display team.
Before the Red Arrows became the official display team of the RAF (in 1965), the RAF had made use of their fighter squadrons as the main "showcase" of formation display flying. This was a tradition that dated back to the 1920s and 30s when the biplane fighters of the day performed tight, combined aerobatics at displays such as the Hendon Air Pageant. The aircraft they used were aircraft such as Gloster Gamecocks, Bristol Bulldogs and Gloster Gauntlets.
All this stopped during World War 2 so we never got to see formation aerobatics from Hurricane or Spitfire squadrons.
The tradition was revived in the 1950s but by now the fighter squadrons were equipped with jets. Initially the single seat Vampire squadrons were favoured for formation aerobatics but the later Hunter proved to be an excellent display aircraft. By the end of the 1950s, both 92 squadron (the Blue Diamonds) and 111 Squadron (the Black Arrows) had become famous for their displays at Farnborough and other airshows.
When the Lightning entered service, the display teams continued (74 and 56 squadron both had formation teams using Lightnings) but it wasn't really suitable as it was big, heavy and expensive.
The decision was made, mainly on cost grounds, to form a team using trainers - which eventually became the Red Arrows. Initially they used Gnats and then switched to Hawks from 1980 onwards.
The T1 is a very agile aircrfat, ask anyone from Coningsby and they will tell you 100 Sqn do a good job of escaping! T2 less so but it was designed for a different role. T1s will go beyond 2020 because there is no alternative as yet identified for 100 Sqn or 736NAS and we dont have enough T2s for those roles as well as 4 Sqn.
Eric Mc said:
I assumed that the Red Atrrows would eventually receive the new generation Hawks that are currently entering service with the RAF.
Unlikely as IIRC, all the T.2 aren't MOD owned, they are being supplied under PFI contract, and the PFI contract excludes air display usage from what I've read (same for new Voyager tankers)So, no chance of Reds getting T.2 IMHO.
The jounro who did the original interview has posted on PPrune that the Wail and Express articles are complete fabrication and invention of his original interview.
Can't cut n paste to put on here as will brake posting rules but you can find it easily on PPrune.
Edited by aeropilot on Monday 13th October 15:43
If a shooting war ever developed, would the RAF have to ask permission from the owners of these aeroplanes to use them in action?
How would that have worked during the Battle of Britain?
"I say, old bean - any chance I can rent out the old crate for a spot of target practice on the Boche?"
"No problems, just make sure she comes back undamaged and with the petrol tank refilled.
Please note the terms and conditions of Clause 4(a)(iii) of the Hire Agreement that the hirer is responsible for any damage or accidents that may occur during the period of hire and will be liable to to the hiring company for any costs which may be incurred in rectifying said damage Sign here, and here, and here."
How would that have worked during the Battle of Britain?
"I say, old bean - any chance I can rent out the old crate for a spot of target practice on the Boche?"
"No problems, just make sure she comes back undamaged and with the petrol tank refilled.
Please note the terms and conditions of Clause 4(a)(iii) of the Hire Agreement that the hirer is responsible for any damage or accidents that may occur during the period of hire and will be liable to to the hiring company for any costs which may be incurred in rectifying said damage Sign here, and here, and here."
If a shooting war ever arose and we were reliant on T2s we would have already lost. The UK use T2 as training aircraft designed to bridge the gap between Tucano and OCU and packed full of avionics that the T1 isnt. The T1 has a cockpit full of dials and gauges, the T2 has a cockpit far more akin to a Typhoon. Other Countries have weaponised versions of the T1/T2 but we dont have the requirement for a sub-sonic attack aircraft.
We could buy more T2s for the red arrows but by all accounts they arent as manoeuverable as the T1s. We would also need some build slots at Warton and they are busy with overseas stuff at the moment.
T1s can be extended whilst we decide what to replace them with. TBH technology is probably not too far off to allow the use of drones for some roles!
We could buy more T2s for the red arrows but by all accounts they arent as manoeuverable as the T1s. We would also need some build slots at Warton and they are busy with overseas stuff at the moment.
T1s can be extended whilst we decide what to replace them with. TBH technology is probably not too far off to allow the use of drones for some roles!
