Aeralis Modular Trainer

[ORAC]

£200,000 over 3 years doesn’t sound as if it would fund more than one PR persons wages...

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/convertible-jet-design-backed-by-raf-might-just-have-wings-v3tn6r728

Convertible jet design backed by RAF might just have wings


https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1180x663/image_4aa8c7d0c228f5b7f110713666e54356df93d7d1.jpeg

The RAF has backed a British company to develop an aircraft that can be converted from a trainer to a faster, more aggressive jet by swapping out its engines and wings.

Aeralis, based in Suffolk, has been given £200,000 by the force to develop its “revolutionary” modular plane, which it says would be the first fully developed in Britain since the Hawk was launched in 1974.

The two-seater aircraft will have at least three variants based around the same fuselage but fitted with different engine and wing configurations: a basic trainer, a speedier, more manoeuvrable fighter-style plane and a reconnaissance model with long wings and a more efficient engine.

Tristan Crawford, Aeralis chief executive, said the project could help the RAF rationalise its future fleets and reduce the number of different aircraft.

“We can put different wings on and different engines on so that it becomes a basic trainer for example, so it flies more slowly and it’s more easy to fly — like the flying equivalent of a family car,” he said. “Then you can put more swept wings on it and a more powerful engine so you can fly faster but it’s more demanding to fly . . . so then you're into your sort of Porsche.”

The fuselage stays the same for each design. Then different kinds of wings and engine units are bolted on to create the various options. The third option involves longer wings for surveillance missions, and Aeralis is also exploring a fourth option that will be unmanned and used as a fast-attack drone.

The aircraft will primarily be used for all kinds of training from basic to Top Gun-style combat exercises.......

Crawford, an aircraft design engineer, said that every component would come from British companies. “The last time Britain developed its own crewed military aircraft fully in Britain was 1974 with the Hawk. Everything else that has come afterwards has had to rely on some kind of overseas partnership to make it happen,” he said.

Aeralis has been granted the £200,000 over three years from the RAF’s Rapid Capabilities Office, which aims to develop innovative thinking and novel ideas. The RAF said there were no plans to replace the Hawk training aircraft.

Air Marshal Richard Knighton, deputy chief of the defence staff, said: “This private aircraft company is adopting an innovative approach that I have not seen before in the combat air sector.”


https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1383x1042/image_454b91f7f1457c55728c2539adc81daf83697235.png

[skua]

Tip of the iceberg.

[spitfirek5054]

MRCA again?:)

[Mogwi]

Might work as an Airfix.

Mog

[Nige321]

It's certainly kicking of on Twitter with the graphic showing one or two men crew...

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x2000/screenshot_2021_02_17_at_10_36_26_aa7a6260d96fcf674718b38ee3 b66914c335de74.jpg

[Less Hair]

Clip on VTOL and clip on hook for carriers are missing.

[Bob Viking]

I certainly thought that appeared massively tone deaf in 2021.

A bit of an own goal I would suggest.

BV

[BEagle]

Surely any structure intended to support high G manoeuvres will need som very substantial wing root 'bolts'?

Will the Areola fly? I'm not convinced.

[Martin the Martian]

Presumably it will fold up into four suitcases like Little Nellie.

[KiloB]

Did we not learn from the F35 that designs based on multiple versions of the same airframe are just fools-gold? Different versions are either too strong or too heavy and all versions are expensive.

[Bob Viking]

My big question would be regarding the role change.

As we have found out, changes to important parts of the aircraft’s configuration (wings/engines etc) will require a post maintenance air test. That alone can be an onerous requirement.

I know Aeralis say the aircraft are easy to reconfigure but the reality is probably that anyone tasked with aircraft scheduling would rather just have a fleet of each type available and would absolutely minimise changes to configuration. This would avoid down time for each airframe.

So with the above in mind, why focus on a common airframe?

Why not just ensure maximum commonality across the fleets but actually optimise each type for it’s intended role?

I’m all for blue sky thinking and I wish Aeralis all the best. It might just work but I am yet to be convinced.

Having said that, I’m just an oik so who really cares what I think?!

BV

[Herod]

MRCA again?https://www.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif yep, as was said in the seventies "Must Refurbish Canberras Again,

[Less Hair]

It will have one use at a time but carry a double use wing root structure all the time. And the trainer will be overly heavy for low performance missions.

