RAFAT: In decline?

[Skyflash]

Isn’t FAF Rafale v RAF typhoon simply another case of Gallic flair ( craziness ) v RAF precision flying ?

You would never see an RAF solo Hawk doing “crazy flying” like the Italian MB-339 either.

Nope, the Typhoon display has simply never been anything but ordinary. For such a capable aircraft, they just seem scared to give it some. When the RAF had their old school jets such as the Buccaneer, Phantom, Lightning and Tornado, they wrung everything out of them.
.

My memories of Lightning and Tornado displays differ from yours.

Apart from one Family Day at Warton where the Lightning went vertical from takeoff, my memories of Lightning displays was of fast passes, turn round over the next county and repeat. The Tornado display was similar, but only had to go to the next town to complete the turns. The Buccaneer and Phantom displays were very noisy but I’m also not sure they were very dynamic.

Unless you are going back, before even my time, to the 50s and 60s where anything goes (went) !

I always get the feeling that if the RAF had flown F-16s (enough hyphens ?) the RAF F-16 display would not be as dynamic as the Belgian F-16 with it’s (potentially) Gallic pilot. It would be very precise though

Caper and Wrexham have it about right.

The Phantom for example was fully dynamic, much more so than, say, its direct Luftwaffe F-4F counterpart. Tight turns, zoom climbs, wingovers, derry-turns to reposition, dirty roll, touch-and-go... the RAF Phantom was an awesome routine.

[ericbee123]

Must be that I didn’t go to many modern mil shows as I honestly don’t remember them being anything special.

I used to be more impressed by Aircobras, Tigercats, The Sunderland and Corsairs.

Each to their own.

[Albion143]

It was meant as satire based only on what either Dan has said himself or on what others have said. The reference to the Guardian article is there to provide credible evidence that despite a self inflated opinion of worth there are others than believe differently.
It is no more "character assassination" than any of a myriad of comments made by the man himself against others. One particular incident is the official review of a Shuttleworth display where he attacked George Bacon. His post in this thread regarding Mike Ling is in a similar vein.

Absolutely no jealousy here just a desire to even the playing field and expose the hypocrisy and bullying for what it is. Dan if you can't take it don't dish it out.

Tell you what, as you've made the thread about me, again, how about in the interests of fairness you say the same things under your own name?

Not quite so tough now, eh?

I’ve messaged you Dan. I hope that will suffice

Incorrect. You have not messaged me.

As far as I know, abuse via PM was always an instant ban on these forums. Just so you know, like.

I'm sorry Dan but I really am confused. I did message you and provided you with the information you asked (with a valid caveat for why I do not wish to go public) as well as clarifying my views about your stance on a number of things. I was not abusive in any way shape or form and would ask that you retract that. if you would like I will send a copy of my message directly to the admin for them to decide whereabouts I was abusive.

Now again for the record. My latest remark regarding you was satirical based solely on things that you have said on these forums in the past. The reference to your two minutes of infamy in the national press was to provide some context. I have tried to do this through messaging, as I have in the past when I have suggested you contact me directly to talk about things, but you declined then and for some reason have tried to belittle me on this occasion when I replied to you in good faith. I am sorry this has to be in the open but as you appear to not wish to do it via the messaging facility I have no other option. I will not stand for being called abusive because I have a very different opinion to you.

God you are like one massive 'kin child. Get over it. Next to abuse Dan?

[Spiny Norman]

The Arrows remain incredibly popular with the paying public and rightly so. Regularly flying displays twice a day up and down the country during the summer is no mean feat.

At the East Fortune show in July the Arrows delayed their arrival to try and display once bad weather had moved through. (This was their first display of the day). The leader changed the routine mid-display in order to provide a show, and then after flying in formation towards a thick rain cloud they thought better of it and the display was stopped on safety grounds.

The Arrows position as the most visible element of the RAF means any incident receives more attention and if they are more cautious that makes perfect sense. They might not have the verve of past displays (and that's debateable), but who does? It's unfair to blame them when everyone else has also had to change.

Better a subdued Red Arrows than no Red Arrows.

[st24]

The Arrows remain incredibly popular with the paying public and rightly so. Regularly flying displays twice a day up and down the country during the summer is no mean feat.

At the East Fortune show in July the Arrows delayed their arrival to try and display once bad weather had moved through. (This was their first display of the day). The leader changed the routine mid-display in order to provide a show, and then after flying in formation towards a thick rain cloud they thought better of it and the display was stopped on safety grounds.

The Arrows position as the most visible element of the RAF means any incident receives more attention and if they are more cautious that makes perfect sense. They might not have the verve of past displays (and that's debateable), but who does? It's unfair to blame them when everyone else has also had to change.

Better a subdued Red Arrows than no Red Arrows.

Fair comment. It should still be shouted that the Reds are the only team that can adjust their display to take account of changeable weather. Other teams remain committed that can lead to hairy situations...
And yep, the RAF not only displayed almost their entire inventory back in the day but they were competent, impressive displays that could fill an air show on their own. We must remember Buccs, Spey Phantoms, Jags etc weren't the most nimble machines but give me their pass, Derry, pass, Derry, pass, Derry displays any day over the Typhoons turning and burning and climbing and turning and repeat ad nauseum.
It was only really the Lightning that suffered in later life, the final season in particular was markedly restrained from previous years though still utterly pant wetting. The Phantom and Buccs final seasons for example were still as tight as they were some 10-20years prior.

[vandal]

The Arrows remain incredibly popular with the paying public and rightly so. Regularly flying displays twice a day up and down the country during the summer is no mean feat.

At the East Fortune show in July the Arrows delayed their arrival to try and display once bad weather had moved through. (This was their first display of the day). The leader changed the routine mid-display in order to provide a show, and then after flying in formation towards a thick rain cloud they thought better of it and the display was stopped on safety grounds.

The Arrows position as the most visible element of the RAF means any incident receives more attention and if they are more cautious that makes perfect sense. They might not have the verve of past displays (and that's debateable), but who does? It's unfair to blame them when everyone else has also had to change.

Better a subdued Red Arrows than no Red Arrows.

That same airshow, everyone stopped what they were doing when the Reds were due, even the Police stopped to watch them.

[AMB]

Having watched the Red Arrows since they first formed in 1965, those 'Gnat days' were definately the best ( see my Avatar photo taken from Fairford's control tower in August 1966 with a standard fixed lens!!). Todays' Hawk teams have been hampered by the encroaching rules of the CAA, MAA, & H&S which combined really tone down their displays which no longer seem exciting. However, they do vary they displays each year unlike "Frecce Tricolori" whose display programme doesn't change year in, year out.

[Bluebird Mike]

I don't think the Reds are in a decline at all- they do what they do very well, year in year out, and the general public love them; what a smaller proportion of more die-hard online enthusiasts think or want is fairly immaterial. But, I do fear that we may be into the last years of having the team at all and that once they go, there will either be nothing replacing them at all, or something somewhat smaller and just not of the same stamp; and that no Reds would mean a further downturn in the already falling number of airshows.

[CJS]

I don't think the Reds are in a decline at all- they do what they do very well, year in year out, and the general public love them; what a smaller proportion of more die-hard online enthusiasts think or want is fairly immaterial. But, I do fear that we may be into the last years of having the team at all and that once they go, there will either be nothing replacing them at all, or something somewhat smaller and just not of the same stamp; and that no Reds would mean a further downturn in the already falling number of airshows.

Why? The question gets raised periodically, then whoever is in charge at the time says nope, they're staying. The last I remember reading about it (from last year??) was that they wouldn't need replacement aircraft until at least 2030, which hardly indicates they are about to be disbanded.

[Victor 23]

It will be nice to see them still going strong in 2030. But whether they will be using the Hawk T1 remains to be seen.

[Tmyers123]

they wouldn't need replacement aircraft until at least 2030.

Let’s just hope it’s replaced by something British at least. T.2 probably, unless BAE comes up with something in the next 12 years.

