Red Arrows to be chopped? Again!
"Tony Blair has reneged on promises he made to British troops just four months ago, when he pledged that commanders would be supplied with whatever they needed to "get the job done".
Wow, what a shock, Anthony Bliar breaks a promise? I would rather believe the Taliban!
Wow, what a shock, Anthony Bliar breaks a promise? I would rather believe the Taliban!
Nope - the Reds must stay!
It is the Browns who must be $hitcanned - Gay Gordon and Dismal Des!!
KEEP THE REDS, BIN THE BROWN(E)S!!
It is the Browns who must be $hitcanned - Gay Gordon and Dismal Des!!
KEEP THE REDS, BIN THE BROWN(E)S!!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Muscat, Oman
Posts: 604
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know if they're still called Alternative Assumptions, but that's what they were in my time in London. The easiest way to find out if something was being canned as a savings measure was to look for the Reds. If it was above the Reds you were ok, if it was below them it was scrapped. They defined the cut off line (unofficially).
Suspicion breeds confidence
One looming fact is that the T1As are old and have limited shelf life, they are not going to be replaced on a one for one basis by Hawk 128s so something has to give. Once Typhoon is established, would it not make sense to allocate one aircraft from each of the Sqns up to a maximum of say 6 this provides redundancy to cover operational requirements. The result would be a far more impressive display by a really fast jet, reduced overheads and a public which actually sees something of the aircraft it has paid so much money for. Yes it can still be called the Red Arrows.
I'd pay good money to see a Typhoon equipped Red Arrows.
I'd pay good money to see a Typhoon equipped Red Arrows.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that when we've just endured a quite shameful week in which the tabloid press have successfully told a nation what to think (the Big Brother saga) I think everyone can now confidently dismiss any newspaper stories about the RAF (or any other topic) as being a load of nonsense, intended to merely to sell copies. The Red Arrows subject is bound to come-up now and again, but just because they've been included in a review doesn't mean that anything will ultimately change. But it makes a newspaper headline for a dull Sunday.
It's my guess that they'll probably announce that the display season is to be pruned slightly, or something like that. Given that the RAF's airshow participation is being changed quite radically, it would seem like a good opportunity to cut-back the Red's activities in line with this policy. Of course it won't actually save much cash, but then these exercises are never about real savings - they're about being seen to save money.
Given that the Hawks will be worn-out in three years or so, it would seem likely that the team will continue to operate them until they're out of hours. The real question is what happens then. Tucanos may have been a possibility but with the new training system gradually coming along, even the Tucanos will be gone before too long, so the RAF's not going to be in a position where only the Reds operate Tucanos, while Linton has a fleet of shiny new trainers. Financially it's just not a practical proposition. I guess the Reds could be given new trainers too but it's unlikely that there will be sufficient aircraft to even handle all the RAF's basic flying training needs and also equip an aerobatic team.
More new Hawks would also be an option, but the new order doesn't even realistically cover the RAF's training requirements, so there's no chance that the Reds might get some of these aircraft too - that's just not going to happen.
Realistically, I think we can expect the Reds to stay in business (possibly with less display dates) for another three years or so. When the Hawks then start to reach the end of their lives, I guess there may be some opportunity for bringing-in aircraft from 4FTS to keep the Reds in business a little longer (as Valley begins to receive new-build Hawks) but once that route is also exhausted, I fear that it really will spell the end of the Reds.
Perhaps it's a cynical view, but it would be the most appropriate time for the bean-counters to let the proverbial axe fall, as it will enable the MoD to simply say that they are not "chopping" the team - but that the team's aircraft are simply no longer airworthy. It's the perfect opportunity, so you can only expect it to be used
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=Navaleye;3081189] reduced overheads QUOTE]
Not so - I did actually raise this subject with the Reds some years ago, albeit with F3's not Typhoons (I asked why it wasn't just as practical to re-form the Firebirds). In practical terms it's impossible because the costs of the logistics and manpower involved would be much, much higher than maintaining the team as it is. It would look good but you do indeed get what you pay for.
Not so - I did actually raise this subject with the Reds some years ago, albeit with F3's not Typhoons (I asked why it wasn't just as practical to re-form the Firebirds). In practical terms it's impossible because the costs of the logistics and manpower involved would be much, much higher than maintaining the team as it is. It would look good but you do indeed get what you pay for.
Sounds very like a Sunday Newspaper version of a troll.