[NutLoose]

Why can I see someone thinking... hmm let’s try the big wings with the big engines, or the big wing with the little engines

[Foghorn Leghorn]

My big question would be regarding the role change.

As we have found out, changes to important parts of the aircraft’s configuration (wings/engines etc) will require a post maintenance air test. That alone can be an onerous requirement.

I know Aeralis say the aircraft are easy to reconfigure but the reality is probably that anyone tasked with aircraft scheduling would rather just have a fleet of each type available and would absolutely minimise changes to configuration. This would avoid down time for each airframe.

So with the above in mind, why focus on a common airframe?

Why not just ensure maximum commonality across the fleets but actually optimise each type for it’s intended role?

I’m all for blue sky thinking and I wish Aeralis all the best. It might just work but I am yet to be convinced.

Having said that, I’m just an oik so who really cares what I think?!

BV

As I understand it, the downtime in order to re-configure the aircraft is quite significant. It’s not a case of quickly changing it over a week or weekend.

[unmanned_droid]

Just as bad an idea as when we discussed it last.

[BEagle]

MRCA? Must Reopen Chivenor Again!

If only......

[Easy Street]

I didn't think the concept was about having a role change capability: I thought it was about reducing development, certification and in-service support costs for subsequent variants by re-using the fuselage/engine/cockpit module of the initial trainer. The hidden armies in DE&S and industry acquiring and supporting each aircraft type are a huge cost burden on the RAF, so reducing the number of distinct types does have a certain attraction. Once you'd acquired, operated and supported some trainers, it should be much cheaper to acquire, operate and support a (eg) light fighter variant and/or a recce drone variant than it would be to acquire totally different platforms for each role.

However, the fundamental problems of modularity remain. Maybe they could find a market for such an approach in countries which have historically used light fighters for their air defence, although personally I doubt it. For the UK, the large size of our area of air defence responsibility drives range and loiter requirements which I can't see being met by an aircraft derived from an economically-viable trainer.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

​From the Telegraph:
​​​
First British-built fighter jet since the Hawk moves closer to test flightAeralis is designing a revolutionary “convertible” jet which can be reconfigured for a variety of roles by swapping out parts

The first British-designed jet fighter since the 1970s has moved a step closer to lift-off after its developer Aeralis secured the backing of industrial heavy*weights Atkins and Siemens.

Aeralis is designing a revolutionary “convertible” jet which can be reconfigured for a variety of roles by swapping out parts for different missions

Based around a common fuselage, the aircraft can be kitted out for either a single pilot or with a two-seat cockpit for use as a trainer, and fitted with different wings depending on whether it is going to be operated in a fighter, ground attack or reconnaissance role.

The Suffolk-based business has now signed a deal to carry out design work with Atkins, an engineer, while Siemens is working on a digital platform that will link up production and support systems.

Tristan Crawford, chief executive of Aeralis, said: “We are getting traction with industry to turn a design into reality. It’s no mean feat to create an entirely new aircraft company in the UK.”

Rather than designing from a blank page, aeronautical engineer Mr Crawford said the company is using existing, proven components such as engines, speeding up development work and reducing costs.



The Ministry of Defence is expected to be a customer and is backing the design until its first flight in 2024. The new jet could replace the RAF’s Hawk fighter used by the Red Arrows.



Aeralis estimated there is a market for up to 5,500 of its jets, which could be worth £150bn.

[LateArmLive]

whether it is going to be operated in a fighter, ground attack or reconnaissance role

And with that concept, the UK went back to the 1960s...

[Bob Viking]

I absolutely understand your point but I think, to be clear, if the UK MOD ever purchase the Aeralis aircraft it will almost certainly never be employed in an operational role.

It’s a trainer for any developed nation, not a frontline aircraft.

Although some nations may use it differently I think it is a mistake (bordering on naivety) to break it down into such specific roles.

BV

[unmanned_droid]

It's a pretty horrible concept all around really.

[Corporal Clott]

If it looks right, it’ll fly right… errm!!?


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/882x297/image_f5627c8965dcd0683640337e569ec841dd3dfffc.jpeg

It kind of reminds me of Gru’s aircraft in Despicable Me 2! :p

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/960x522/548a90b1_82ea_4c0d_8775_5fcc1f78ebd4_5e6c6bdf51e21fcd0b7ebe6 d1a5cfea106b6e3a1.jpeg

[bobward]

Does the penultimate paragraph of the Telegraph article offer a clue? A new jet for the Reds to use?

