F-16 Aggressors

A GUEST POST FROM ANDY C

In my recent series on the Options facing the UK Government in the SDSR 2015 one of the points that created the most debate was about the replacement and future role of the Hawk.

Now it seems even the Commanding Officer of 736 Naval Air Squadron is joining in!

The current edition of Armed Forces Monthly contains a major article on the work of this squadron and an interview with its CO Lt Cdr Tim Flatman.

One of the issues covered is the future replacement of the units Hawk T1 aircraft which have an out of service date of 2020.  Lt Cdr Flatman indicates that one possibility for replacement is the Hawk T2 already in service with IV Squadron but another would be to acquire some secondhand F-16 Fighting Falcons.

The F-16 is still an impressive fighter aircraft and would be far more suited to the aggressor training role performed by both 736 NAS and 100 Squadron than the subsonic Hawk.  It would also make a far more capable secondary air defence fighter to supplement the Typhoon.  Altogether these two units would need about 30 aircraft.

Buying secondhand F-16s from Denmark could save the MoD money and secure a valuable export order for the Typhoon.

Coincidentally Denmark is currently running a fighter competition to replace its 30 F-16s and one of the contenders is the Typhoon.

It would clearly help the chances of winning this valuable order if the UK Government were to express an interest in buying their current aircraft.

The first batch of Hawk T2s cost £18 million each.

If the Danish F-16s are still in reasonable condition we could offer up to a half or a third of this amount for each of them.  That would be a powerful incentive for the Danish Government to buy the Typhoon while getting the MoD a far more capable aggressor training aircraft at a fraction of the cost.

Timing would also work in favour of such a deal.  The Danes have indicated that they want to make a decision in 2015 and replace all of their aircraft by 2020.  This would match our timing of an SDSR in 2015 and the Hawk T1 out of service date of 2020.

Another positive aspect to getting secondhand F-16s is there will be no shortage of spare parts as a large number of countries dispose of these aircraft over the next 10-15 years.

Royal Danish Air Force F16
45 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 8:12 am

Most countries use sub-sonic trainers first because going straight to a high performance jet is both expensive in fuel costs, overkill and potentially dangerous. It’s just too fast to learn much from, literally “pay attention, I’m not going to do this twice” territory. As advanced aggressor training, maybe but not for the basics. Had a pilot friend who told me that for the trainers, you have to make drastic movements with the stick before the plane makes any changes, which helps in teaching. In high powered, high performance jets, a wrong twitch by a new pilot can have drastic consequences. The Hawks are basically planes with training wheels.

The Other Chris
September 30, 2014 8:34 am

The plane itself is just one aspect. Training is a system as a whole with a blend of simulation and physical flying both in a cubicle and in the air (e.g. simulated sensor systems while flying).

Hawk AJTS is a good example of the entire package that M-346, T-50, Saab/Boeing and Scorpion will have to compete with.

Dahedd
Dahedd
September 30, 2014 9:39 am

Sounds like a great idea to have a more capable Aggressor with a secondary air defence role. The F16 being far more capable than the Hawk.

But why use the F16 short of the attempt to get a Danish Typhoon buy. Given that certain bodies within the RAF are already talking about retiring Tranche 1 Typhoons early why not just use them as Aggressor jets?

Seems perhaps a little unwieldy to introduce a whole new line of aircraft with the associated spares & gear when we already have the Typhoon lines in place.

Random
Random
September 30, 2014 10:12 am

Using trance 1 as aggressor jets would kind of miss the point of an aggressor squadron where pilots get to train against different aircraft. I’m sure if most countries had the choice they would want to have super sonic aggressor squadrons hence why they go to america where they can do just that.

Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 10:37 am

If they wanted to train against a variety of high performance aircraft, there is always Ex Red Flag or the Ex Bersama Lima mentioned in Open Threads or Ex Pitch Black where many countries get together to do exactly that. Especially Pitch Black since the Indonesians bring in SU-27s and -30s.

ToC is also right about the package. The key consideration is “is this plane suitable to train new pilots on?” rather than “Is it high powered?” or “Can it be used for air defence?” Training first, claws later.

Dahedd
Dahedd
September 30, 2014 11:08 am

I’m not so sure the type of aircraft used is as much an issue as the tactics. Otherwise the US wouldn’t use F15s & F16s as their aggressor units.

