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!