[vulcan558]

Would say the pool of pilots today are much thinner to pick from for the reds.
We really only have a small wing of typhoon fast jet pilots to pick from today.

Years ago you had many more, harrier, jaguar tornado f3 or gr1, just one of those types would have been a larger number then what we have front line typhoons today.
So with such a small number of fast jets today the picking program must be harder. The reds must be about 20%
Of the raf fast jet fleet. How many Typhoons do we have a full readiness, 60Plus?.

[Victor 23]

Would say the pool of pilots today are much thinner to pick from for the reds.
We really only have a small wing of typhoon fast jet pilots to pick from today.

Years ago you had many more, harrier, jaguar tornado f3 or gr1, just one of those types would have been a larger number then what we have front line typhoons today.
So with such a small number of fast jets today the picking program must be harder. The reds must be about 20%
Of the RAF fast jet fleet. How many Typhoons do we have a full readiness, 60Plus?.

Maybe look to other NATO Countries to do an exchange tour, like the air force has done for many years.

[Reds Rolling]

they wouldn't need replacement aircraft until at least 2030.

Let’s just hope it’s replaced by something British at least. T.2 probably, unless BAE comes up with something in the next 12 years.

Don't BAE forbid any aerobatics in the Hawk T.2?

[Victor 23]

The T2 would be a good replacement, but like everything else it would cost to much money, maybe the alpha jet or some other second hand jet.

[TIGER TIM]

The T2 would be a good replacement, but like everything else it would cost to much money, maybe the alpha jet or some other second hand jet.

Ever thought that the FAF are looking for a replacement for their team's Alpha Jets. (Which are no longer produced).

The trouble with second hand jets you'll end up spending more money on them than you would getting new T2s from BAE Systems.

[Nige321]

They need these...

https://aeralis.com/

[Victor 23]

They need these...

https://aeralis.com/

Need what?

[Brevet Cable]

Some concept design which looks like the mutant offspring of the drunken coupling of several existing aircraft, from a Company which - from it's published accounts - has only been in existance for about 3 years, has already changed it's name once, and appears to only exist for the executives to award themselves thousands of shares.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09752004/filing-history

[AMB]

maybe the alpha jet or some other second hand jet.

Perish the thought! RAF Aerobatic Teams have always operated and promoted current British-built aircraft. They are currently withdrawing the oldest Hawks from the team and the T.2 is an obvious replacement, but I think the problem is there just aren't enough of them in service to allocate 10 of them to the team.

[Nige321]

Some concept design which looks like the mutant offspring of the drunken coupling of several existing aircraft, from a Company which - from it's published accounts - has only been in existance for about 3 years, has already changed it's name once, and appears to only exist for the executives to award themselves thousands of shares.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09752004/filing-history

It's not unusual for new companies to change their name or directors as investment arrives.

They're actually a bit further down the road than the website suggests, but hey, I'll bow to your obvious expertise...

[Brevet Cable]

So go on, then, what's your part in the company?
Or are you normally so touchy about things?

[Brevet Cable]

That's a 'no comment', then.....

[Nige321]

That's a 'why should I bother engaging with someone who's already made their mind up that the company only exists to line the directors pockets'.

Typical of the general cynical replies that most interesting comments get on UKAR.

Do some simple searches, you might find something...

[Brevet Cable]

What, you mean like the published accounts on the Companies House website ( as previously referenced ) which show that the company came into existence as 'Dart Jet Ltd' in August 2015 and changed it's name to 'Aeralis Ltd' just over a year later ( December 2016 )
Which show that pretty much every published statement on there for the last year or so relates to issuing of shares.
Or that one person holds 400,000 shares ( yes, four hundred thousand ), another holds 75,000, another holds 30,000, another holds 25,000 & four others hold between 4,000-5,400
That the most recent ( somewhat truncated ) set of proper accounts published - covering the FY2016-17, shows their total assets as being £34,281

Care to tell me that anything I've posted is incorrect?