Random
Random
September 30, 2014 11:10 am

@Observer Sure but how many squadrons can go on those exercises and how often? Surely it would be an advantage to have some high performance aggressor jets? Maybe I am being thrown off by the fact it says aggressor aircraft. If the aircraft is mainly going to be used to train new pilots then i see your point. I see that both squadrons are used for pilot training and DACT but are they used to get new pilots ready for fast jets?

El Sid
El Sid
September 30, 2014 11:22 am

@Observer – you’re missing the point. 736 doesn’t sit cadet pilots in a Hawk for training, it’s a dedicated aggressor squadron, formerly known as FRADU. A good chunk of its time is spent training warships in AAW. In the modern world there’s a debate to be had whether we’d be better off outsourcing aggressors to a company like Draken International, who have picked up all sorts of Soviet types from Eastern Europe.

Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 11:53 am

Sid, exactly. Someone was trying to dual role or even triple role the jobs, which begs comparisons to squeezing water from rocks. And if you really wanted to train with aggressor aircraft, just tie in for exercises with a country that has Soviet aircraft. The PMC that you brought up is a good secondary option. India in Red Flag comes to mind, and it’s not like it is a big deal to script role the pilot’s tactics when one is being earmarked as an aggressor or defender. Saves on maintaining costs of a new aircraft type too.

Random, think Red Flag is 4x a year.

El Sid
El Sid
September 30, 2014 11:58 am

@Observer – would you care to explain how a Type 45 would get to Nevada? This is a _Naval_ Air Squadron. I didn’t see anyone proposing putting cadets in 736 aircraft other than you, we already have separate Hawk training squadrons.

Four times a year may be enough for Singapore but not for the UK – these guys are flying weekly, they get used for FOST etc.

Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 12:46 pm

Sid, we don’t do Red Flag.

My bad on the Naval Squadron thing, my impression was that the Hawks were also used for advance flight training?

Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 12:58 pm

Oops, wait, we do use Red Flag, I knew it under the old name COPE THUNDER.

Mark
Mark
September 30, 2014 1:15 pm

The RAF aggressor Sqn

http://www.raf.mod.uk/organisation/100squadron.cfm

100 Squadron now operates in a mixed target facilities role along with exercise and training support which include WSO training, and dedicated aircraft to support the Joint Forward Air Controllers Training and Standards Unit. On the 2nd November 2010, 100 Squadron received a new Squadron Standard from Her Royal Highness, The Duchess of Cornwall, and Honorary Air Commodore to RAF Leeming.

How to train new aircraft with very long range sensors and weapons is an difficult prob

Challenger
Challenger
September 30, 2014 1:23 pm

100 Squadron is the RAF’s equivalent aggressor unit to 736 NAS and also fly’s the Hawk T1 so i think they use the same maintenance and support streams (controlled by the RAF as a lot of AAC/FAA training is).

4 and 208 squadrons at RAF Valley use the Hawk T2 although i have heard that 208 will probably be disbanded soon seen as it was only kept going after 2010 because of an influx of Saudi pilots undergoing advanced flying training.

Hawk T2 may be a little pricier than other options in the aggressor role, but £18 million a pop isn’t outrageous.

For the sake of commonality across the wider Hawk fleet and the support costs probably saved over 30+ years it would be my preference.

Buy or upgrade anything to be ‘fighty’ then it will almost certainly lead to less Typhoon’s/F35/Apache etc in the long run.

Martin
Editor
September 30, 2014 1:24 pm

if we could share anything amongst NATO allies surely it would be dedicated aggressor squadrons. with so few frontline squadrons can we justify such an expense?

If we are going out of our way to buy aggressor aircraft then surely a purchase of MIG’s would be better.

I would put a dedicated aggressor squadron under the same colum as aerobatics display squadrons. A luxury that can’t be justified for an airforce with only 6 or 7 front line squadrons.

Random
Random
September 30, 2014 1:34 pm

I thought the question was what aircraft are best to replace current squadrons aircraft, not create a new dedicated squadron. Are you saying that we should by the f16 so that these squadrons are not dedicated aggressors or are you saying that they should get no new aircraft and disbanded.