I think it would be politically embarrassing to abolish them especialy after Tony Bliar keepin saying he is spending more and more on the defence budget..
I think it would be politically embarrassing to abolish them especialy after Tony Bliar keepin saying he is spending more and more on the defence budget..
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Longton, Lancs, UK
Age: 80
Posts: 1,527
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Navaleye
Your idea has my vote - and might not be as cost-prohibitive as TM suggests, given the significantly lower LCC of Typhoon over Tornado, albeit I suspect it's a non-starter. Seven or eight dedicated aircraft for a six-aircraft display. Would be interesting to see some realistic fag-packet figures to dispel the notion - or otherwise.
Your idea has my vote - and might not be as cost-prohibitive as TM suggests, given the significantly lower LCC of Typhoon over Tornado, albeit I suspect it's a non-starter. Seven or eight dedicated aircraft for a six-aircraft display. Would be interesting to see some realistic fag-packet figures to dispel the notion - or otherwise.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it's not my opinion - I'm just recalling what the Reds (and Support Command) said to me at the time. As they rightly pointed-out, it's a nightmare keeping just two Tornados serviceable for a couple of displays every weekend so the idea of six Typhoons... no chance, and that's not even considering the huge cost.
The thought also strikes me that the Sunday Express journo has lurked on this site for literally years, using it as a source for lifting stories almost verbatim. Sadly to my knowledge he's never had the good grace to introduce himself. Most Express stories should effectively be classified as PRUNEINT 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoever hinted at a Tucano team - DON'T DO IT. When RAAF went from Macchi to PC-9, the RAAF display team sounded like a formation lawn mowing team.
Keep them in JETS! - whatever type!
Keep them in JETS! - whatever type!
When you read headlines like this, it does make it very hard to justify the continuation of a dedicated display team.
as an entirely tangental question, in the 1980's we bought some 350 Tornado's of various types, yet somehow the RAF squeals when half a dozen GR4's are required. what happened to the other 344?
Suspicion breeds confidence
As they rightly pointed-out, it's a nightmare keeping just two Tornados serviceable for a couple of displays every weekend so the idea of six Typhoons... no chance,
Last edited by Navaleye; 21st Jan 2007 at 17:02.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Nigit
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One looming fact is that the T1As are old and have limited shelf life, they are not going to be replaced on a one for one basis by Hawk 128s so something has to give. Once Typhoon is established, would it not make sense to allocate one aircraft from each of the Sqns up to a maximum of say 6 this provides redundancy to cover operational requirements. The result would be a far more impressive display by a really fast jet, reduced overheads and a public which actually sees something of the aircraft it has paid so much money for. Yes it can still be called the Red Arrows.
I'd pay good money to see a Typhoon equipped Red Arrows.
I'd pay good money to see a Typhoon equipped Red Arrows.
Navaleye gets to the heart of the matter that no-one would like to see funding needed for front line forces being spent instead on a display team.
However politically chopping the Red Arrows would have a great impact and would be an admission by the Govt that they have kept, and continue to keep our troops short of vital equipment.
However politically chopping the Red Arrows would have a great impact and would be an admission by the Govt that they have kept, and continue to keep our troops short of vital equipment.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Sheffield
Posts: 927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's all about politics as usual. Chopping the Reds wouldn't save much and you can bet that the savings would never be re-invested elsewhere. Likewise, the Reds pilots maintain their proficiency whilst flying with the team (they get more hours than their counterparts) so it's not as if they would suddenly be "freed-up" to join other squadrons - in essence they're already there and available.
It's just another political gesture - the Treasury could be seen to be saving money even though they'd save little and just destroy another Great British Tradition. Nothing new there then...
It's just another political gesture - the Treasury could be seen to be saving money even though they'd save little and just destroy another Great British Tradition. Nothing new there then...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
ProfessionalStudent:
Nice bit of photoshop type work, was the picture done using DA1 - German single seat with 'nose boom', DA2 - UK single seat with 'nose boom' or DA3 - Italian single seat with 'nose boom'. I am just interested, not trying to be clever or anything but these three were the only ones that had the 'nose boom' fitted.
Nice bit of photoshop type work, was the picture done using DA1 - German single seat with 'nose boom', DA2 - UK single seat with 'nose boom' or DA3 - Italian single seat with 'nose boom'. I am just interested, not trying to be clever or anything but these three were the only ones that had the 'nose boom' fitted.