Saudi Hawks update sign of the times for RAFAT
Thread Starter
Saudi Hawks update sign of the times for RAFAT
https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2024/02...rld-defense-sh
The Saudi Hawks have changed to the Hawk T65, interesting that our own peerless Red Arrows are unable to do the same.. Before anyone points out the fact that the RAF still can deliver effect, or whatever choice of terminology is in current use, and not there to entertain, this is still a drastic and embarrassing example of the UK's enfeeblement. That we can't do anything due to, as has been highlighted currently, our pointlessly small military posture.
FB
The Saudi Hawks have changed to the Hawk T65, interesting that our own peerless Red Arrows are unable to do the same.. Before anyone points out the fact that the RAF still can deliver effect, or whatever choice of terminology is in current use, and not there to entertain, this is still a drastic and embarrassing example of the UK's enfeeblement. That we can't do anything due to, as has been highlighted currently, our pointlessly small military posture.
FB
The RSAF display team have been using the BAe Hawk 65, 65A for around 3 decades now, but will now be transitioning to the 165.
They have been using the 165 for aircrew training etc. for a number of years already.
They have been using the 165 for aircrew training etc. for a number of years already.
https://www.air-shows.org.uk/2024/02...rld-defense-sh
The Saudi Hawks have changed to the Hawk T65, interesting that our own peerless Red Arrows are unable to do the same.. Before anyone points out the fact that the RAF still can deliver effect, or whatever choice of terminology is in current use, and not there to entertain, this is still a drastic and embarrassing example of the UK's enfeeblement. That we can't do anything due to, as has been highlighted currently, our pointlessly small military posture.
FB
The Saudi Hawks have changed to the Hawk T65, interesting that our own peerless Red Arrows are unable to do the same.. Before anyone points out the fact that the RAF still can deliver effect, or whatever choice of terminology is in current use, and not there to entertain, this is still a drastic and embarrassing example of the UK's enfeeblement. That we can't do anything due to, as has been highlighted currently, our pointlessly small military posture.
FB
(* Ok, there are a few prepared to work with the Magic Kingdom but they tend to be interested in one of the aforementioned specialities of murder, oil or money.)
Thread Starter
Who cares and who, in the UK, would want to look at Saudi as a guide of what should be done on any given topic. A murderous regime, dripping in money, oil and blood, gets to have some new shiny toys. It means nothing. Nobody* sane would look at Saudi as a beacon, or a guide or as a trusted friend. What they get up to usually tends towards the horrific so it's probably not worth getting distracted by this kind of thing.
(* Ok, there are a few prepared to work with the Magic Kingdom but they tend to be interested in one of the aforementioned specialities of murder, oil or money.)
(* Ok, there are a few prepared to work with the Magic Kingdom but they tend to be interested in one of the aforementioned specialities of murder, oil or money.)
FB
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: In the State of Denial
Posts: 1,078
Likes: 0
Received 146 Likes
on
28 Posts
Maybe BAE would like to ‘lease’ (at a substantial discount) some shiny new Hawks to the Reds for the obvious PR benefit of their aircraft being displayed by the premier AT?
I think you have a warped sense of what an ally is - we share no values, culture, loyalty, common history or have any mutual defence treaties with the House of Saud. UK PLC's interest in that land is oil, money & regional influence. If you think we would have any dealings with them should they be devoid of oil & money then you may need to drink stronger coffee.
The following 2 users liked this post by Just This Once...:
The following users liked this post:
Thread Starter
I think you have a warped sense of what an ally is - we share no values, culture, loyalty, common history or have any mutual defence treaties with the House of Saud. UK PLC's interest in that land is oil, money & regional influence. If you think we would have any dealings with them should they be devoid of oil & money then you may need to drink stronger coffee.
Our armed forces, as has been reflected upon daily over the what seems like months, are in a deeply weakened and abandoned state. We have two aircraft carriers, neither can be deployed for reasons of either maintenance or manning, not without abandoning other ships. Frigates and Destroyers can't be deployed because they can't be re-supplied, the only veesels we had capable of doing that our safe pair of hands government sold off to Egypt in 2021. Enough said. Typically, traditionally, the RAF has been more man power intensive than the Naval Services, not any more and the RN is alarmingly short of personnel. Whoever you chose to compare HM Forces with now, we might have, through decades of political and leadership folly, reached the bottom I can't imagine it getting any worse, or can it?.