Observer
Observer
September 30, 2014 1:55 pm

No Random, the question really is if such a small number of aircraft is worth it to get a whole new logistics train and costs. If anything else, you’ll be taking away funding from the actual front line fighters for an expensive sub class of aircraft. Aggressor squadrons are really one thing that can be shared among countries. Hawk is a comfortable middle ground. Cheap enough to be a unique class without busting the bank, especially if the role is shared with your advanced trainer aircraft so you have a common logistics pool yet still owned by the RAF.

Cheapest option is really to do joint exercises with countries that use Soviet equipment as their front line. No extra cost for them or you, and both sides get to do DACT.

Alex
Alex
September 30, 2014 1:56 pm

Isn’t the point of de-contractorising and standing up 736 as a squadron that it’s part of the buildup for CVF?

Shackvan
Shackvan
September 30, 2014 2:05 pm

Totally agree on the idea of a NATO or at least European approach to aggressor training and using representative aircraft types as part of that would be the logical conclusion, even if it is a case of outsourcing to a company that had the wherewithal to buy up threat type aircraft (as long as they still have the relevant or representative sensors and missions systems still in them)

Don’t share your pessimism on the Red Arrows however, all in they cost about £11M a year to fund (less that a years fuel for your average FJ Sqn) and that is actually listed in the RAF accounts as a saving because the PR exposure and recruitment benefit is judged to be far greater than could be achieved by other means for that amount of money, and I’m inclined to agree, not to mention the often missed fact that the Reds have been used very effectively in support of military sales overseas and for soft power purposes.

Random
Random
September 30, 2014 2:09 pm

Observer I buy the reduced logistic point but that’s more of an answer than a question. The question in the article is whether to replace the aircraft of the two squadrons with hawk t2 or f16. I think that I can be easily convinced of T2 over f16 for practical reasons (although i think that the f16 would have advantages in some areas), but if both squadrons already exist and are aggressor squadrons, then it is not really a question of creating a aggressor squadron with or without cooperation of our allies. the squadrons exist the question is what aircraft should they use.

El Sid
El Sid
September 30, 2014 2:18 pm

@Observer
My bad on the Naval Squadron thing, my impression was that the Hawks were also used for advance flight training?

Hawks are used for flight training (as Challenger says, they’re all up at RAF Valley in Anglesey) – but not these Hawks. Think of 736 and 100 as like the Red Arrows – same equipment as the training squadrons, but different purpose. (and 736/100 are “work” rather than “play” like the Reds). They also get used for AEW exercises and training ground controllers, that kind of thing – they really are used all the time, the odd exercise isn’t really enough. ISTR Youtube has cockpit footage of them attacking RN ships on FOST which is quite fun – probably back in the FRADU days when they were semi-privatised (RN leased RAF Hawks, and were maintained by Serco)

@Thread – “NATO should share some Mig squadrons as joint aggressor squadrons” – that’s exactly what Draken International are all about, albeit in the private sector. They’ve been described as the world’s largest private air force, they’ve got dozens of Mig-21’s and the like.

@Shackvan – Problem comes when it comes to the capex for replacing the Reds, India are spending >US$300m on Hawks for their display team.

Rocket Banana
September 30, 2014 2:28 pm

I’m not sure I see the point in using F16 for 736 NAS.

Will a 800 knot attack actually help train AAW much more than a 540 knot attack? It will have the effect of decreasing the time available to make decisions to 2/3.

Given that the F16 will then have gone supersonic, used its afterburners, burned tonnes more fuel and generally created much more wear and tear on the engine and airframe, I don’t quite see the point… although I love the idea ;-)

Martin
Editor
September 30, 2014 2:55 pm

@ shackvan

I am dubious about read arrows costing just £11million a year. Probably for personnel, fuel etc but aircraft are not cheap and as has been pointed out they will have to upgrade to T2 hawks at some point at 18 million a pop.

I seriously doubt the PR value of the red arrows as well. Very few countries buy aircraft off of us anymore. The ones that do still buy our aircraft do it because as with the Hawk it’s probably the best solution or as with the Typhoon the best they can get or a political bribe to keep the UK sweet. I don’t think any of then buy it due to the red arrows.

The MOD needs a serious kick In the ass because with such minuscule forces we can’t keep going on as before with battalions wasted at Buckingham palace and 10 % of our pilots flying around at air shows. we lack the resources now to do this and we must maximise what we can’t put on the front line with our modest budgets.

El Sid
El Sid
September 30, 2014 3:15 pm

:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm140313/text/140313w0002.htm#140313105000117
The available figures for the running costs of the Red Arrows for the last two financial years (FY) are as follows:
2011-12 £10.04m

2012-13 £11.22m

These figures include all operating costs, but exclude asset depreciation and the capital cost of aircraft or buildings.

shackvan
shackvan
September 30, 2014 3:29 pm

The £11M figure is actually the largest figure available for the Reds, and the official one, from articles and information pieces it ranges from £8-11M a year depending on where you read. Hawk T1 is not an expensive aircraft to operate, as it’s not much more than a seat and an engine, and there is an abundance of spares now from decommissioned airframes to carry them through to the 2020 OSD for T1. Also when they deploy overseas in support of sales or other government activity it is the relevant company or department that fits the bill, and in addition a lot of the logistical and day to day expenses and equipment is provided under sponsorship deals between the RAF and private company’s hence the seemingly low £11M figure.

Probably the wrong thread to go into detail but I can say I have past experience to indicate that the Red Arrows are hugely respected throughout the world (and especially in the Middle east where we are still selling aircraft) and there influence is far larger than most people think.

The problem comes in 2020 when the Hawk T1 is done and you need a replacement. The Red Arrows don’t want T2 (in its current form) as the T2 has all the electronic bits T1 is missing that make T1 so cheap to operate. And there have been many and varied alternatives discussed but the issue remains ongoing. When I was last at Scampton I even saw a desk model of a Tranche 1 Typhoon in a Red Paint scheme but Wishful/silly thinking I suspect!

Challenger
Challenger
September 30, 2014 3:58 pm

Surely BAE could do the Red Arrows some Hawk T2 with a lot of the pricey and unnecessary electronics removed? So essentially more of a Hawk T1.5.

Then the aggressor squadrons can either buy the same configuration or full-fat T2’s depending on their own requirements.

Typhoon would be serious overkill for the Red Arrows, too big, too noisy and too expensive!

mike
mike
September 30, 2014 4:14 pm

F16’s?

100 Sqn was mooting this idea long before AFM went to press ;)

Highly unlikely, especially considering the multiple big projects all the services are spending on and the costs of it all. Far more likely to see a PFI deal than MoD bought and run aircraft of such calibur.

Whilst both 736 and 100 are ‘Aggressors’; with the former mostly attacking warships, and the latter aircraft and FAC, an F-16 has too vastly a different logistics and training tail.

Its a ‘nice to have’ not a vital.

Now, leasing some Hawk 200’s or T-50’s… maybe. It would have to be a semi PFI deal though.
F-16 is just a bit too laughable. Though BAe does own a A-4 Fightinghawk… much like the type used by a certain angry neighbour of a certain island of ours….

A ‘NATO Aggressor’ idea has been mooted several times since the 70’s… but has always seemed to lack to get traction….and once at one point one did actually exist… a USAFE Aggressor unit based at RAF Bentwaters/Woodbridge… they used the F-5E/F (note the different type compared to front-line types) – if only Switzerland went ahead with their Griphen deal… we could have bought theirs!
But then we enter the ‘new logistics and training tail’ again.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
September 30, 2014 4:16 pm

I suspect the “pricey and unnecessary electronics” you refer to are in fact the primary flight control systems and assocaited instruments. The point of the T2 is that it is supposed to be more representative of a modern digital age jets.

Good luck with getting your airworthiness certifiacte for Mk 1.5!

Martin
Editor
September 30, 2014 4:36 pm

@ Shakvan

as El Sid points out the 11million figure does not include depreciation costs i.e. The cost of buying the aircraft and upgrading them. I just don’t think we can justify such frippery with such a small force anymore.

As for a cheaper version of the T2 Its likely to cost more to go ripping stuff out and developing something new. Realistically the T2 is the only option as it’s the only aircraft made in the UK. Its not going to do much for UK exports if the red arrows fly around in Korean made aircraft.

El Sid
El Sid
September 30, 2014 5:13 pm

@NaB (or perhaps more relevantly APATS?)
The Reds and aggressor squadrons are less bothered about being representative of modern glass cockpits. Obviously commonality counts for a lot, but just thinking selfishly about what you would look for in an RN aggressor squadron – surely things like a radar and ability to drop “ordnance” would be more useful in FOST than a fancy cockpit? Which in turn would point you to something more like a Hawk-200 with APG-66H rather than a Hawk-100 variant like T2.

Ain’t going to happen, I know.

As for F-16 supply chains – there are plenty on the Continent – Leeuwarden, Volkel, Spangdahlem, Skrydstrup etc – and perhaps a deal could be done for them to be maintained at Lakenheath? Again, I’m not saying it’s likely, just thinking out loud of possibilities.

trackback

[…] the squadron and their aircraft and that turned to the Hawk T1 and it's replacement (OSD 2020). F-16 Aggressors – Think Defence Most likely is the T2, that's what they want to train F35 pilots for so that's a pretty solid […]

Anixtu
Anixtu
September 30, 2014 9:06 pm

A brief description of what 736 NAS actually does for FOST might be useful. They replaced the FRADU Hunters, if that means anything to those with long memories.

This is a good video to accompany: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNaRsFYSPP8

Every Tuesday and Thursday they are employed in the South Coast Exercise Areas in the waters off Plymouth. Tuesdays are single threat Air Defence Exercises (ADEX), Thursdays are the grand event of FOST’s Weekly War with the full range of air, surface and sub-surface threats combined and co-ordinated.

The Hawks are used to simulate fighter-bombers and ground-attack aircraft attacking the FOST task force with bombs, rockets and guns, and to simulate sea-skimming ASMs. They do this in conjunction with FRA’s Falcon 20s which simulate the missile carriers, including electronic elements of the threat.

When acting as a missile strike, the Hawks and Falcons fly in close formation as depicted in the video, for the Falcons to “launch” the Hawks at the FOST task force. They then fly an appropriate flight profile to simulate a sea-skimming missile, i.e. below bridge wing height.

I wasn’t aware that they fly Aggressor type DACT stuff too.

TED
TED
September 30, 2014 9:12 pm

Um we are going to have typhoon and F35. If typhoons want dis similar aa how about they fight a lightning?

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
September 30, 2014 10:37 pm

“what you would look for in an RN aggressor squadron”

To be honest, the first thing I’d look for would be a requirement. 736 is being used as a very innovative way of keeping RN f/w competence alive and at some sort of sustainable mass during the “gap”. Once 809 stands up and in the hope that there’s going to be at least another FAA operational sqn, then the requirement for 736 reduces somewhat. FRADU endured as a contracted out capability for over 20 years, using 1950s jets until relatively recently. It may be more economic to return to that construct eventually, particularly given that post 2020 you’ll need a new cab.

I doubt they are being used for DACT (at least not judging by the flypro they’re running). Whether they need to be is a different question – noting that the USAF has just binned the 65th Aggressor Sqn. Times is hard all over. That doesn’t mean that a UK Joint aggressor sqn might not be justifiable – you could actually grow AWIs again (or QWI if you’re of that persuasion) and cross pol with the Typhoon and F35 OEUs.

The real problem is you’d still need to run FRADU to do what they do even if contracted out, but you’d have to buy a bunch of cabs to do the Aggressor role as well and those cabs had better represent the threat. Whether a subsonic trainer type is actually representative of future threats is an interesting question, which might favour an F16-type aircraft. Trouble is it’s still a very small buy with no economies of scale because MFTS and the like have closed that out. Symptomatic of a number of things we’ve been able to do simply by virtue of having a lot of still useful cabs available after earlier defence cuts, but coming to a head now with remorseless pressure to reduce fleets – no utility (as opposed to medium lift) cabs able to be used for plane guard, HDS, vertrep etc.

A knotty problem which, because it may require a disproportionately expensive solution, may just get kicked into long grass.

Challenger
Challenger
September 30, 2014 11:54 pm

@NaB

‘Once 809 stands up and in the hope that there’s going to be at least another FAA operational sqn, then the requirement for 736 reduces somewhat’

It’s going to be way past 2020 before we even get a whiff of another F35 FAA squadron, if ever frankly! Although i agree that if contracting out aggressor duties worked perfectly well in the past it could be an option again in the future.

