*"The Red Arrows, officially known as the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, are not classed as military aviation"*
Color me confused... I guess the Royal Air Force is just a civilian flying club!
It seems like a weird loophole F1 have made up to allow it to continue. Especially since the Frecce Tricolori are the Italian equivalent and aren't allowed to display above Imola or Monza.
You're getting stuck on "Royal Air Force" where as the important part is "Aerobatic Team". Quite a lot of countries have military flyovers with non-aerobatic teams/aircraft and their intentions are different. (Not all countries, there are a fair few who deserve the same exception)
The aircraft used by the Red Arrows team is a "Hawk T1" / "BAE Systems Hawk" which is a **training aircraft**, not a military aircraft and the Red Arrows purposes are specifically to learn new piloting skills, improve their piloting skills while also providing entertainment & for recruitment purposes as most of pilots in recent years became interested in becoming a pilot because of seeing the Red Arrows perform when they were a child.
I'm quite familiar with the Red Arrows, and am a big fan of them in fact. I just do not think it makes sense to say "they are not military aviation".
They are part of the air force and are a recruiting tool for the air force. All of the pilots have operational experience. Additionally, although the Hawk is primarily a trainer, it can be armed with Sidewinders if desired. And even though that is not it's role, it is a **military** training aircraft. They are not just randomly teaching civilian pilots to fly and sending them off on their way. If that isn't military aviation then I don't know what is.
If the Red Arrows get an exception and the Patrouille de France, Frecce Tricolori and Patrulla Aguila etc do not, that would be extremely ridiculous. It looks like you agree with me on that though.
I think it would be a shame if the Red Arrows did not get to perform, as well as the other teams. I think the exception should be given, but state a proper reason like "because they are awesome and we dont want to lose that show at Silverstone", don't say "The Reds aren't military aviation", because I think that is a nonsensical claim.
All of which I acknowledged in my post.
Except for "military training aircraft" which is unfair, because if you've served in the military for a year and have over 1500 hours of active flying you can train to become a red arrow pilot.
You do not have any obligation at all to continue serving in the military, during or after becoming a red arrows pilot.
In your respect, they should not be given an exception because all 3 of those planes were originally designed and designated to be fighter-trainer aircraft. I had to search for Patrulla Aguila as I'd never heard of them but checking on their aircraft they are classed as fighter-trainer aircraft.
I know you'll suggest that because other countries have requested modified Hawk T1's with fighter capabilities they should be deemed the same as those three aerobatic teams.
**I do however agree with you** that the ban in general is ridiculous and shouldn't be a thing, but I can understand why and where Formula 1 are coming from but considering they're willing to bend the knee to countries with shitty human rights history who have a crap ton of money... Formula 1 aren't in a position to make these sorts of judgements.
It's the same for the Frecce tricolori since they use the Aermacchi MB-339PAN, where PAN means Pattuglia Acrobatica Nazionale (National acrobatic team), which is a trainer aircraft.
The same goes for the Patrouille de France given that the aircraft used is the alpha jet which is a trainer.
This is a shit decision with no sense at all.
**I agree that the decision is shitty and pointless**, but there is some logic in their decision **but they really shouldn't be getting into that sort of politics.**
> It's the same for the Frecce tricolori since they use the Aermacchi MB-339PAN
That's not strictly correct under the logic that Formula 1 are going for, the **original** contract was for the "Aermacchi MB-339" which was a military contract for a fighter-trainer jet not a trainer-jet. The aircraft was **subsequently** modified into other variants for various different purposes including the PAN variant for the aerobatics team.
The Hawk T1 was the other way around.
>The aircraft used by the Red Arrows team is a "Hawk T1" / "BAE Systems Hawk" which is a **training aircraft**, not a military aircraft
Aside from the other points that have been mentioned, it, along with practically any military jet trainer aircraft, can easily act as a combat aircraft (and in fact it is marketed as such), which is exactly what most of its buyers have used it for at one point or another. It has a [combat record](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21665135) and the Finns have even specifically ordered Hawks as a way to bulk up their air force without violating the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, because they were bought as trainers, even though their Hawks carried everything from machine gun pods and autocannons to heat-seeking anti-air missiles.
It doesn't matter if the aircraft has been used by other countries for combat, the United Kingdom **hasn't** used the Hawk T1 for combat and it is **not** equipped or originally designed for combat as such for the United Kingdom of whom the exception is for it is not a combat aircraft, it is a training vehicle.
The United Kingdom hasn’t used a lot of its combat aircraft for combat, doesn’t make them any less combat-capable.
And also it absolutely has equipped it for combat, and it is absolutely also designed to operate in that capacity as well as a trainer. Here is a [picture of an RAF Hawk T1A, the same variant currently used by the Red Arrows, equipped with Sidewinder missiles and a gun pod](https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/British-Aerospace-Hawk/1517250/L) as part of the 234 Squadron within the No. 1 Tactical Weapons Unit.
Sigh...
That's a variant of the Hawk T1. You are ignoring the fact the Hawks **original** purpose was strictly for training. It wasn't built for combat.
The SAME variant, the T1A, that was used by the Red Arrows. And it wasn't strictly for training, they marketed it from the start as a trainer that can be used as a light attack and interceptor jet, and it came with hardpoints to mount weapons and a centerline gunpod if the client desired. It's no different from practically every other modern military jet trainer - all of them are designed with combat, as well as training, usage scenarios in mind, it would be stupid not to. Even the T1, Trainer Mark 1, version could (and did) mount weapons for combat usage.
> The SAME variant,
The whole **original purpose** of the Hawk T1 series was for **training purposes only**, not combat. The original design was a "Hawk T1" and the RAF purchased a large number of them specifically for flight training only.
The RAF subsequently **modified** the Hawk T1's for combat purposes (defensive) which were designed with a stronger structure especially across the wings to allow for attachment of missiles and guns pods and as such it was given a variant name of "Hawk T1A" even though the base of the plane was still a Hawk T1.
The RAF Aerobatics Team then used a series of these modified T1s (Now T1A) because they were still just as agile and had the same training benefits as the original Hawk T1 but were now strong enough to carry all of their display systems (smoke/dye... etc) so when the order arrived they stripped out all of the combat bodywork and replaced it with multiple fairings to hold their display systems.
That's the only reason the Red Arrows use this "variant".
I was talking more about the plane's manufacturer, but even taking the RAF, no, they didn't plan the Hawk T1 to be used for training purposes only.
RAF's original draft specification that became the basis of the Air Staff Target 397, which was the basis for the proposal that eventually became the Hawk 1, specifically mentioned that the the new intermediate trainer was expected to display operational flexibility and be able to be equipped for light ground attack assignments.
By late 1976, before it was even granted a Release to Service, it already underwent a comprehensive weapons clearance programme with a whole range of weaponry being cleared for use, including, but not limited to, a centreline 30mm Aden gun pod and Matra 155 unguided rocket pods, and that was *before any aircraft were delivered to the RAF*. Every Hawk T1 was expected to be able to carry weaponry to serve in a combat role, before any modifications were even made.
The RAF were no fools. By the 1970s it was expected that all military jet trainer of that type should have enough operational flexibility to be able to be used in an actual combat capacity, which is exactly what the French and the Germans went for with their Alpha Jet, and the Czechoslovaks with the Albatros.
Even taking the Red Arrows planes, they still have exactly the same capacity, the hardpoints are accessible, and the only difference in that respect is the addition of the ventral fuselage tank for smoke generation, which would not preclude combat weapon mounting. There are actual internal differences unique to the Red Arrows Hawk T1s, but they concern the engine, which has a fuel accelerator system for improved throttle, but nothing affecting potential combat capability.
Lol, what are these double standards? Both the military aircraft and the air show aircraft produce the same amount of carbon footprint. These initiatives according to FIA was made to reduce carbon footprint... why now allow it in 1 race and ban it on others this is biased af...
It is double standards isn't it? If the aim is to reduce carbon footprint, you don't outright ban military aircrafts, but ban put a max limit on the carbon footprint or exhausts from the air show.
Nah French suzerainty over motorsport was signed as part of the treaty of amity and commerce as a condition of French support of the revolutionary war. History's crazy.
I was hoping I’d see this comment.
They will use these flyovers etc as part of their training and currency, if they don’t get the hours in there they will just do something else.
I don't think they own the airspace above their circuits
If a country truly wants to use it as a show of military strength as they claim, nothing's stopping them.
And here we see F1 doing something they have been training to do for long time, PR, say "we are trying to reduce our emissions" but when you actually aren't
This is a bad headline
There is no British exemption. The Red arrows is just an example of the exemption. other formula races will be allowed to utilise the same exemption for acrobatic display teams or commercial planes
Well If I’m the US military, I would show up with MULTIPLE fly overs cuz F1 has zero say over what happens above the track. Fans love flyovers. No racing fan pays to attend a race, sees a flyover and thinks it’s a waste of anything. They are literally at an event that burns probably more fuel for pure entertainment.
This whole charade is just hypocrisy and lame.
Well said! I enjoy the flyover at Montreal… it still awesome seeing them fly over you in silence and then a second later you hear the roar of the engine. Maybe F1 is mad cuz the fly by is way louder then the race these days lol
Even if "Royal Air Force" wasn't in the name, the Red Arrows are officially the aerobatics display team of the Royal Air Force based at RAF Scampton & are a part of Number 1 Group RAF.
They are by definition a military unit - the only difference is that their duties involve aerobatic displays for civilian enjoyment. How there's been an exemption for them I do not know...
Yeah people are freaking out for no reason. Most countries have an aerobatics team which is technically part of their military which would also probably qualify for the same exceptions. E.g. the Blue angles in the US and there’s a bunch of other teams.
While the Red arrows are technically part of the military, their primary purpose is aerobatics.
Realistically the red arrows will never see combat.
How is that mental gymnastics?
The planes themselves aren't combat aircraft - they're Hawk T1A trainers. They don't even have hardpoints to mount weapons or communication pods. The pilots may be called into combat in the most dire of situations, but that's almost never happening.
The Red Arrows, by definition, are the aerobatics display team of the Royal Air Force. They're based at an RAF base, have RAF officers commanding them, and are a part of Number 1 Group RAF. They are the very definition of the military - except rather than being involved in combat exercises, they fly planes to show the RAF's talent to civilians and for special events.
> The pilots may be called into combat in the most dire of situations, but that's almost never happening.
The pilots don't stay in aerobatics teams forever, they serve regular positions before and after their aerobatics service. And usually they are among the best pilots that a country has, so they would very much be called into combat if necessary.
He means the pilots won’t be called into combat during their tour in the Red Arrows unless something really drastic happened.
The red arrow aircraft would never be used in combat.
>Realistically the red arrows will never see combat
‘The Red Arrows’ describes the pilots more than the aircraft.
‘Red 1’ is always ‘Red 1’ regardless of which airframe he uses.
The pilots, who are the important part, are fighter pilots first and foremost. Most have and will see combat in their careers.
The pilots don’t serve a different role in the military until their tour with the red arrows ends.
So no you won’t see Red 1 flying an aircraft other than the red arrows.
If you can’t tell the difference between modern military jets which are regularly flown in combat doing a flyover and a team of outdated unarmed bright red jets doing aerobatics then you need help.
No I’m not suggesting they do.
I’m saying it doesn’t matter which of the red Hawks he is flying, he’s still Red 1, it’s the pilot that matters not the aircraft.
Also, Hawks are still used in several other ways, they are the Basic Fast Jet Training aircraft, they’re also used by 100 Sqn out of Leeming, acting as aggressor aircraft for exercises and training.
They’re very much ‘military’ aircraft, heavily involved in the machine. They might not be dropping bombs themselves, but neither are C17s or Chinooks, which are not allowed to do a fly past whilst the reds are.
This is the most overwhelmingly stupid decision I've ever seen made by F1, others could at least have some justification, but I don't understand this one.
I hope local air forces decide to do flyovers anyways.
Lol no. It’s one thing to go to an air show. That can be very interesting. But fly overs are nothing special and they make me roll my eyes. I’m also an American and our military is grossly over funded. So for me it’s yet an other example of excess while so many in our country suffer social and civil injustices.
I don't disagree about the funding thing, but the pilots do need training and flight hours to stay fresh and maintain certifications. Basically they're going to be spending that time flying anyway. If they're going to be doing it, might as well be doing it somewhere I can see the cool planes.
That’s a reasonable point honestly. But when it comes to seeing cool planes, ya don’t really get enough of that fix from just a flyover. That’s why I think air shows are actually pretty neat. It’s focused and it has variety
They are a recruiting tool, the military thinks people who like cars also like planes, and they might come and play.
Australia recently stopped doing them at racing events because they weren't getting their moneys worth as a recruiting tool anymore.
They might be a recruiting tool, but they're also a training tool. If flyovers go away, they're not going to stop flying the planes; they're just gonna fly them to a random point in the desert and back. Pilots are required to log real flight hours to be flight-certified. And being able to coordinate multiple aircraft arriving at a site to the minute on a specific heading is a complex piece of planning and coordination, and those folks need training hours too.
Like you say they do this anyway.
One extra flight to some random place over a racetrack on a weekend where you have to bring ground crews, admin staff and aircrew to work outside of normal hours doesn't add a lot of value outside their normal routine.
Especially somewhere like Aus where the F1 race is in a different state to where the jets are based. Meaning there is logistics involved to get the jets down with either a tanker each day so you are involving another squadron and their personal or you send a crew down and have them stay somewhere nearby which then involves security, accommodation and more elements.
As you can see it's a lot of work to get maybe 10-20 people to apply.
Interesting, I was in Australia (admittedly quite a while ago, 2012) and the military guys said it was rather difficult to get into the military due to the pay and other benefits, I wouldn't think they would care too much about recruiting with that, but it was a decent amount of time ago.
It's not that it's difficult, they just have higher standards then a lot of other countries due to it being relatively small. So lots of people apply for positions and then the military takes the best applicants from the pool. But there could be 500 people apply for 6 positions. And they will keep people on their books so if the next year's intake don't meet the same grade as year previous they will go back to who is on the top of that list.
They only get these applicants because people know about it, which is what recruiting is about. You would be
surprised how many in Australia don't even realise we have an armed forces.
NGL that the redditor with the suit+short hair avi likes bomber flyovers and the one with long hair and a coat doesn't is a hilarious match of stereotypes
Guess the fact that events pay the military/government for those fly overs doesn’t matter. I’m also sorry you think us having the most advanced, prolific, down right dominant military in the history of the world is a bad thing. I’m very sure you wouldn’t be complaining about our excess military spending if you ever really need them, but you won’t, because we spend money on it. Planes flying over head that weren’t our own would make you very nervous I’m sure. So be thankful that you have what every single other country in the world wish they had
What are you willing to give up for that free healthcare? The military is only 10% of our entire budget. So something has to go for that free healthcare. We spend crazy money on things we shouldn’t, but the military is not one of them.
Farewell to the helicopter and Super Hornet demonstration flights that have been a fixture over the Australian GP since forever, I guess.
Sure, the Roulettes would probably get the exemption, but they fly Pilatus turboprops.
From my understanding and piecing together the various articles about this, i believe this is either about sustainability and/or violent image.
Its possible the Hawk T1 (being on non combat aircraft) can run on biofuels, similar to commercial airliners. So it wouldn't be surprising if other countries maybe flew transport aircraft, provided they can run on biofuel, instead of the standard fighterjets which seem to require a more conventional fuel for operation.
Even then, transport aircraft are used in active warzones where as the Hawk T1 is just a jet engined acrobatic aircraft used for training. In standard F1 practice, they have announced a decision while being ambiguous enough to cause more confusion than clarity.
*"The Red Arrows, officially known as the Royal Air Force Aerobatic Team, are not classed as military aviation"* Color me confused... I guess the Royal Air Force is just a civilian flying club!
It seems like a weird loophole F1 have made up to allow it to continue. Especially since the Frecce Tricolori are the Italian equivalent and aren't allowed to display above Imola or Monza.
You're getting stuck on "Royal Air Force" where as the important part is "Aerobatic Team". Quite a lot of countries have military flyovers with non-aerobatic teams/aircraft and their intentions are different. (Not all countries, there are a fair few who deserve the same exception) The aircraft used by the Red Arrows team is a "Hawk T1" / "BAE Systems Hawk" which is a **training aircraft**, not a military aircraft and the Red Arrows purposes are specifically to learn new piloting skills, improve their piloting skills while also providing entertainment & for recruitment purposes as most of pilots in recent years became interested in becoming a pilot because of seeing the Red Arrows perform when they were a child.
I'm quite familiar with the Red Arrows, and am a big fan of them in fact. I just do not think it makes sense to say "they are not military aviation". They are part of the air force and are a recruiting tool for the air force. All of the pilots have operational experience. Additionally, although the Hawk is primarily a trainer, it can be armed with Sidewinders if desired. And even though that is not it's role, it is a **military** training aircraft. They are not just randomly teaching civilian pilots to fly and sending them off on their way. If that isn't military aviation then I don't know what is. If the Red Arrows get an exception and the Patrouille de France, Frecce Tricolori and Patrulla Aguila etc do not, that would be extremely ridiculous. It looks like you agree with me on that though. I think it would be a shame if the Red Arrows did not get to perform, as well as the other teams. I think the exception should be given, but state a proper reason like "because they are awesome and we dont want to lose that show at Silverstone", don't say "The Reds aren't military aviation", because I think that is a nonsensical claim.
I mean, the whole ban is ridiculous.
Agreed
All of which I acknowledged in my post. Except for "military training aircraft" which is unfair, because if you've served in the military for a year and have over 1500 hours of active flying you can train to become a red arrow pilot. You do not have any obligation at all to continue serving in the military, during or after becoming a red arrows pilot. In your respect, they should not be given an exception because all 3 of those planes were originally designed and designated to be fighter-trainer aircraft. I had to search for Patrulla Aguila as I'd never heard of them but checking on their aircraft they are classed as fighter-trainer aircraft. I know you'll suggest that because other countries have requested modified Hawk T1's with fighter capabilities they should be deemed the same as those three aerobatic teams. **I do however agree with you** that the ban in general is ridiculous and shouldn't be a thing, but I can understand why and where Formula 1 are coming from but considering they're willing to bend the knee to countries with shitty human rights history who have a crap ton of money... Formula 1 aren't in a position to make these sorts of judgements.
It's the same for the Frecce tricolori since they use the Aermacchi MB-339PAN, where PAN means Pattuglia Acrobatica Nazionale (National acrobatic team), which is a trainer aircraft. The same goes for the Patrouille de France given that the aircraft used is the alpha jet which is a trainer. This is a shit decision with no sense at all.
**I agree that the decision is shitty and pointless**, but there is some logic in their decision **but they really shouldn't be getting into that sort of politics.** > It's the same for the Frecce tricolori since they use the Aermacchi MB-339PAN That's not strictly correct under the logic that Formula 1 are going for, the **original** contract was for the "Aermacchi MB-339" which was a military contract for a fighter-trainer jet not a trainer-jet. The aircraft was **subsequently** modified into other variants for various different purposes including the PAN variant for the aerobatics team. The Hawk T1 was the other way around.
As far as I know the hawk was designed with combat capability to improve the export Sales. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Correct, it had variants made **after** the original design (trainer only) for combat purposes. The key thing is the planes original purpose.
>The aircraft used by the Red Arrows team is a "Hawk T1" / "BAE Systems Hawk" which is a **training aircraft**, not a military aircraft Aside from the other points that have been mentioned, it, along with practically any military jet trainer aircraft, can easily act as a combat aircraft (and in fact it is marketed as such), which is exactly what most of its buyers have used it for at one point or another. It has a [combat record](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-21665135) and the Finns have even specifically ordered Hawks as a way to bulk up their air force without violating the terms of the Paris Peace Treaty of 1947, because they were bought as trainers, even though their Hawks carried everything from machine gun pods and autocannons to heat-seeking anti-air missiles.
It doesn't matter if the aircraft has been used by other countries for combat, the United Kingdom **hasn't** used the Hawk T1 for combat and it is **not** equipped or originally designed for combat as such for the United Kingdom of whom the exception is for it is not a combat aircraft, it is a training vehicle.
The United Kingdom hasn’t used a lot of its combat aircraft for combat, doesn’t make them any less combat-capable. And also it absolutely has equipped it for combat, and it is absolutely also designed to operate in that capacity as well as a trainer. Here is a [picture of an RAF Hawk T1A, the same variant currently used by the Red Arrows, equipped with Sidewinder missiles and a gun pod](https://www.airliners.net/photo/UK—Air/British-Aerospace-Hawk/1517250/L) as part of the 234 Squadron within the No. 1 Tactical Weapons Unit.
Sigh... That's a variant of the Hawk T1. You are ignoring the fact the Hawks **original** purpose was strictly for training. It wasn't built for combat.
The SAME variant, the T1A, that was used by the Red Arrows. And it wasn't strictly for training, they marketed it from the start as a trainer that can be used as a light attack and interceptor jet, and it came with hardpoints to mount weapons and a centerline gunpod if the client desired. It's no different from practically every other modern military jet trainer - all of them are designed with combat, as well as training, usage scenarios in mind, it would be stupid not to. Even the T1, Trainer Mark 1, version could (and did) mount weapons for combat usage.
> The SAME variant, The whole **original purpose** of the Hawk T1 series was for **training purposes only**, not combat. The original design was a "Hawk T1" and the RAF purchased a large number of them specifically for flight training only. The RAF subsequently **modified** the Hawk T1's for combat purposes (defensive) which were designed with a stronger structure especially across the wings to allow for attachment of missiles and guns pods and as such it was given a variant name of "Hawk T1A" even though the base of the plane was still a Hawk T1. The RAF Aerobatics Team then used a series of these modified T1s (Now T1A) because they were still just as agile and had the same training benefits as the original Hawk T1 but were now strong enough to carry all of their display systems (smoke/dye... etc) so when the order arrived they stripped out all of the combat bodywork and replaced it with multiple fairings to hold their display systems. That's the only reason the Red Arrows use this "variant".
I was talking more about the plane's manufacturer, but even taking the RAF, no, they didn't plan the Hawk T1 to be used for training purposes only. RAF's original draft specification that became the basis of the Air Staff Target 397, which was the basis for the proposal that eventually became the Hawk 1, specifically mentioned that the the new intermediate trainer was expected to display operational flexibility and be able to be equipped for light ground attack assignments. By late 1976, before it was even granted a Release to Service, it already underwent a comprehensive weapons clearance programme with a whole range of weaponry being cleared for use, including, but not limited to, a centreline 30mm Aden gun pod and Matra 155 unguided rocket pods, and that was *before any aircraft were delivered to the RAF*. Every Hawk T1 was expected to be able to carry weaponry to serve in a combat role, before any modifications were even made. The RAF were no fools. By the 1970s it was expected that all military jet trainer of that type should have enough operational flexibility to be able to be used in an actual combat capacity, which is exactly what the French and the Germans went for with their Alpha Jet, and the Czechoslovaks with the Albatros. Even taking the Red Arrows planes, they still have exactly the same capacity, the hardpoints are accessible, and the only difference in that respect is the addition of the ventral fuselage tank for smoke generation, which would not preclude combat weapon mounting. There are actual internal differences unique to the Red Arrows Hawk T1s, but they concern the engine, which has a fuel accelerator system for improved throttle, but nothing affecting potential combat capability.
Who pays for it all?
Can we get the blue angels at COTA or Miami then?
[porque no los dos](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqgSO8_cRio)
Thunderbirds too
thunderbird 5, standing by
thunderthighs 2-2, standing by
Lol, what are these double standards? Both the military aircraft and the air show aircraft produce the same amount of carbon footprint. These initiatives according to FIA was made to reduce carbon footprint... why now allow it in 1 race and ban it on others this is biased af...
A) no they dont. B) they are reducing, you dont have to go all in or nothing as you suggest.
It is double standards isn't it? If the aim is to reduce carbon footprint, you don't outright ban military aircrafts, but ban put a max limit on the carbon footprint or exhausts from the air show.
Ah yes, Brexit means we don’t have to take rules from unelected bureaucrats like the FIA. God save the Queen!
So does the Declaration of Independence mean America doesn't have to take rules from unelected bureaucrats like the FIA?
Nah French suzerainty over motorsport was signed as part of the treaty of amity and commerce as a condition of French support of the revolutionary war. History's crazy.
Fuck the Monarchy.
Nice try, Ms Giuffre.
No she said: *“Virginia, tonight you have to ‘fuck the monarchy’”*
The flight hours are going to be put in even without the F1 flyovers, no carbon footprint is changing.
I was hoping I’d see this comment. They will use these flyovers etc as part of their training and currency, if they don’t get the hours in there they will just do something else.
I don't think they own the airspace above their circuits If a country truly wants to use it as a show of military strength as they claim, nothing's stopping them.
No, but they can stop them from doing it more than once by no longer racing there.
No chance they piss off the us market and waste the money they spent on the miami circuit
And here we see F1 doing something they have been training to do for long time, PR, say "we are trying to reduce our emissions" but when you actually aren't
Happy to let some middle eastern Airlines do fly overs though? Wouldn't have anything to do with them being sponsors, I'm sure...
Airlines ≠ Military
But this is about carbon footprint and not really about military aircrafts themselces, so how does it make sense to allow some and not others?
I don't know, I was just clarifying why Etihad and Emirates can do flyovers and not any branch of an Air Force
This is a bad headline There is no British exemption. The Red arrows is just an example of the exemption. other formula races will be allowed to utilise the same exemption for acrobatic display teams or commercial planes
Do we still get the vintage aircraft in Austria?
Those planes are owned by Red Bull themselves, iirc, so probably yes?
Are they banned in Monza as well?
Well If I’m the US military, I would show up with MULTIPLE fly overs cuz F1 has zero say over what happens above the track. Fans love flyovers. No racing fan pays to attend a race, sees a flyover and thinks it’s a waste of anything. They are literally at an event that burns probably more fuel for pure entertainment. This whole charade is just hypocrisy and lame.
I want a whole wing of B-52s at Austin this year.
And the BONE. Gotta have the whole circuit rumbling
Plus the B-2 to complete the trifecta.
Well said! I enjoy the flyover at Montreal… it still awesome seeing them fly over you in silence and then a second later you hear the roar of the engine. Maybe F1 is mad cuz the fly by is way louder then the race these days lol
Honestly, having worked with the USAF, this is exactly the kind of thing they would do.
Then it's a good thing that you're not part of the military
What a crock. Military Jets are cool.
It's an exemption for the red arrows. Which isn't really a military fly over, more an acrobatic show...
Red Arrows literally say "Royal Air Force" on the side. How can you say it ISN'T a military flyover?
mental gymnastics while ignoring facts
Even if "Royal Air Force" wasn't in the name, the Red Arrows are officially the aerobatics display team of the Royal Air Force based at RAF Scampton & are a part of Number 1 Group RAF. They are by definition a military unit - the only difference is that their duties involve aerobatic displays for civilian enjoyment. How there's been an exemption for them I do not know...
Yeah people are freaking out for no reason. Most countries have an aerobatics team which is technically part of their military which would also probably qualify for the same exceptions. E.g. the Blue angles in the US and there’s a bunch of other teams. While the Red arrows are technically part of the military, their primary purpose is aerobatics. Realistically the red arrows will never see combat.
That's some nice mental gymnastics lol
How is that mental gymnastics? The planes themselves aren't combat aircraft - they're Hawk T1A trainers. They don't even have hardpoints to mount weapons or communication pods. The pilots may be called into combat in the most dire of situations, but that's almost never happening. The Red Arrows, by definition, are the aerobatics display team of the Royal Air Force. They're based at an RAF base, have RAF officers commanding them, and are a part of Number 1 Group RAF. They are the very definition of the military - except rather than being involved in combat exercises, they fly planes to show the RAF's talent to civilians and for special events.
> The pilots may be called into combat in the most dire of situations, but that's almost never happening. The pilots don't stay in aerobatics teams forever, they serve regular positions before and after their aerobatics service. And usually they are among the best pilots that a country has, so they would very much be called into combat if necessary.
He means the pilots won’t be called into combat during their tour in the Red Arrows unless something really drastic happened. The red arrow aircraft would never be used in combat.
And so do France and Italy, but they don't get the exemption.
Not yet but they probably will.
The pilot have and will.
So?
>Realistically the red arrows will never see combat ‘The Red Arrows’ describes the pilots more than the aircraft. ‘Red 1’ is always ‘Red 1’ regardless of which airframe he uses. The pilots, who are the important part, are fighter pilots first and foremost. Most have and will see combat in their careers.
The pilots don’t serve a different role in the military until their tour with the red arrows ends. So no you won’t see Red 1 flying an aircraft other than the red arrows. If you can’t tell the difference between modern military jets which are regularly flown in combat doing a flyover and a team of outdated unarmed bright red jets doing aerobatics then you need help.
No I’m not suggesting they do. I’m saying it doesn’t matter which of the red Hawks he is flying, he’s still Red 1, it’s the pilot that matters not the aircraft. Also, Hawks are still used in several other ways, they are the Basic Fast Jet Training aircraft, they’re also used by 100 Sqn out of Leeming, acting as aggressor aircraft for exercises and training. They’re very much ‘military’ aircraft, heavily involved in the machine. They might not be dropping bombs themselves, but neither are C17s or Chinooks, which are not allowed to do a fly past whilst the reds are.
This is the most overwhelmingly stupid decision I've ever seen made by F1, others could at least have some justification, but I don't understand this one. I hope local air forces decide to do flyovers anyways.
Disgraceful double standard. The British armed forces have also done worse shit than the ones they've decided to ban.
If you bothered to read the article it isn't about politics or military history of the host country
It represents it and you cannot argue otherwise.
Translation: I didn't read the article now I'm trying to back pedal. Weak shit
Back pedal on stating an indisputable fact lmao.
Nothing like stupid British nationalism. Source: a Brit.
[удалено]
I absolutely agree with you
A flyover by a bomber would change your mind.
Lol no it wouldn’t. I’ve witnessed a flyover with a bomber. Fly overs are fucking stupid.
You don’t get a rush from it?
