[Closed] New aircraft for The Red Arrows.

There are plenty alive to do this wobbli - who do you think keeps them flying at the moment and indeed build the new ones that are in the States?
There are multiple new airframes, all of the plans, details, info, etc is still on file and shared around the world.
In fact the Yanks have quite a few modified ones over there for displays, etc as well as huge numbers in private hands. More in fact than we have here!
As for costs - new planes do costs millions due to software, design, computers, etc.
Evolving something that has been around for so long would be small change in comparison.

The Hawk is around forty years old now and the examples used by the Arrows are of 1980s vintage. We need a lead-in trainer to allow student pilots to transition from prop-driven trainers to fast jets. I'm amazed that we haven't developed something in concert with Italy (who will operate F-35s alongside their Typhoons), Germany or Spain.

And Spitfires. Seriously?

Do the RAF get a discount on the planes they buy for the Red Arrows?

Sort of, but they are not bought and flown the same as other RAF aircraft.

Get a load of Albatroses. Albatri?

From the Reds own website:

The Red Arrows have always flown whichever aircraft is in service as the Royal Air Force’s advanced fast jet trainer

but, also..

The Team supports wider British interests overseas by contributing to Defence Diplomacy efforts and promoting British industry. The Hawk aircraft flown by the Team and most of its components are all British made. During international tours the Red Arrows demonstrate both British skill and British technology to millions of people.

So potential conflict if the RAF move away from Hawks for basic training but easy decision so long as they continue to use them

New squadron of these would be the ideal compromise really:

[img] [/img]

Can invert, could charge for passenger rides, win!

There are significant limitation on the operation of warbirds anywhere near built up areas

Reds current jets are around 30 years old, when do they qualify for the same restrictions?

CountZero - Member
We could do worse than buy these:

<Picture of a Textron AirLand Scorpion>

Textron AirLand Scorpion, developed as a minimal cost attack and ISR (Intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance) platform, able to carry up to 6200lb of ordnance on underwing pylons

Only problem is it's not a British built aircraft.

I think the Scorpion is a very interesting aircraft and a concept that seems to have some validity. However its point of origin is not its only problem as a replacement for the Red Arrows' Hawks.

First off the Scorpion is optimised for low operating costs and high loiter time, not manoeuvrability and other aspects useful for a display aircraft and trainer. This was acknowledged by Textron when they initially entered or thought about entering the competition for a new jet trainer for the USAF - new (shorter) wings and other modifications would be required to the current Scorpion.

Secondly, even given the Scorpion is designed for low operating costs, maintaining a single squadron for the Red Arrows would be expensive as it would still require a complete logistics chain that would not be common with any of the RAF's other squadrons. The RAF has spent quite a lot of time trying to reduce the number of types of aircraft it deploys in order to save money (e.g. the early retirement of the Jaguar and the Harrier) so I doubt they'd be keen on making a special case for the Red Arrows, at least not more so than they do now (as they're the only RAF unit operating Hawk T.1s these days).

Finally (and this may not be a good reason, but I suspect it is a strong reason), we've already got a fast jet trainer for the new few decades (the Hawk T.2) so the RAF wouldn't be able to buy it in bulk for training and the Red Arrows without throwing away the money invested in their new Hawks. Culturally I think it'll be a very, very hard sell to persuade any Western air force that they should cut back their orders of very shiny advanced jets like the Typhoon or the F-35 in order to buy some cheap "good enough for low intensity conflicts" jets, no matter that they probably would get more of them and they'd be fine for most of what air forces are doing these days. Air forces are obsessed with high tech and I suspect it'd also be a bit of a morale hit if pilots knew they were being assigned planes bought purely for cost reasons.

PJM1974 - Member
The Hawk is around forty years old now and the examples used by the Arrows are of 1980s vintage. We need a lead-in trainer to allow student pilots to transition from prop-driven trainers to fast jets. I'm amazed that we haven't developed something in concert with Italy (who will operate F-35s alongside their Typhoons), Germany or Spain.

The Hawk T.2 is a heavily modernised Hawk with a whole host of electronic gubbins specifically designed for training pilots to fly aircraft such as the Typhoon and the F-35. Presumably the basic airframe design was considered sound enough to remain effective when compared with more recently designed fast jet trainers.

Bear in mind as well that all the Red Arrows pilots are front-line fast jet pilots who are effectively given a 3-year secondment.

So you can't go sticking them in a Spitfire 🙄
They need the fast jet work in an aircraft that has at least the same basic controls and handling as the current front line fast jet force.

I realise things have changed quite dramatically with the Typhoon but certainly with the older Tornado jets, the cockpit layout was remarkably similar to the Hawk, the idea being that with the prgress through the Tucano, Hawk and then Tornado, everything would be familiar.

The new(ish) T2 has a glass cockpit design very similar to the Typhoon and the Lightning II - the airframe shape is the same as the old T1 that the RA fly but everything else has been completely upgraded.

The logical call would simply be to give them 12 T2 jets.

Because Hammy to make them reliable enough for Red Arrow use, youf have to build them out of composites, alter the cockpit to accept an ejector seat and install a turboprop engine.

So a tucano shaped a bit like a Spitfire.

I say Typhoons....the Blue Angela use F16s ao that they can convert to frontline operation usage....useful in the current age of austerity.

Tom, you've got literally seconds before someone corrects you about the Blue Angels - get it done!

So a tucano shaped a bit like a Spitfire

a. paint a spitfire on it

b clip the corners off the wings

c wasnt there once an advert with [url=

The Merlin and Griffin engines were designed 80 years ago. Nobody is alive now who was on the original design team so have no idea by what design rules they were originally designed to and how to convert those design rules to modern day aviation design rules. Guys alive today have all been involved in keeping the things flying rather than going back to core engineering design - a completely different prospect geared around maintaining the current designs rather than fundamentally changing it based on the rules of equivalency. To 'modernise' the engine you're having to go back to original design and start from there - but nobody is around who understands it. It would be far easier to completely re-engine with a modern engine, but then it wont be a Spitfire as Tom says.

They yanks operate on a different basis. You can do what you like to aircraft and stick an 'X' on it to designate it as 'Experimental' and you're good to go - it's your fault if it goes wrong - and it often does. Thankfully we're a bit more diligent than that.

I think the logic will be that they take on the Hawk T2. It's an in service aircraft with the RAF anyway so most pilots going in to the reds will be coming from that in to their Typhoon/F35 then on to the reds. They will be more familiar with the updated displays etc in the T2.

We need a lead-in trainer to allow student pilots to transition from prop-driven trainers to fast jets.

[img] &f=1[/img]

The Merlin and Griffin engines were designed 80 years ago. Nobody is alive now who was on the original design team so have no idea by what design rules they were originally designed to

I heard it told that the British Ford and American Packard built Merlins were built to a much higher tolerances than the Rolls-Royce Merlins. The Rolls Merlins were pretty much hand-built by engineers and parts might not be transferable to another engine. Those that were built by automobile manufactures who did mass-production had to be built to new plans with correct tolerances.

No idea how true that is, but makes sense.

A supposedly forward looking Britain, trying to project an image of modernity and competence would be better served not harking back to the past when trying to impress new commercial partners.

As an aside, back in the 1970s Piper Aircraft proposed resurrecting the venerable P-51 Mustang with a turboprop engine and some other concessions to modernity as a counter-insurgency aircraft (Piper PA-48 Enforcer). The resulting plane looked exactly like a butchered P-51d, sans belly inlet and with a lot of empty space in the engine bay and with wingtip tanks. But it didn't make a noise like a P-51, nor could it fly as fast as a P-51, nor was it as pretty as a P-51.