[Duchess_Driver]

Aeralis estimated there is a market for up to 5,500 of its jets,

In this day and age, where exactly would that be?

[Out Of Trim]

I can’t see the Aeralis taking off… 🤔

It would be a trainer at best! What else could it do? Even if you swapped the wings and engine. It doesn’t seem viable to me. 😬

[Video Mixdown]

I have no idea whether this project will succeed or not, but I admire the ambition of the designers and engineers involved who clearly believe in it. I wish them well.

[muppetofthenorth]

Had this forum existed in 1903 I'm sure most of you would have told the Wright brothers that they were barking up the wrong tree, too.

[Bob Viking]

I would dearly love to be proven wrong but I just don’t buy it.

Claims like 5000+ units to be sold are frankly ludicrous but let’s have a proper think about it.

Where is the market for such an aircraft?

If it’s to be a trainer then all the nations who would be likely to buy in bulk already have a new trainer either in service or in the pipeline (Hawk, M346, T50, Redhawk).

Hawk, for instance, has been in service for nearly 50 years in one guise or another. There have been approximately 1000 made and distributed to various Air Forces around the world. That’s a long way off 5000+.

A few small orders aren’t going to pay the bills and who would want to be the launch customer for it?

So what if the Aeralis jet is to be a light attack fighter (let’s ignore the sub division of roles previously mentioned). I’m going to be generous and pick arguably the most ubiquitous fighter in the world, the F16, as a compariosn. There have been approximately 4600 of those built in almost 50 years. Even that is still short of 5000 and we can all agree the F16 is a great platform. The Aeralis jet will not be in the same league.

I am a current FJ instructor and I honestly don’t believe we will be using manned fighters for very much longer (I think I’m safe for the time being but I think the change will come in my lifetime). That kind of limits the use for jet trainers and light attack jets if I end up being proven correct.

The role change/common fuselage thing sounds like a neat trick but is it really necessary or just a gimmick?

I genuinely worry that it’s a bit like a Dragons Den pitch on steroids. Some good investment and some money in the pockets of a few savvy businessmen with a plausible design and a good sales pitch. But honestly, where is the market?

I’m sorry to be the Debbie Downer but I have seen nothing to convince me yet that it is a realistic proposition.

As I have said previously though, I would dearly love to be proven wrong and you’re all more than welcome to rub my nose in it if the project truly comes to fruition.

BV

[NutLoose]

What makes it seem implausible is to buy into the concept you need to buy 6 wings and three intakes /engine pods with one presumes three engines as they appear to be tailored to each variant, that then becomes an expensive idea, on top of that, would you want the advanced aggressor trainer cockpit fit in the recon version?
To go from a basic trainer to a greater sweep could that not simply be done by a pivot at the front of the wing and a mechanical bolting system at the rear that would simply be inserted in a different hole to alter the sweep.. Engine power increase could be adjusted by removing a limiter.
.

[Davef68]

First British-built fighter jet since the Hawk moves closer to test flight.

<cough>

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1120x700/british_aerospace_eap_at_the_farnborough_air_show_1986_81724 62526a5d06d93388a7cf9b29c9d952e6238.jpg

[Lima Juliet]

Bob Viking
I am a current FJ instructor and I honestly don’t believe we will be using manned fighters for very much longer (I think I’m safe for the time being but I think the change will come in my lifetime). That kind of limits the use for jet trainers and light attack jets if I end up being proven correct.

I think you may be slightly off the mark in that assessment. I think humans will still fly, but I think the traditional role of the “Pilot” will go the same way as Navigator, Air Engineer, etc… There will likely be a Force Mix of crewed aircraft, RPAS and autonomous aircraft - some like Tempest and B21 will also be optionally crewed. But where I do agree with you is that this training aircraft is not 6th Gen enough. My prediction is that the stick, rudder and throttle will die and gesture control, mouse/trackerball and keyboard (augmented by thought/voice control) will likely come. I also predict that the next generation aviator is more likely to become a cross between a current Pilot, WSO and WSOp. We may see these new Aircrew by as early as 2035 and sadly I don’t believe this jet will satisfy that requirement - many of the basic piloting skills taught by such aircraft will be automated out and the spatial awareness, airborne leadership, tactical/operational management, weapons employment and airborne specialist knowledge will become far more important.

NutLoose - I agree and the PC21 is a perfect example where the engine is digitally restricted and the FCS is digitally limited to provide various levels of performance according to the training mission. No need to significantly alter the airframe/engine physically, as it is all done via software.

[beardy]

<cough>

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1120x700/british_aerospace_eap_at_the_farnborough_air_show_1986_81724 62526a5d06d93388a7cf9b29c9d952e6238.jpg
Not a fighter, no weapons and only one of them.
The clue is in the name EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT PROTOTYPE

[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 2060.

If it’s going to be an attack jet that is relevant until 2060 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

[Foghorn Leghorn]

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.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

Bob Viking


I think you may be slightly off the mark in that assessment. I think humans will still fly, but I think the traditional role of the “Pilot” will go the same way as Navigator, Air Engineer, etc… There will likely be a Force Mix of crewed aircraft, RPAS and autonomous aircraft - some like Tempest and B21 will also be optionally crewed. But where I do agree with you is that this training aircraft is not 6th Gen enough. My prediction is that the stick, rudder and throttle will die and gesture control, mouse/trackerball and keyboard (augmented by thought/voice control) will likely come. I also predict that the next generation aviator is more likely to become a cross between a current Pilot, WSO and WSOp. We may see these new Aircrew by as early as 2035 and sadly I don’t believe this jet will satisfy that requirement - many of the basic piloting skills taught by such aircraft will be automated out and the spatial awareness, airborne leadership, tactical/operational management, weapons employment and airborne specialist knowledge will become far more important.

NutLoose - I agree and the PC21 is a perfect example where the engine is digitally restricted and the FCS is digitally limited to provide various levels of performance according to the training mission. No need to significantly alter the airframe/engine physically, as it is all done via software.

LJ, thought control and gestures to control aircraft, in a manned sense, is not going to happen in our lifetime. Pilots of Typhoon and F35 already are a pilot and WSOP all rolled into one. Further, I would say these aircraft are already simple to fly which allows one to concentrate on the mission systems and task.

[Lima Juliet]

LJ, thought control and gestures to control aircraft, in a manned sense, is not going to happen in our lifetime. Pilots of Typhoon and F35 already are a pilot and WSOP all rolled into one. Further, I would say these aircraft are already simple to fly which allows one to concentrate on the mission systems and task.

That wearable tech is already with us old fruit, so it will absolutely be within our lifetime. The leap from controlling an uncrewed air vehicle to one with people in it, is tiny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJpw3ktCGo

As for a cross between a Pilot and WSOp with less pure piloting skills - it’s called a WSO :ok:

[unmanned_droid]

Had this forum existed in 1903 I'm sure most of you would have told the Wright brothers that they were barking up the wrong tree, too.


No, that was groundbreaking stuff. This is just money down the drain on a pointless **** idea (background: career in aircraft structural analysis).

Still, it will keep some Atkins grads busy for a while, so its got that going for it.

[Foghorn Leghorn]

That wearable tech is already with us old fruit, so it will absolutely be within our lifetime. The leap from controlling an uncrewed air vehicle to one with people in it, is tiny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3VJpw3ktCGo

As for a cross between a Pilot and WSOp with less pure piloting skills - it’s called a WSO :ok:

The wearable tech has been with us for years old fruit. It’s nothing new and it’s still not progressed beyond an embryonic stage. It won’t be in our life time. Sounds like Wiggy’s Astra rhetoric has got to you!

As for a single seat pilot that conducts the roles of a…..pilot and the traditional role of a WSO - it’s called a pilot :ok:

[PPRuNeUser0211]

The wearable tech has been with us for years old fruit. It’s nothing new and it’s still not progressed beyond an embryonic stage. It won’t be in our life time. Sounds like Wiggy’s Astra rhetoric has got to you!

As for a single seat pilot that conducts the roles of a…..pilot and the traditional role of a WSO - it’s called a pilot :ok:
Agree with FL - wearables and also voice control have been around for literally decades, and they're better than they used to be, but how often does Alexa screw up? Once a day maybe? Twice? And that's when you're asking it to do something about 5 times a day, it has cloud connectivity and low background noise.

Same with wearables for control - as soon as you put them in to a stressed environment, the glossy brochure starts to look less good. Not impossible, but less good to the point where you may as well stay with something physical. I'd be the first to say that might need to be an Xbox controller these days though!

As for Aeralis, neat idea 30 years ago. Today, as BV has said, it's stretching a little to believe they'd ever recoup R&D on it. Best case for them, some kind of national manufacturing thing in the UK gets them T2 replacement in 2040 and they sell UK MOD 12 jets?

[Lima Juliet]

Foghorn Leghorn
I believe you are missing the point here and this thread about a trainer for 4th Gen aircraft. There will be no need to train a Pilot as we know them for Tempest. No need for anything like the EFT-BFT-AJT pathway that we have now. Much of the flying will be done by the aircraft and the human riding in it will need more skills like a FJ WSO than a single-seat FJ Pilot. Now I get it that FJ Pilot egos will find that a hard concept to grasp, but it is the reality of where Tempest is headed. If you look at the releasable stuff from Skunk Works or Phantom Works then they are too (remembering their releasable stuff is normally at least 1 Gen removed!).

Further with DARPA’s ALIAS project a bolt in autonomous Pilot is now possible for Multi-Engine and Rotary Wing platforms. Give it a Google, it exists now.

So really our future generation of Aircrew within 10 years are more likely to be with FJ WSO and ISTAR WSO skill sets rather than traditional ‘stick monkey’ Pilot skills. Within 10 years I expect to see only 1 person on the flight deck of a heavy aircraft or in a helo cockpit. That is something that is coming and as Aircrew we either adapt and take out hard earned skills with us, or we simply fade away as the autonomy takes over…:ok:

[Lima Juliet]

DARPA ALIAS links - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2021/sikorsky-and-darpa-fly-opv-black-hawk-with-supervised-autonomy.html

https://youtu.be/DolT6Joc3RE

I’m afraid that traditional Pilot skills will be going the same way as Navigator, Air Engineer, etc… This technology can be retrofitted to almost any aircraft to replace the pilot - safer too, with no human errors. Recently an AI Bot kicked an F16 FWI’s arse in 1v1 combat - 5 sore bottoms to nil - without making a single error. Using the same lag BFM techniques the AI Bot slowly took the advantage by gaining a degree or 2 here and there on the FWI. The AI Bot doesn’t make errors and just keeps flying to the limits. Both aircraft simulations were using the same aircraft limits too, but the Bot flew it 100% accurately every time and exploiting the 99.9% or less performance of its human opponent.

So why do we need humans at all? We can interpret, take risks and provide autonomous random behaviour - that is what makes us human. Combined with a machine doing what a machine does best, then a human/machine mix is the best result. It looks like Star Wars got it wrong by putting R2D2 in the back seat - R2 should have been flying and Luke should have been in the ‘boot’ directing the battle. But hey, it is Science FICTION after all! :)

[Bob Viking]

I will get in there quick before FL explodes. You’re right with much of what you say but I must take issue with some of it.

You are describing the FJ WSO skill set as if it is something a FJ pilot cannot do.

All current FJ pilots are basically dual (or even triple)-roled. They have been that way for some time now.

So, whilst I agree that many traditional piloting exercises of manual tanking and take offs and landings etc may disappear I think the future human in a manned platform (I struggle to see why we are committing fully to the manned route though to be honest) will still be more akin to a current FJ pilot than an historical FJ WSO.

BV

[Foghorn Leghorn]

I will get in there quick before FL explodes. You’re right with much of what you say but I must take issue with some of it.

You are describing the FJ WSO skill set as if it is something a FJ pilot cannot do.

All current FJ pilots are basically dual (or even triple)-roled. They have been that way for some time now.

So, whilst I agree that many traditional piloting exercises of manual tanking and take offs and landings etc may disappear I think the future human in a manned platform (I struggle to see why we are committing fully to the manned route though to be honest) will still be more akin to a current FJ pilot than an historical FJ WSO.

BV

Exactly what you said, BV. I have no idea my LJ seems to be dogmatically fixated on a WSO being what you need when a Typhoon/F35 pilot is doing what a legacy WSO did on top of the flying they’re doing.

I’ll say it again, we won’t see it in our lifetime where gestures are used to control an aircraft in an IOC or FOC capacity. I think you’re missing the point LJ, the technology to do what you’ve pointed out has been around for longer than you think, it still hasn’t come to fruition.

Nobody is arguing about the EFT-BFT-AFT path either. I don’t actually think anyone knows at the moment what they want or what it’ll look like. We’re at a crossroads in terms of technology and what will be required to train people.

Interesting to note the USAF has gone for the Red Hawk, a high performance trainer.

Amusingly, I think we are all singing off the same hymn sheet - Aeralis is an anachronism and certainly isn’t the answer for the future.

[Bob Viking]

Sorry to be like a dog with a bone but there is something that keeps gnawing at me (is that a mixed metaphor?!).

In their publicity Aeralis use some very dumbed down verbiage. Is that an attempt to use laypersons terms to speak to a wider, non technical, audience? Or does it in fact point to a fundamental lack of familiarity with the field?

I am comparing the way they speak with other Aerospace companies from many different nations (if they were to sell 5000+ units they would be considered to be something of a world leader).

I’m afraid they just come across as a little amateurish. I’m hoping it’s just that and not a bunch of chancers trying to swindle some juicy government investment.

Once again, please convince me I’m wrong and I would be as happy as the next man if they end up getting a decent contract out of it to build new jets.

BV

[Video Mixdown]

Once again, please convince me I’m wrong and I would be as happy as the next man if they end up getting a decent contract out of it to build new jets.BV
I suppose it's possible that this could really be more about UAV's than manned aircraft. If they can demonstrate that a modular concept works, being able to supply 'Lego Sets' that allow operators to assemble the type of vehicle they need for specific missions might make sense.

[Easy Street]

I'm not so sure that LJ is way off board with the "WSO" thing (and I write as a member of the two-winged master race). Gesture or "brainwave" control might be outlandish or unnecessarily complex, but I can easily see a future in which aircraft handling is fully automated and the "pilot", or more accurately operator, sets tasks for the automation to carry out. This wouldn't involve anything as clunky as contemporary FMSs or autopilot mode selection panels.

[Nige321]

Sorry to be like a dog with a bone but there is something that keeps gnawing at me (is that a mixed metaphor?!).

In their publicity Aeralis use some very dumbed down verbiage. Is that an attempt to use laypersons terms to speak to a wider, non technical, audience? Or does it in fact point to a fundamental lack of familiarity with the field?

I am comparing the way they speak with other Aerospace companies from many different nations (if they were to sell 5000+ units they would be considered to be something of a world leader).

I’m afraid they just come across as a little amateurish. I’m hoping it’s just that and not a bunch of chancers trying to swindle some juicy government investment.

Once again, please convince me I’m wrong and I would be as happy as the next man if they end up getting a decent contract out of it to build new jets.

BV

Here's the 'Team' (https://aeralis.com/the-team/)
Some of them might be 'chancers', who knows...

These are the 'advisors':
Bob Bell
Former Technical Director of Mercedes Formula 1

Malcolm Bird
Founder ARM & Chairman of e-Go, a lightweight recreational aircraft

Keith Dennison
Keith Dennison, former Chief Test Pilot, BAE Systems

Professor John Fielding
Emeritus Professor of Aircraft Design at Cranfield University

Professor Iain Gray
Head of Aerospace, Cranfield University & Former MD of Airbus UK

Sir Gerald Howarth
MP for 35 years & Former Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

William Hynett OBE
CEO of Britten-Norman Ltd

Keith McKay
Former Airframer Expert, BAE Systems

Neil Rawlinson
Strategic Director, Manufacturing Technology Centre

John Turner
Former Chief Test Pilot, BAE Systems

[Out Of Trim]

Not a bad team, it would appear. The concept of a modular design seems quite a good idea at first glance. However, I'm sorry to have to agree that it’s just flawed.

If I was looking for a new advanced trainer that could provide some more advanced capabilities. I think it would be more likely to be the Redhawk as a lead on to Tempest! 👀

[Lima Juliet]

Foghorn Leghorn and Bob Viking - I agree in part with you both. I also agree that single seat Typhoon and F35 mates eventually develop some of the skills of an ISTAR WSO or WSOp. But I guess my articulation is poor here, what I am trying to say (obviously clumsily) is that pretty soon (10-15 years) much of what many traditional Pilots learned during their Phase 2 Flying Training will no longer be needed. What they will need is more akin to a blend of Pilot, WSO and WSOp training, rather than what we currently have. Easy Street seems to have nailed it better than I.

Now we’re talking about Aeralis here, so my main point is that this aircraft to me seems to be aimed more at what will be our legacy Flying Training System (which may have to change as quickly as 5 years away) and realistically we will need to train an “Operator” rather than what we traditionally know as a “Pilot”. Your ability to keep the needle straight up and the ball in the middle becomes less relevant as every day goes by. So, should these future “Operators” be called Pilots, WSOs or WSOps or something entirely different? I’m also not thinking purely Combat Air here either, the same question aims off at Air Mobility, ISTAR and Rotary Wing - all of which could very soon (within 5-10 years) see more ‘machine flying’ by a computer rather than a human. As I clumsily explained before, that human will not need the skills that we have traditionally inculcated in our Pilots prior to OCU or even AJT (which still major on Piloting skill and kit manipulation is a secondary activity as far as I can see).

[hunterboy]

Bob Bell
Former Technical Director of Mercedes Formula 1

Malcolm Bird
Founder ARM & Chairman of e-Go, a lightweight recreational aircraft

Keith Dennison
Keith Dennison, former Chief Test Pilot, BAE Systems

Professor John Fielding
Emeritus Professor of Aircraft Design at Cranfield University

Professor Iain Gray
Head of Aerospace, Cranfield University & Former MD of Airbus UK

Sir Gerald Howarth
MP for 35 years & Former Shadow Defence Procurement Minister

William Hynett OBE
CEO of Britten-Norman Ltd

Keith McKay
Former Airframer Expert, BAE Systems

Neil Rawlinson
Strategic Director, Manufacturing Technology Centre

John Turner
Former Chief Test Pilot, BAE Systems

How many of them have bet their house on the concept? Or are they just looking to use other people’s money ?

[typerated]

How does it compare in performance with a PC-21 or a Hawk?

Interesting to see the French being happy with retiring the Alpha Jet and using the PC-21 for advanced / fighter lead in - opposite thinking to the US supersonic and lots of sustained G's - Red Hawk.

Another interesting move is the RNZAF use the T-6 as their one and only singled engined trainer. A lot of performance for early students to handle but then no conversion and no cost of multiple fleets to maintain.

[Timelord]

I’ve just seen an article in the Express on line ( yes, I know) saying that they WILL get a contract by Christmas to manufacture 9+3 aircraft for the Red Arrows, so it must be true!

[NutLoose]

Yup the Daily Fail is reporting the same, they are building the new Red Arrows lol..

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9982581/British-firm-NEW-Red-Arrows.html



A British firm is set to strike a deal that will see it design and develop a replacement for the Red Arrows' aircrafts.

Suffolk-based Aeralis was given £200,000 by the RAF to develop a new aircraft that could be converted from basic trainer to aggressive fighter by swapping engines and wings earlier this year.

But the jet developer is now set to win a contract that will see it replace the fully aerobatic Hawk T1 plane, which first entered service with the RAF in 1974, amid concerns about the aircraft's safety.

[unmanned_droid]

Completely insane.

[ORAC]

Suffolk-based Aeralis was given £200,000 by the RAF to develop a new aircraft….
Are they sure that’s not to design a new paint scheme or logo? Not sure what £200K would buy these days….

[charliegolf]

Are they sure that’s not to design a new paint scheme or logo? Not sure what £200K would buy these days….

A fair-sized PPE contract, fitness for purpose only desirable?

CG

[Sideshow Bob]

How many of them have bet their house on the concept? Or are they just looking to use other people’s money ?
Funny you should say that as I've come across a few of those names as advisors on other "development" projects, especially John Fielding and Iain Gray both ex BAe and now in Senior positions at Cranfield

[xtp]

The fallacy in the argument about eliminating human error is that AI just moves the errors to the engineering team on the ground who generate non-deterministic mission-critical software with attendant challenges in applying rigorous QA, not to mention a dubious ability to adequately handle complex situations that hadn't been imagined in advance.