FB
The following 3 users liked this post by Finningley Boy:
There's nothing wrong ...
...
There's nothing wrong with the Red Arrows' Hawks Mk 1 ...
... that 'front seat command eject' (of the back seater) and the 'gas shackle ejection seat mod' wouldn't cure.
Frankly yes ... We ain't seen nothing yet ... wait til we're properly challenged ...
The Manchurian Candidate ... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/27402
...
LFH
There's nothing wrong with the Red Arrows' Hawks Mk 1 ...
... that 'front seat command eject' (of the back seater) and the 'gas shackle ejection seat mod' wouldn't cure.
I can't imagine it getting any worse, or can it ?
The Manchurian Candidate ... https://www.kyivpost.com/opinion/27402
...
LFH
Last edited by Lordflasheart; 5th Feb 2024 at 22:44.
Hawk facts
The Hawk T2 has the same G limits as the T1.
Hawk 165/166/167 are effectively identical to the Hawk T2.
There will never be any new build BAE Hawks ever again. Ever.
Can I dispel any other nonsense facts while I’m here?
BV
Hawk 165/166/167 are effectively identical to the Hawk T2.
There will never be any new build BAE Hawks ever again. Ever.
Can I dispel any other nonsense facts while I’m here?
BV
The following 4 users liked this post by Bob Viking:
Join Date: May 2003
Location: The 24th & a Half Century
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 8 Likes
on
7 Posts
Well said BV! There’s a very obvious solution to all this, ditch T1, move T2 to RAFAT and transition to a new AJT.
HAL has stated it would need 2 years notice to restart its production line for the IAF, maybe Rish!'s father-in-law could talk to them nicely. 
Replacement for Red Arrows Hawks, no problem.
A T2 leader +8 of these, if at all.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...156791.article
,
A T2 leader +8 of these, if at all.
https://www.flightglobal.com/defence...156791.article
,
Last edited by safetypee; 5th Feb 2024 at 21:58. Reason: Clarity
I have no such dellusions of what kind of country Saudi Arabia is, I worked directly with the RSAF from 1991 to 1993 and unlike many western chaps in the Jeddah community, refused to attend any of the barbarous public executions, I was able to withold my curiosity sufficiently. However, ally is a statement of fact, it is perhaps an irrelavant point, which is that they a tiny country, have so much more give militarily. Someone posted earlier that if we could afford more Hawks, they should go straight to RAF Valley, that in itself, makes my point entirely.
Our armed forces, as has been reflected upon daily over the what seems like months, are in a deeply weakened and abandoned state. We have two aircraft carriers, neither can be deployed for reasons of either maintenance or manning, not without abandoning other ships. Frigates and Destroyers can't be deployed because they can't be re-supplied, the only veesels we had capable of doing that our safe pair of hands government sold off to Egypt in 2021. Enough said. Typically, traditionally, the RAF has been more man power intensive than the Naval Services, not any more and the RN is alarmingly short of personnel. Whoever you chose to compare HM Forces with now, we might have, through decades of political and leadership folly, reached the bottom I can't imagine it getting any worse, or can it?.
FB
Our armed forces, as has been reflected upon daily over the what seems like months, are in a deeply weakened and abandoned state. We have two aircraft carriers, neither can be deployed for reasons of either maintenance or manning, not without abandoning other ships. Frigates and Destroyers can't be deployed because they can't be re-supplied, the only veesels we had capable of doing that our safe pair of hands government sold off to Egypt in 2021. Enough said. Typically, traditionally, the RAF has been more man power intensive than the Naval Services, not any more and the RN is alarmingly short of personnel. Whoever you chose to compare HM Forces with now, we might have, through decades of political and leadership folly, reached the bottom I can't imagine it getting any worse, or can it?.
FB
Hardly abandoned, more like badly mismanaged .
The following 3 users liked this post by pr00ne:
Thread Starter
FB
We are never ready for War. I seem to recall still having some bi-planes in fighter command in 1939 and various obsolete types like Battle and Blenheim.
We seem to come through it.
We seem to come through it.
The Battle and Blenheim had only flown 3 and 4 years before. And were revolutionary at the time.
Yes they were very vulnerable but that was much more a reflection of poor usage and lack of understanding how vulnerable day bombers would be. I think you are confusing not fit for purpose and obsolete. Now if we had fielded Heyfords and Hinds they would have been obsolete !
THe RAFAT also fly an obsolete aeroplane!
The following 2 users liked this post by typerated: