Boris Force One?

[Berf]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... k-makeover

[FarnboroJohn]

The mists are clearing.... I see a flypast with the Red Arrows at RIAT 2021....

[Big Eric]

The mists are clearing.... I see a flypast with the Red Arrows at RIAT 2021....

With BJTV facing the entirely wrong direction.................!

[Zoom]

It's a ship is it? Union Jacks are only found flying from masts.

so presumably it can't be pressed into military service if required with such a loud livery?

[toom317]

Maybe he can strike a deal with his pal Donald, and get a two for one, when AF1 gets its new livery.

[FarnboroJohn]

It's a ship is it? Union Jacks are only found flying from masts.

so presumably it can't be pressed into military service if required with such a loud livery?

Its a new form of stealth: it will genuinely be unbelievable.

[CJS]

It's a ship is it? Union Jacks are only found flying from masts.

It is sometimes claimed that the Union Flag should be described as the Union Jack only when flown in the bows of a warship, but this is a relatively recent idea. From its earliest days, the Admiralty often referred to the flag – however it was used – as the Union Jack. In 1902 an Admiralty Circular announced that either name could be used officially. And in 1908 the UK Parliament approved this verdict, stating that ‘the Union Jack should be regarded as the National flag’.

(although it's never actually been written in to law, I realise that)

From https://www.flaginstitute.org/wp/britis ... nion-flag/

'It may, perhaps, be useful to ask whether the current infighting over the “proper” name of the flag bearing the Union pattern is necessary at all. Regardless of the origin of the term “Union Jack” – which, as is
noted above, is open to discussion – it has been adopted almost universally by the public whom the flag
is intended to represent. If it is generally accepted and widely understood, both with reference to seagoing and landlocked uses of the standard, then to argue the semantics of it may be beside the point.'

From https://www.flagmakers.co.uk/wp-content ... n-Flag.pdf

Just sayin'...

Waste of money, spend it on something useful. It's not as if anyone will ever really see it anyway, and as you say Zoom, it can't be used in any practical sense for military use, which IIRC was one of the mitigating factors in making at available for the Royals in the first place.

[verreli]

so presumably it can't be pressed into military service if required with such a loud livery?

If an enemy aircraft gets close enough that a paint job on a tanker is a problem, then things aren't going well, especially as offensive missions would generally be at night. Nothing wrong with it being used over the north sea to refuel typhoons and fly the flag on diplomatic trips. I just hope it's a good design and the team that came up with the 100 sticker didn't get the job.

[Blackbird]

FWIW, I agree entirely with verreli - especially the point about who got the job to create the design! Time will tell.

[PeterR]

Never thought I'd see the day when aviation enthusiasts moan about a military aircraft having a bit colour applied instead of grey..!

[MiG_Eater]

Personally I think it sounds decent! Remember the beautiful VIP VC10s?

[Wissam24]

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just lease a BA jet since it'll probably look basically the same?

[ted633]

Wouldn't it be more cost-effective to just lease a BA jet since it'll probably look basically the same?

A BA jet (& crew) may not always be available (not an issue at the minute though!). I'd also expect a certain Mr Branson to be up in arms about it as well.

[Tommy]

I’ve got no objection to jazzing up a plane for head of state visits. Hopefully it’ll be an interesting thing to look at!

I don’t really subscribe to the “it can’t be used in military service” thing. As has been stated, it won’t stop it from being able to refuel jets or picking up servicemen or cargo from around the globe.

It’s also right to say that if it gets to a point where a tanker’s paint colours makes it more vulnerable than overall grey (which, visually, seems to stand out against the clouds anyway), then things have already gone very badly wrong.

You know that Danish F-16 painted one Dannebrog800 colours? That jet, in that special scheme, has performed live QRA intercepts. It didn’t make a difference. Indeed, the pilot noted that it actually assisted things because it was so visually striking.

Obviously an A330 is not going to be doing QRA intercepts, but I don’t think the colour of planes really makes a difference to their combat or operational effectiveness one way or t’other in this day and age.

I suspect the reason that most machines in this day and age are all grey is that of utility and cost-effectiveness. It’s cheaper just to buy and maintain and paint everything in the same (or similar) shade of dull grey than have expensive and specifically different tones of paint for each aircraft type.

[CJS]

It’s also right to say that if it gets to a point where a tanker’s paint colours makes it more vulnerable than overall grey (which, visually, seems to stand out against the clouds anyway), then things have already gone very badly wrong.

Against the clouds maybe, but we've been having more A-400m flying overhead recently and I must say the edges all but disappear against a blue sky. They all over grey then is surprisingly effective.

[Wrexham Mackem]

I agree, its not too much to ask, when flying the flag for the UK, that we have a classy, professional image.

Can't help thinking of the VC-10s though. They had a look of quality in the white and grey, with the cheatline and namings. If the same 'less is more' approach is taken with the Voyager, then what's not to like?

[Southendnick]

The aircraft was due for a maintenance check and re-paint anyway, who's to say it will not just be vinyl's so that if the aircraft had to go into a hostile situation they can just peel them off.

[toom317]

Personally I think it sounds decent! Remember the beautiful VIP VC10s?

Nope, what VIP 10's?

[Tommy]

When we were chatting about it, Andy reminded us of his very excellent PS Whif:

[psquiddy]

It’s also right to say that if it gets to a point where a tanker’s paint colours makes it more vulnerable than overall grey (which, visually, seems to stand out against the clouds anyway), then things have already gone very badly wrong.

Against the clouds maybe, but we've been having more A-400m flying overhead recently and I must say the edges all but disappear against a blue sky. They all over grey then is surprisingly effective.

I think one of the most effective at blending in colour schemes was BMI as the top half was the same colour as the sky (blue, not grey) and the scheme was curved rather than straight edged so disguised the outline of the aircraft.

There were a couple of occasions when I had to get the bins out to check what I was looking at. The result was always disappointing though : oooh something interesting what could it be..... BMI 737.

[MiG_Eater]

Andy E needs to get in touch with the Brize Norton paint shop pronto... looks bloody marvellous.

P.S. the 'VIP VC10s' I just mean the old C.1s. They were often used for state visits etc (admittedly, amongst many other things).

[Wissam24]

Apparently this vanity project - which is what it is since it apparently comes at Johnson's dislike of grey - is costing us £900,000. That's pretty disgusting given the enormous economic catastrophe taking place around the world, in a week when the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly providing meals for desperately starving children. All to please the manchild in number 10.

There's nothing wrong with head of state/government aircraft having particular schemes to themselves. It's a diplomatic role and they serve a purpose. But *now*? Now, at this time? Stupendous arrogance to ignore the impending double economic catastrophe coming within a year for a cosmetic buff.

[Tommy]

Another thing as well, I suppose, I know that they’re due to be retired soon,l (if not already, making the point a bit moot), but aren’t the corporate-looking white BAE 146s of 32(TR) Sqn designed for the purpose of VIP flights?

[starbuck]

Apparently this vanity project - which is what it is since it apparently comes at Johnson's dislike of grey - is costing us £900,000. That's pretty disgusting given the enormous economic catastrophe taking place around the world, in a week when the government had to be dragged kicking and screaming into reluctantly providing meals for desperately starving children. All to please the manchild in number 10.

There's nothing wrong with head of state/government aircraft having particular schemes to themselves. It's a diplomatic role and they serve a purpose. But *now*? Now, at this time? Stupendous arrogance to ignore the impending double economic catastrophe coming within a year for a cosmetic buff.

I would have thought the contract for this would have been signed quite a while ago pre-Covid.

If not then yes I would agree with you

[ted633]

The cost may well be quoted to be £900,000, however ALL aircraft must undergo a full repaint every X number of years. (Figure varies, generally every 5 to 10 years). So this one is probably due a respray anyway.
The figure we really need is how much extra this is going to cost, compared to painting it grey.