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th October 16:09
pablo said:
If a shooting war ever arose and we were reliant on T2s we would have already lost. The UK use T2 as training aircraft designed to bridge the gap between Tucano and OCU and packed full of avionics that the T1 isnt. The T1 has a cockpit full of dials and gauges, the T2 has a cockpit far more akin to a Typhoon. Other Countries have weaponised versions of the T1/T2 but we dont have the requirement for a sub-sonic attack aircraft.
We could buy more T2s for the red arrows but by all accounts they arent as manoeuverable as the T1s. We would also need some build slots at Warton and they are busy with overseas stuff at the moment.
T1s can be extended whilst we decide what to replace them with. TBH technology is probably not too far off to allow the use of drones for some roles!
All no doubt correct.We could buy more T2s for the red arrows but by all accounts they arent as manoeuverable as the T1s. We would also need some build slots at Warton and they are busy with overseas stuff at the moment.
T1s can be extended whilst we decide what to replace them with. TBH technology is probably not too far off to allow the use of drones for some roles!
Edited by pablo on Monday 13th October 16:09
However, during the cold war some Hawk T1s were tasked with airfield defence and were even fitted with Sidewinders, including those of the Red Arrows-
pablo said:
Because reds are just black aircraft modified, although it's a fairly invasive set of modifications, they will still be capable of carrying weapons if that was their previous role. they can't however go from red to black again.
When I started on Hawks they were just T1's, but as they had their wings off pretty much all the fleet were modified up to T1a standard, which meant wiring for Sidewinders.As Eric suggests, if war broke out most of the Hawks from Valley and the other 2 camps would have been armed with sidewinders and set up as point defence fighters spread around the UK.
pablo said:
Because reds are just black aircraft modified, although it's a fairly invasive set of modifications, they will still be capable of carrying weapons if that was their previous role. they can't however go from red to black again.
I was under the impression that reds were taken from the black fleet and periodically rotated, and thus equalizing airframe loadings across the Hawk fleet. At least that's what I was told by members of 208 SQN at RAF Valley when I escorted one of my cadets there for a Hawk trip. There was an ex-Reds jet on the line and the cadet asked if it would be possible to fly in that one. The only given reason that he couldn't go in that A/C was that the bang seat pin holders were in a different position to the rest of the fleet and therefore not as per his pre-flight briefing. Upon further questioning we were informed that at some point it would be returned to normal black jet status.Boatbuoy said:
I was under the impression that reds were taken from the black fleet and periodically rotated, and thus equalizing airframe loadings across the Hawk fleet. At least that's what I was told by members of 208 SQN at RAF Valley when I escorted one of my cadets there for a Hawk trip. There was an ex-Reds jet on the line and the cadet asked if it would be possible to fly in that one. The only given reason that he couldn't go in that A/C was that the bang seat pin holders were in a different position to the rest of the fleet and therefore not as per his pre-flight briefing. Upon further questioning we were informed that at some point it would be returned to normal black jet status.
Kind of. The black fleet is used by three different sqns for different purposes. Each Sqn will rack up different levels of fatigue on the major components over the same period so they do get swapped around those three (black) units to ensure an even balance, 208 dont put as much FI on the aircraft as 100 for example. Sqns like to keep their "own" aircraft as some have special to type role equipment but generally most of the aircraft can do every role. Obviously the reds rack up a greater FI than the other Sqns so an aircraft will go to the reds and not come back to the black fleet. That and the modifications required, as mentioned, are fairly substantial. Once the reds are finished with them they are retired because there is no FI left on the fuselage. There has never been a red aircraft converted back to black and its highly unlikely it will ever happen based on current OSDs and requirements. I'm pretty sure there have been red jets at Valley used for training sorties every now and then when the very last bit of FI needs using up but its very rare. There is only a finite number of aircraft left and the four user groups have substantial flying requirements so the fleet are getting pushed very hard. I manage the T1 major servicing programme btw
The point I was making about Eric's picture was the fact that the aircraft was almost certainly already capable of weapons fit before it was a red and wasnt converted for weapons fit whilst it was red.
Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 13th October 18:57
pablo said:
The point I was making about Eric's picture was the fact that the aircraft was almost certainly already capable of weapons fit before it was a red and wasnt converted for weapons fit whilst it was red.
I wasn't implying that the Red Arrows were singled out for airfield defence. Just that they were part of the air defence scheme of that period and looked on as a front line squadron in their own right.Edited by pablo on Monday 13th October 18:57
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff