Aw c'mon; you know it would be better for the cadets to have a basic low performance 2 -seater to get them airborne constructed in those same modern materials. Spot landing at the launch point for maximum turnarounds; tandem seating so that they get used being 'alone' in the cockpit.
No good for aerobatics or cross country stuff but at least it would get more cadets airborne especially if the RAF re-opened some of their closed airfields; it's ridiculous having only one air cadet gliding site in the whole of the south east of England with Odiham, Abingdon, Halton, Bovingdon, Hendon, Henlow, Wethersfield, Manston, even Tangmere and West Malling all gone.
Even the airfield where I operated most recently, Fairoaks, has a history of gliding with No 167 GS being formed there in 1944 and disbanded in 1948 having used Cadet TX1s.

Best way to be used to being alone in the cockpit is in a single seater, worked ok for the Luftwaffe, none of this namby pamby dual nonsense, the instructor can light the fuse, wish them good luck and then hold the wing level : very economical on staff levels which is just as well as there are very few left. Of course to make it even more economical, teams of Cadets could build the machines from kits on parade nights. As the attrition rate will be a challenge we will have to up the recruitment program, but at least it will get them out in the fresh air away from using mobile phones and computer screens.

My vote for the Red Arrows replacement:

I'd like a Royal Air Force flying training programme that can turn out suitably trained pilots in a relevant time-scale using appropriate aircraft that are reliable, safe to fly and available in sufficient numbers please!

Reminds me of a certain helicopter operator which I visted with the cadets in the late '80s.
They operated Robinson R22s which they treated as 'disposable'. Inside their hangar was a stack of packing cases, each of which contained an R22 ready assembled so that if one of their aircraft got 'broken', they would simply get a fresh one out of a packing case and use it; what they did with the 'old' ones I don't know..

They should try www.stavatti.com

not sure if it’s a joke outfit but definitely odd and bidding for the T45 USN replacement

Wow - what a website... makes LinkedIn look like credible resource! I suspect this is the product of a teenager with too much time on their hands...

Will never get anywhere but they have been trying for many years. Something to keep someone occupied in the evening, by the looks of it.

How about not replacing them? Use the money on the front line instead. I doubt very much that the ‘good for recruiting’ and ‘promotes British industry’ excuses/reasons hold true any more. I’m certain that if a straw poll of currently-serving personnel was held, hardly any would say they joined because of watching the Red Arrows at an airshow. As for British industry, buying something non-British kind of blows that out of the water.

They are useful in keeping up the (false) impression that we still have a significant airforce to Joe Public.

The fact we'd be hard pressed to get 9 F-35's over London this week is covered up by using 9 elderly, but beautifully flown, Hawks

That’s a bit harsh when you consider that we have sent a boat load of F35s off on a sightseeing cruise of the world.

BV

They do have a PR value - for many they are the public face of the Air Force It was noticeable how many news reports said along the lines of '..a flypast by the RAF, including the Red Arrows'. In fact, they are probably the most visible individual unit in the Armed Forces.

Having said that, I think their goose was cooked when the decision was made to continue with the T1 and not order any T2 Hawks as replacement. It will just take a brave politician to actually scrap them.

But how many will be left at the end of the deployment? No carrier returns with a full complement of aircraft.

Don't open any packages marked from WE Branch Fanatic;)

it wouldn’t be a politician who makes the decision - it would be CAS. Politicians give him the money, but it’s up to him how he spends it.

Haters can hate as much as they like, but the Red Arrows are the RAF's only real PR tool nowadays, particularly with the demise of military SAR. How many British residents even see a military aircraft these days? How many people realise the BBMF is an RAF unit? Apart from the flypast over London how many people even know we have an air force?

And if you take the Red Arrows our of the picture then those figures will get even smaller.

Since when has the RAF's role been to be a PR tool!?!?

A CAS that says to the politicians - Never mind your PR I can't afford to spend that much of my budget on vintage aeroplanes and people who should be preparing for the war you're about to get us into would get my vote.

I'm not a hater - much to the contrary, several of my most cherished memories are of "the reds". But get real. Ten(plus) pilots, dozens of support personnel and millions of pounds when our flying training system is utterly screwed. Really!?!?!

And it's up to the politicians if he gets or keeps the job. How do you imagine that works out?

If only this were true. Unfortunately, myself and many former colleagues have been on the wrong end of political decisions to award major contracts to companies in Ministers' constituencies who haven't even bid for the job. One clue is when 'industrial impact' papers are demanded by the approvals committee, and they be written by anyone but the person employed to understand the issues.

I suspect another subtlety at play is that, according to MoD rules, the associated risks are being borne personally by the Secretary of State. Whether they actually are or not hasn't been revealed. This is directly linked to assurances given to the North Wales Coroner that the Hawk T.1 would be modified to make it ALARP. Now that it's within 5 years of the OSD, many will be trying to break that promise, in particular the Treasury.

