Originally Posted by
Bob Viking
You said that far better than me. I was trying to make it glib and pithy but your explanation covers it much better.
If Aeralis manage to fly their aircraft (that alone requires a significant investment!) in the next few years and get it into production this decade then its service life (let’s say 30 years is desirable) then we are talking about a training jet that needs to be relevant until 2050.
If it’s going to be an attack jet that is relevant until 2050 then that’s where I see an even bigger problem.
Why would anyone on a limited budget even contemplate a manned attack platform with such limited capability? Why would you bother with a lengthy training system if all you want to do is some light attack?
If you want a DCA platform then how do you make a jet like that survive against anything except a Mig 15?
Just ask the Houthis how to do cheap strike missions into hostile territory. Or ask Iran (if we believe the media) how to hit oil tankers.
My opinion is not because I don’t want a homegrown company to strike it rich but this is not an industry where you can create something in your basement with spare washing machine parts.
I know Aeralis need to talk the talk to make money but I’m afraid it comes across as the team that walk into the Dragons Den and make Peter Jones laugh at their ridiculous valuation.
All the fancy CAD systems in the world can’t make a drawing fly without dumper trucks full of cash.
Please, please convince me I’m wrong.
BV
You’re not wrong. It’s just not going to happen for this concept aircraft. To change the wings around allegedly takes the best part of months, though you won’t see that in any of the material; which is just one aspect that, for me, makes it redundant. Furthermore, why change the wings around, as someone has noted, the flight control laws can be changed and the engines limited if required.
Nice idea 20 years ago, but I just cannot see it happening now for all the points mentioned above.