Just a thought, they could save some money by just getting the pilots to sit in simulators and the airshow visitors could view via VR, in fact you wouldn't even need to go to the airshow. That way they could fly Spitfires, Vulcans, Millennium Falcon etc.

Whats not to love?!

Of course they will go with the Hawk T2 but just imagine the sound a display of nine typhoons would make.......

Because Hammy to make them reliable enough for Red Arrow use, youf have to build them out of composites, alter the cockpit to accept an ejector seat and install a turboprop engine.

So a tucano shaped a bit like a Spitfire.

I say Typhoons....the Blue Angela use [s]F16s[/s] [b]F18s [/b]ao that they can convert to frontline operation usage....useful in the current age of austerity.

Tut Tut Tut....

JackHammer - Member

Because Hammy to make them reliable enough for Red Arrow use, youf have to build them out of composites, alter the cockpit to accept an ejector seat and install a turboprop engine.

So a tucano shaped a bit like a Spitfire.

I say Typhoons....the Blue Angela use [s]F16s[/s] F[b]/A[/b]18s ao that they can convert to frontline operation usage....useful in the current age of austerity.

Tut Tut Tut....

So close

legend - Member

JackHammer - Member

Because Hammy to make them reliable enough for Red Arrow use, youf have to build them out of composites, alter the cockpit to accept an ejector seat and install a turboprop engine.
So a tucano shaped a bit like a Spitfire.

I say Typhoons....the Blue Angel[b]s[/b][s]a[/s] use [s]F16s[/s] F/A18s ao that they can convert to frontline operation usage....useful in the current age of austerity.

Tut Tut Tut....

So close

... yet no cigar.

**** off, everyone knows they are called Blue Angela

Pedants!

Plus it was a quote, so I left the spelling mistakes in there 😛

**** off, everyone knows they are called Blue Angela

And the USAF team, the Thunderbirdies.

The RAF bought 175 Hawk T1s but have only bought 28 T2s. My impression is that the updated Hawk is a far more complex and expensive aircraft and the RAF would not be keen in expanding its fleet by nearly 50% (the Red Arrows have 12 Hawks in total) purely for the use of a display team. I'd imagine that a stripped down T2 may be possible, otherwise a reduction in the size of the Red Arrows display team or accepting a conversion to turboprop aircraft seem like fairly realistic outcomes.

Thuderbirds uses F-16 but that is a 40 year old plane.

They're all old - the only reason they are any good in their primary role is because they've had years to develop them.

Looks like its going to be a fleet of Bromptons now. Once again, Brexit Britain innit.
[img] ?la=en[/img]

[url= http://www.brompton.com/News/Posts/2016/News-Red-Arrows ]sauce[/url]

For all those suggesting the Spitfire, please:

Add one of these 😉

Or get a grip

I recon we get 9 Chinooks and paint them red. The Chinooks flying displays are brilliant. And they're easy to deploy overseas.

More seriously, it'll be Hawk T2s. Commonality of supply chain, maintenance contracts, operating standards, crew currencies, et cetera. Innit.

I place a bet we see a Red Arrows crowdfunding page....

they could order in some chinese jobbies i bet you can order direct too

[url= http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/chinas-j-20-stealth-fighter-looks-dangerous-can-it-crush-18264 ]Chinese stealth plane is awesomely awesome and can set car alarms off[/url]

Mikkel. So? The point is that like the Typhoon it is still a frontline fighter, they can be repainted and sent to war in a moments notice.

As an aside, back in the 1970s Piper Aircraft proposed resurrecting the venerable P-51 Mustang with a turboprop engine and some other concessions to modernity as a counter-insurgency aircraft (Piper PA-48 Enforcer). The resulting plane looked exactly like a butchered P-51d, sans belly inlet and with a lot of empty space in the engine bay and with wingtip tanks. But it didn't make a noise like a P-51, nor could it fly as fast as a P-51, nor was it as pretty as a P-51.