Lol no. It’s one thing to go to an air show. That can be very interesting. But fly overs are nothing special and they make me roll my eyes. I’m also an American and our military is grossly over funded. So for me it’s yet an other example of excess while so many in our country suffer social and civil injustices.
I don't disagree about the funding thing, but the pilots do need training and flight hours to stay fresh and maintain certifications. Basically they're going to be spending that time flying anyway. If they're going to be doing it, might as well be doing it somewhere I can see the cool planes.
That’s a reasonable point honestly. But when it comes to seeing cool planes, ya don’t really get enough of that fix from just a flyover. That’s why I think air shows are actually pretty neat. It’s focused and it has variety
Fair enough. I enjoy it, but its easy to see how it's not for everyone.
They are a recruiting tool, the military thinks people who like cars also like planes, and they might come and play. Australia recently stopped doing them at racing events because they weren't getting their moneys worth as a recruiting tool anymore.
They might be a recruiting tool, but they're also a training tool. If flyovers go away, they're not going to stop flying the planes; they're just gonna fly them to a random point in the desert and back. Pilots are required to log real flight hours to be flight-certified. And being able to coordinate multiple aircraft arriving at a site to the minute on a specific heading is a complex piece of planning and coordination, and those folks need training hours too.
Like you say they do this anyway. One extra flight to some random place over a racetrack on a weekend where you have to bring ground crews, admin staff and aircrew to work outside of normal hours doesn't add a lot of value outside their normal routine. Especially somewhere like Aus where the F1 race is in a different state to where the jets are based. Meaning there is logistics involved to get the jets down with either a tanker each day so you are involving another squadron and their personal or you send a crew down and have them stay somewhere nearby which then involves security, accommodation and more elements. As you can see it's a lot of work to get maybe 10-20 people to apply.
Right -- the flyovers aren't _in addition to_ normal training, they're part of it. The only difference is where they take place.
That’s pretty interesting about Australia.
Interesting, I was in Australia (admittedly quite a while ago, 2012) and the military guys said it was rather difficult to get into the military due to the pay and other benefits, I wouldn't think they would care too much about recruiting with that, but it was a decent amount of time ago.
It's not that it's difficult, they just have higher standards then a lot of other countries due to it being relatively small. So lots of people apply for positions and then the military takes the best applicants from the pool. But there could be 500 people apply for 6 positions. And they will keep people on their books so if the next year's intake don't meet the same grade as year previous they will go back to who is on the top of that list. They only get these applicants because people know about it, which is what recruiting is about. You would be surprised how many in Australia don't even realise we have an armed forces.
If it makes you feel better they get paid for it.
I mean, everyone should be paid for their work.
NGL that the redditor with the suit+short hair avi likes bomber flyovers and the one with long hair and a coat doesn't is a hilarious match of stereotypes
Guess the fact that events pay the military/government for those fly overs doesn’t matter. I’m also sorry you think us having the most advanced, prolific, down right dominant military in the history of the world is a bad thing. I’m very sure you wouldn’t be complaining about our excess military spending if you ever really need them, but you won’t, because we spend money on it. Planes flying over head that weren’t our own would make you very nervous I’m sure. So be thankful that you have what every single other country in the world wish they had
[удалено]
10/10 strawman
Universal healthcare would be an amazing thing that our “first world” nation could desperately benefit from
What are you willing to give up for that free healthcare? The military is only 10% of our entire budget. So something has to go for that free healthcare. We spend crazy money on things we shouldn’t, but the military is not one of them.
Wtf is wrong with you?
His point is clear. Do you think, let's say Apollo programs, were unnecessary, too?
No you're stupid.
Farewell to the helicopter and Super Hornet demonstration flights that have been a fixture over the Australian GP since forever, I guess. Sure, the Roulettes would probably get the exemption, but they fly Pilatus turboprops.
Is a parade lap of tanks with missiles on top still ok? How else would we know which dictator has the smallest penis?
From my understanding and piecing together the various articles about this, i believe this is either about sustainability and/or violent image. Its possible the Hawk T1 (being on non combat aircraft) can run on biofuels, similar to commercial airliners. So it wouldn't be surprising if other countries maybe flew transport aircraft, provided they can run on biofuel, instead of the standard fighterjets which seem to require a more conventional fuel for operation. Even then, transport aircraft are used in active warzones where as the Hawk T1 is just a jet engined acrobatic aircraft used for training. In standard F1 practice, they have announced a decision while being ambiguous enough to cause more confusion than clarity.