The squadron seems to be recovering from its much publicised woes, and I'd hate to see them go. But the numbers won't look good to beancounters, now that RAFAT are bearing the vast majority of the cost of keeping the T.1/1A in service. (And we already know much of the basic work isn't being done). They were easier to justify when part of a much larger fleet. And while I wouldn't claim to know much about such things, my guess is the decision to move them out of 22 (Trg) Group a few years ago left 1 Group with a major headache on priorities. Officially/logically it's the front line fleets, but unofficially there's huge pressure for RAFAT to fly. Perhaps time for them to be wholly funded by public donation. After all, albeit on a smaller scale, this is the only reason a certain Army unit can fulfill one of its primary roles. Perhaps Little Donny can step in, in exchange for the Open at Turnberry.

Anybody for a drone display team? Isn't that the future?

..Isn't that a marching bagpipe band? :hmm:

If ever there was a salutary reminder of the RAF / RN fast jet status is to fly general aviation around Scotland. Twenty years ago my innermost worry when flying outside controlled airspace in a light aircraft was going head to head with a 420 knot phantom / tornado / harrier / jaguar / buccaneer / hawk. Not any more, never see a fast jet. I used to love seeing a fj whipping through the valleys and glens. The red arrows, brilliant though they are and have been are probably slightly past their sell by date. I say that with heavy heart as I always enjoyed their superlative displays and have flown with many ex team members in the airline context.

Not the role but it has been part of the role since the days of the RNAS and RFC. A lot of brave men lost their lives on ops that were of marginal military importance, but seen by poiticians as essential to national morale, or (IMO) by VSOs as needed to ensure the preservation of the service.

The preservation of the service is what I'm worried about - i simply think that those people and pounds could be better spent making sure that we've got an operational air force.

Bin the Reds, may as well finish the RAF. Country needs a focal point and RAFAT do that. People do not flock onto the Mail just to see a balcony! They see our Air Forces. The Reds are the pinnacle of that to them. We need some new advanced trainers FFS..

We certainly do need new advanced trainers. And money to buy them. And people to fix them. And people to fly them.

Maintaining a squadron of vintage jets for only five more years to make us feel good about the RAF will not help us actually improve the RAF in the face of the threats we and the world face. The Red's are no longer a pinnacle. They are an extravagant distraction and vanity project.

Do not misunderstand me - I'm heartsick that we're in the position that we're now in where i have to say this. But we are where we are.

And to say that if we bin the reds then we might as well finish the RAF!?!? What is the actual purpose of the RAF - to defend and protect the skies of this country and to further our interests overseas - or to make the public feel good?

Are you really suggesting that the only way to justify the existence of the RAF is 9 40 year old training aircraft making pretty pictures in the sky?

No I am not. But it serves a valid purpose of PR. The public pays for the RAF..

Exactly. While I think the UK does benefit from the 'soft power' of a display team, I don't think running a 9 ship is financially justifiable given the dire state of the forces in general.

A few facts might be helpful in this discussion.

For example, what is the annual cost of running the Red Arrows compared to say s Typhoon squadron?

Talk of "savings made" by disbanding the Red Arrows need to be both quantified and seen in context.

I was rather hoping you'd follow that statement with some actual facts!

I think the argument most are positing is that the money would be better spent elsewhere. Given that current military output is being achieved with fewer resources, maybe it's time RAFAT did likewise. So rather than disband them, perhaps a 4 ship would be more proportionate.

The financial gain to the UK from the last RAFAT tour to North America more than covered both the tour cost and the annual cost of the whole team!

Those claiming that the cost of continuing the team is disproportionate are simply wrong.

hi beagle any sources for that ? Interested to know not kick sand

Agreed - that was a big statement, would be good to see a factual source.

The figures were disclosed at a meeting I attended at Waddington earlier this year. Also discussed, but without any definite conclusion, was the problem of a successor aeroplane to the Hawk T Mk 1.

ok… so made up numbers then

If you're really that interested, why not submit an FOI request to the MoD?

Not massively but thought you had a decent source rather than mate at a meeting trope,

He likely cites the nonsense figure of forecast c£2.5bn inward investment resulting from that tour which cannot be quantified or qualified, much would likely have occurred whether they toured or not. It makes not one iota difference where the bloody aircraft is made and constraining ourselves to a low wing piece of #### that doesn’t even exist nor meet requirements for Phase 4 is half the bloody problem. For those really interested do some due diligence on their Chairman (fraud investigations but couldn’t get anything to stick) and a board of advisor member (Mr TFASA and China training, photos and emails available if you ask nicely).

But why were they not displaying in the UK? That's their job. Farting around Canada during the RCAF 100 years celebration was dumb. They were just lost in the crowd amidst other Royal (Canadian) aircraft.

They watch the Reds flying at a silly height (post 9/11) because everything else has finished. The Royals are on the balcony to 'salute' the assembled public. Not to watch the RAFAT - and chat amongst themselves.

Ref the 104's above, I saw these guys (I assume it was them!) below at Dunsfold wings and wheels a few years back .....were quite impressive!