Cherry RipeJust to bring-out one point:
Arguably, the loss of minesweepers would be far less painful than losing anything else.
Technically that is probably true, but the mine / fisheries fleet is really where junior RN officers cut their teeth. Their day-to-day job is pretty dull and routine ( except when they get to use the ROV on some seabed UXO ) but that’s what’s needed for officers to learn how to lead men and to take their first command.
Serving officers with whom I have spoken still refer back to lessons their learned on the mine fleet. It’s like a Perisher course for skimmers 🙂 For that reason I believe the RN will do all it can to protect it.
Cherry RipeConventional Trident was terminated because of the exact same reasons i cited for the Tomahawk. The political implications of a possibly mistaken launch.
“The most frequently cited concern is that a CTM launch could be misinterpreted as a nuclear attack, prompting Russian retaliation. The CTM report states that the risk is extremely low and can be managed effectively. “
Despite that, you are correct that CTM was not funded in 2007 but is appears that it keeps reappearing under banners such as Global Strike.
The case of the AGM86 is an interesting one, quite unique.
The same scenario existed with the Soviet / Russian Kh-55 ( Kent ) ALCM. A number of the original nuclear variants were rebuilt into conventional units ( Kent-C ) and carried on the same platforms.
There was also a reduced-range conventional variant, rumoured for export.
Additionally ASMP-C offered to the RAF as a straight conventional conversion of ASMP for the SRA 1236 requirement.
I don’t know what the protocols are for identification in the event of launch of these dual-capable cruise missiles, but it’s certainly not a new problem and not one that appears to dissuade deployment.
Cherry RipeTrident is a nuclear only missile. And it is ballistic. There’s no possibility to misinterpret a Trident launch.
I’m not sure of the current state of the program, but the US DoD did request funding a few years ago for the Conventional Trident Modification program, so someone at least thought that it was a good enough idea to proceed despite the launch mis-recognition risks. One or two missiles per boat were to be converted.
since every Tomahawk launched could be in theory loaded with a nuke, with obvious political risks.
In terms of cruise missiles, the AGM-86B and ’86C ( the latter being conventional ) were in the US inventory simultaneously and were launched from the same B-52H platforms. This did not seem to hinder live use of the ’86C missiles in either 1990 or 1999 despite the fact that there was no way of knowing which variant had been launched.
Cherry RipeCherryBut beyond this, the Red Arrows are a national institution of which we should all be justifiably proud. They are the very best.
Fair enough Chox, we each have our opinions and it doesn’t look like we’ll meet in the middle 🙂
I have tried to find quantifiable information on the benefits of the team but short of writing to 22 Group I haven’t uncovered anything measurable.
An interesting debate though. I mentioned it in passing to the Good Wife last night and she thought the Red Arrows had been disbanded years ago! Oh well…
Cherry RipeMake no mistake, the Red Arrows are the best of the best. That’s not a cheesy sound-bite, it’s the truth.
Come on Chox you’re a writer. Statements of “fact” need objective backing.
Personally: I haven’t seen the Arrows perform in nearly a decade so I can’t comment on their current display. I perhaps have seen them in action a dozen times. I feel no greater affinity in them than I did for the Utterly Butterly wing-walkers or the IAC Swifts. Why not?
If other contributors report that “minor” display teams are receiving more attention and appreciation from laymen crowds, then doesn’t that suggest that the £7.3 million annual cost of the team would be better spent on improving accommodation at Halton to really attract recruits?
Cherry RipeThe Arrows are essentially a PR tool to sell the RAF to the tax paying public, to gather recruits and act as flying ambassadors when performing overseas. As such, they work.
Unfortunately we have no metrics to say that they work either for domestic recruitment ( though for many trades recruitment is frozen at present anyway ) or for international diplomacy.
Even the MoD declines to provide public information on the ROI of the team, saying only “Further information relating to budgets should be directed to Royal Air Force 22 Group.“
Update: have a look at the MoD’s page about the team:
http://www.raf.mod.uk/reds/faqs.cfm
The mind boggles at the vague statements therein:
“The Red Arrows have inspired a significant number of people to join…” What is a significant number? How can they verify that the team caused someone to join? Perhaps it was the ear-bending Tornado that first made a child aware of the RAF. We’ll never know.
“During international tours the Red Arrows demonstrate both British skill and British technology ” With the Anglo-French Adour propelling a 40-year-old design, is this the best we can offer?
Now, compare that to the £6.1 million budget that the team received in the 2009 / 2010 season:
Certainly for any project on which I work that has that magnitude of budget, plus £1.2 million in fuel, I’d need to provide hard ROI figures instead of patriotic cliche.
The one display that I have seen consistently silence and enthrall a crowd is the slow, noisy, unglamorous Harrier. Perhaps we should have a Harrier display team! I’d watch that.
Cherry RipeSomething of a tangent, I’m afraid
The BAe 146 is much quieter, especially for passengers, & a lot faster. It has excellent short field performance for a passenger jet, & hot and high performance.
Actually the 146’s baseline field performance is fairly average for its weight; the equivalent models in the Fokker 70 / 100 family compared quite favourably, in some regards being superior. Don’t forget that a Fokker 70 can happily operate in / out of London City.
The 146 was definitely superior to the 111 family’s field performance although the proposed 111-670 would have been a closer match.
Where the 146 shone for the likes of Bhutan was in the engine-out climb performance and ceiling, particularly the original short-body -100. A Fokker 100 could maintain 11,000ft cruise with one engine out whereas the 146 varied from 15,000 to 21,000 depending upon variant.
Interestingly the BAe sales brochures shied-away from directly comparing the 146 to the Fokker products and tended to show comparisons against the 727 / 737 / DC-9. There was also a distinct absence of references to STOL and instead they emphasised quietness and spaciousness.
Did BAe ever try to fill the YS-11 replacement market as they had intended to with the 111-670? I know that they did take the 146 on a tour of China including Tibet, but I’m not aware of any Japanese tour.
Sorry about that, now back to the war-war.
Cherry Ripe…and after writing that missive against PPRUNE I completely forgot to mention Brit Modeller, which is fairly low-volume but has a core of knowledgeable and very helpful chaps including several who post interesting gen from the sandy places.
Cherry Ripe…and after writing that missive against PPRUNE I completely forgot to mention Brit Modeller, which is fairly low-volume but has a core of knowledgeable and very helpful chaps including several who post interesting gen from the sandy places.
Cherry RipeI personally don’t like the look of PPRUNE, UKAR or WIX so haven’t joined.
I can’t vouch for the others, but my impression of the Aviation History forum on PPRUNE is that it is very much a closed club; several posters have been banned or chased-away for questioning the inherited wisdom of the elders.
I do check that forum on a daily basis but unfortunately if one isn’t known on the inside for having served in Aden or on the V-force then little courtesy appears to be extended, which is a shame given the amount of cumulative knowledge therein.
My thruppence.
Cherry RipeI personally don’t like the look of PPRUNE, UKAR or WIX so haven’t joined.
I can’t vouch for the others, but my impression of the Aviation History forum on PPRUNE is that it is very much a closed club; several posters have been banned or chased-away for questioning the inherited wisdom of the elders.
I do check that forum on a daily basis but unfortunately if one isn’t known on the inside for having served in Aden or on the V-force then little courtesy appears to be extended, which is a shame given the amount of cumulative knowledge therein.
My thruppence.
Cherry RipeThanks for all the suggestions! Looks like Old Warden is popular. I had looked through their upcoming events calendar but it is frustratingly sparse about the nature of the shows.
Some other good ideas mentioned; in particular I had overlooked fly-ins. I once attended the Air-Britain event at North Weald which was an “interesting” experience; some unique aircraft, a nice camping atmosphere but I was nearly trampled to death by spotters any time a rare “spot” arrived! I think I spent more time hiding in the radio enthusiasts’ marquee than on the flight line 🙂
I’ll speak with The Chief and get a travel warrant issued; though she’ll probably want to come too!
TwinOtter23: I haven’t visited Newark since they were running the “Sponsor a Brick” campaign”! But one of the museum staff gave me a lift back to the train station one evening. Beat that, Cosford!
Cherry RipeThe following per “Air Forces of the World” by Hewish / Sweetman/ Wheeler / Gunston ( 1979 ):
Saudi Arabia: BAC Lightning (??)
T-33s and F-86Fs in 1957
Tunisia: F-86F
MB.326 in 1966
A few more random selections:
Algeria: eight MiG-15s from Egypt in November 1962
Morocco: MiG-15UTI and MiG-17 in 1961
Ethiopia: T-33 and F-86 in 1960
Afghanistan: 30 MiG-17s in 1957 ( early adopters! )
Sri Lanka: JP in 1958
Bangladesh: one T-33 and two or three Sabre 6s abandoned by Pakistan in 1971
To invert the question: are there any air forces that have never adopted a jet type? Even bizjets would void this.
Cherry RipeI have several boxes of negatives through which to search for The Pointed One, but in the meantime here is a battered print of two of the participants; Iolar and G-TNTA.
The 146 had been parked-up in the static with its lower-hold doors open for display. Nearby was the Merchantman with its port forward freight door open and a curious antique lorry raised to deck-level on a scissor lift. No doubt it made sense to someone.
Cherry RipeI wonder if anybody can tell me where I might find a photo of Concorde in action over, or on the tarmac of, Aldergrove from that time.
Hi Ian,
I was at the Aldergrove show as a rather keen 11 year old and have a photo of the Concorde flypast *somewhere* in the roofspace. Give me a couple of days and I’ll dig it out and scan it, though I can’t guarantee that it’s even in focus! IIRC it was G-BOAG.
Also at the show that I recall were a Merchantman ( “Ajax” ), a TNT 146QT, a pair of A-10s and Aer Lingus’ Dragon.
More soon.
Sign In
