RAF roundel query

[FGR.4]

Hi all,

I've been wondering about this for a while, does anyone here know why RAF training aircraft (Tucano, Hawk, T-6C etc.) have full RAF roundels yet the rest have the low visibility roundel? IMO the full roundel is so much better, i think the 15 sqn centenary Tonkas look miles better with the old roundel as oppose to the lo-vis the rest of the RAF's aircraft have.


Thanks.

[iainpeden]

Just look at the F-35 (can't bring myself to call it a Lightning) - 2 greys - horrible.

[st24]

You've kinda answered the question, trainers need to be seen so remain "hi-viz", front line is toned down by the removal of the white. That said with trainers being black and front line just flat Greys to hardly makes much difference these days...

[Harvo266]

I did a Typhoon kit a while back and also wondered the same, so did a bit of research. What I gathered from it, is a mixture of 'low-vis' and also remembrance of the Second World War. Apparently the Hawker Typhoons and other aircraft once had a full colour roundel, but over many months of battle and weathering, they ended up fading to light blue and pink.

Hope this is of interest

[iainpeden]

The whole system of national markings through the years is fascinating (sad aren't I?).

If you look at the US star and bar and how that has developed over the years or the RAF roundels in the Pacific War, both removed the red centre so as not to be confused with the Japanese Hinomaru.

[flashman8]

Just look at the F-35 (can't bring myself to call it a Lightning) - 2 greys - horrible.

I think the jet itself is horrible too................

[Binbrook 01]

Simple answer

Trainers don't go into combat.

Lo viz grey jets do.

[Rampvan]

Simple answer

Trainers don't go into combat.

Lo viz grey jets do.

Hawks were once grey with low visability roundels

[tommc]

Simple answer

Trainers don't go into combat.

Lo viz grey jets do.

Hawks were once grey with low visability roundels

Sidewinder armed Hawks once a had a (theoretical) war role as part of the "Mixed Fighter Force" alongside radar equipped F3 and F4.

[Beefy]

A roundel is supposed to identify the operating nation of an aircraft, from a distance. Combat, trainer, transport or other role is irrelevant.

The current two-tone grey on the Dave goes against international conventions as has blurred the lines somewhat as you can not distinguish certain nations and certainly not from distance.

RAF Training aircraft are painted black so they "can be seen". Their visibility to other aircraft has nothing to do with colour of the roundel

[FarnboroJohn]

A roundel is supposed to identify the operating nation of an aircraft, from a distance. Combat, trainer, transport or other role is irrelevant.

The current two-tone grey on the Dave goes against international conventions as has blurred the lines somewhat as you can not distinguish certain nations and certainly not from distance.

RAF Training aircraft are painted black so they "can be seen". Their visibility to other aircraft has nothing to do with colour of the roundel

The old standards have been irrelevant since the invention of the guided missile - even before BVR. The reason to be able to determine the identity of an aircraft is only to decide whether or not to shoot at it. There is a binary solution set:

- its one of ours (don't shoot)

- its one of theirs (shoot)

The only way that goes wrong is if you shoot at one of your own. IFF, low intensity lighting and other systems on which one can depend despite darkness, cloud, fog or other traffic have superseded national markings (which in any case have been copied in false flag operations by all sides in most wars). Oh, I forgot aircraft recognition, though history suggests its a long way from reliable.

Spot the national markings on Op Granby Tornados (real ones, not the recent pinky!) and other British aircraft involved in the conflict.

Two tone grey is boring but the natural conclusion of the need for tactical advantage. Winning is everything and you then get to write the history, which will state that you complied with international law. Lose and nobody will care.

[DOUGHNUT]

I some instances the difference in colour, even a the slightest hint of white, can alter the infra red signature hence the use of grey on grey markings.

[Andover]

National markings are irrelevant in terms recognition these days. It's just a matter of tradition and pride, which is why they're so small today.

[Andover]

RAF Training aircraft are painted black so they "can be seen".

But how can black be seen? The best colours for high vis training was the '60s scheme of silver and dayglo - bring it back!

[Dan213]

A roundel is supposed to identify the operating nation of an aircraft, from a distance. Combat, trainer, transport or other role is irrelevant.

The current two-tone grey on the Dave goes against international conventions as has blurred the lines somewhat as you can not distinguish certain nations and certainly not from distance.

RAF Training aircraft are painted black so they "can be seen". Their visibility to other aircraft has nothing to do with colour of the roundel

Don’t think it does go against any international convention...

[T_J]

RAF Training aircraft are painted black so they "can be seen".

But how can black be seen? The best colours for high vis training was the '60s scheme of silver and dayglo - bring it back!

Indeed black was found to be the best colour for making aircraft more visible. There was extensive trials conducted with Hawk T.1s in the early 1990s.

https://www.pprune.org/aviation-history ... ost6349265

Flourescent paint has been used in past studies in a attempt to increase (powered) aircraft conspicuity, but without success (Graham 1989). A further potential problem with bright or light coloured aircraft (or patches) is that the contrast with a light background sky is further reduced. Chappelow et al (1993) carried out trials with RAF Hawk aircraft and concluded that black aircraft were detected more easily than grey or red and white aircraft.

http://segelflug.ch/wp-content/uploads/ ... ?TB_iframe

[Binbrook 01]

Why thank you Rampvan and Tommc

I am perfectly aware of what RAF Hawks did from replacing the Hunters until the early 1990s growing up in Lincolnshire (subtle hint in the name !) and watching them and the RAF Fighter force doing its job.

The TWU units at Brawdy and Chivenor did have a war role, hence they were given Sqn status, and they did give the Red Arrows a war role had we gone of to fight (a certain Bloc) once upon a time.

Admittedly 100 Sqn and 736 NAS have a non training function but as they are in the training Black paint scheme they get away with it (wearing the R/W/B roundel)...

[st24]

Why thank you Rampvan and Tommc

I am perfectly aware of what RAF Hawks did from replacing the Hunters until the early 1990s growing up in Lincolnshire (subtle hint in the name !) and watching them and the RAF Fighter force doing its job.

The TWU units at Brawdy and Chivenor did have a war role, hence they were given Sqn status, and they did give the Red Arrows a war role had we gone of to fight (a certain Bloc) once upon a time.

Admittedly 100 Sqn and 736 NAS have a non training function but as they are in the training Black paint scheme they get away with it (wearing the R/W/B roundel)...

Indeed, the TWUs were also operated by Strike Command/11Group with emergency air defence tasking (including the Hunters) and so were technically not training units.

[Ouragan]

Technically they were, even though they were under Strike Command. They were given shadow squadron identities as were a number Operational Conversion Units and it would have been under those identities that they would have gone to war. But during peacetime the OCUs and TWUs were training units under operational control of Strike Command, though the instructors frequently took part in exercises.