Hohum
Hohum
October 1, 2014 9:39 am

This suggestion is so full of fail it is actually difficult to work out why TD allowed it to be posted. Where to start:

1) The Danish F-16s are in a terrible state as one would expect given they are 30 years old and would be 35 years old by the time the RAF would get them: not to mention obsolescence issues that will start to appear in the coming years

2) Being fully supersonic front-line combat aircraft, with all the additional avionics, extra fuel burn etc, that goes with that they would be considerably more expensive to operate than the current Hawk fleet

3) Denmark’s fighter decision will be based on platform capability, not on one of the country’s bidding, idiotically offering to take some beaten up first generation F-16s

Challenger
Challenger
October 1, 2014 4:52 pm

@Hohum

Exactly!

It’s seem to be an answer to a question no one asked.

The Red Arrows and respective aggressor squadrons are fine with the Hawk T1 for now and when it comes to replacement either the T2 will suffice or if that’s too specialist and expensive then another Hawk variant might suit or failing that a new off the shelf subsonic trainer (although in terms of spares, training, maintenance etc i think the Hawk is still preferable).

And of course contracting the capability out again is always an option. 736 NAS seems to have only been resurrected to assist with the CVF build-up.

TED
TED
October 1, 2014 5:35 pm

Spoke to a pilot on 100 a while ago. Didn’t seem to be desperate for T2 as it is less reliable.

Jed
Jed
October 1, 2014 5:37 pm

I have worked for FRADU back in the day, flown in the spare seat on two seat Hunters attacking ships at Portland and in the Falcon’s then flown by Flight Refuelling Aviaiton Ltd (FRA). Awesome draft (posting).

If 736 NAS does exactly the same thing they are “agressors” in that they provide targets for ships, as described above they simulate missiles, and on the same run they then simulate FGA aircraft to exercise the whole AD system, from radar operators to upper-deck-monkey-gunners.

They are NOT USN / USAF style “agressors”, they don’t fly “fighers” and dont do DACT.

HHA or “Hunter Team” are a private contractor out of RAF Scampton flying old Swiss Hunters, A Sukhoi Su22M and apparently a Bucaneer !!!! http://www.hunterteam.com/aircraft_technical_data.htm

I think I saw an article in a plane spotter mag that said they were fitting new simulation technology to the Hunter air-frames.

Martin
Martin
October 3, 2014 11:23 am

Just buy hawk t2 clapped out F16’s no
Challenger hawk t1.5 ? remember the chinook fiasco take yourself for a walk and a stiff talking to

Challenger
Challenger
October 3, 2014 12:24 pm

Perhaps asking BAE to fiddle with a tried and tested product is playing with fire.

However their is a multitude of existing and proven Hawk variants that we could choose to take on the aggressor role and replace the Red Arrows.

Don’t think it’s a straight choice between T2 or something entirely different.

Dan R
Dan R
October 4, 2014 11:17 am

I would actually make an argument to go the other way with the Hawk. Currently we operate nearly as many Hawks as Typhoons.

Given that a Hawk with Paveway IV or a Brimstone would be able to many of the missions in uncontested airspace against unsophisticated targets in Iraq or Afghanistan (or probably 50% or more of future missions) I’d argue arming them would give the RAF substantially more capacity.

Fedaykin
October 5, 2014 10:26 am

I am very much of the opinion that OC 736 Tim Flatman was being rather tongue in cheek and mischievous when he suggested getting second hand F-16. Aside from the logistic issues of adopting an Alien type to the UK armed forces I rather think the RAF’s reaction would be rather like this famous scene in the Godfather:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VC1_tdnZq1A

My feeling is more Hawk will be procured in the not too distant future to a similar specification of the T2 already in service, it fits into our logistics trail and is affordable. It also keeps the line going a bit longer which is going to sound far better in parliament and avoid any howls of protest from various constituencies.

If the Red Arrows are staying in business my guess is they will be told “Put up, shut or face being disbanded” in respect of their preference for the T1 in the role.

WiseApe
October 10, 2014 5:13 pm

I thought this idea was barking when I first saw the post. That was before reading that the back end of our Typhoons are about to drop off :-)

http://worlddefencenews.blogspot.ca/2014/10/us-air-force-to-extend-service-lives-of.html

trackback

[…] replaced by a version of the Hawk 200 so that they can continue to promote British industry.  See https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2014/09/f-16-aggressors for […]