[Tay Cough]

From a production line point of view, Aeralis makes some kind of sense and could lead to potentially significant savings. Think of it purely in these terms and there’s some logic to it. A basic platform which is adapted to a particular role as it moves down the line and is eventually rolled out as the appropriate version - and then stays that way!

As to a particular air arm buying one aircraft with three sets of wings, etc. Utterly barking.

[ORAC]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/01/30/pay-as-you-go-raf-training-jets-could-cut-costs-mod/

Pay-as-you-go RAF training jets could cut costs for MOD

A Royal Air Force contractor has signed a deal that paves the way for a pay-as-you-go training system for fighter pilots.

AirTanker, which rents Voyager refuelling craft to the RAF, (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/18/voyage-discovery-new-owner-rafs-refuelling-jets/) has signalled that it is interested in renting out jet trainer aircraft that could be used to train fighter pilots.

It has signed a deal with Aeralis, which is positioning itself to provide a replacement for the RAF’s Hawk trainer aircraft (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/04/18/rolls-royce-backs-new-hawk-fighter-jet-trainer/). As well as training, its modular jets can be fitted with different suites of weaponry to also serve as attack aircraft.

AirTanker and Aeralis say they can provide cost-effective training for British warplane pilots and their allies and will discuss a “model” for doing so.…..

As well as teaching pilots to fly in a jet-powered aircraft, the platform is capable of being fitted with twin engines and training pilots in combat scenarios.

Aeralis said its jet should offer “significantly lower financing, acquisition and operating costs for aircraft compared to incumbents, paving the way for enabling a wide range of ‘on-demand’ operational air support services as part of the future of air force fleets.”

The jet is still in development but will fly in the next three years. Last year it won the backing of Rolls-Royce and ejector seat firm Martin Baker (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/04/first-british-built-fighter-jet-since-harrier-moves-closer-test/), as well as investment from the Royal Air Force’s Rapid Capabilities Office to test its system to allow electronic components to be swapped in and out and upgraded without the aircraft needing a costly recertification by regulators.

Its modular craft, sharing 85pc common parts, should help shave 30pc off costs over the life of the craft compared to a bespoke jet, which requires specific training and parts to maintain.

AirTanker started off as a collaboration between Airbus, Babcock, Cobham, Rolls-Royce and Thales, but Rolls, Babcock and Cobham sold out. It is now owned by Airbus, Thales and Equitix Investment Management.

[Poorly PA]

Right well this sounds entirely reasonable. Ascent are failing to deliver in many ways on MFTS, and I know the T2 engine issue isn't 100% their fault, but trust me the track record is not great. So they sign an MOU with Aeralis last Summer and now that platform is being offered to rescue the dire state of UK FJ trg.

Is this Double Dipping at its absolute best? next news is Wiggy has a job with one of them!!


I can't post the link but just Google Aeralis and ascent mou, July 2022.

[dagenham]

I would be a good amount of beer that we will hear of a Boeing Saab T7 purchase and a ties up with BAe or some such….

[Bob Viking]

I’ve said many times before, I dearly want the Aeralis project to work. I would love to see a successful British start up company break into the market with a brand new training solution.

I just don’t get how it’ll work though.

Touting Aeralis as a solution to the current Hawk problem is inexplicable. Ascent never bought the Hawk T2s. UKGOV did. So where are Ascent getting the money to fund the R&D and production of a new fleet of jet aircraft? It also makes a mockery of the ‘common fuselage’ concept when your customer only needs one type.

Even if the money were there to buy a fleet of Aeralis jet trainers how long would it take to see students launching on a GH1 profile in their shiny new steed? My guess would be that ten years from now would be an incredible achievement. If we’re willing to wait that long now why not just invest in a bunch of T50s or 346s straight off the production line?

My belief is that the Hawks will get sorted in the not too distant future and they will continue as planned (ish) for the next 20+ years. By which point Aeralis will either have found a large scale launch customer and be the global market leader, or circumstances will have changed beyond our current comprehension and a totally new solution will be required. Judging by the way everyone else is going it’ll either be a much higher performance trainer, a 100% simulated training syllabus or a world in which we no longer need to train pilots to get airborne in actual fighters. In any of those situations I’m not sure where Aeralis fits in.

Anyway, please prove me wrong and make me eat my words when Aeralis makes a fortune and saves the RAF in the process.

BV

[t43562]

I’ve said many times before, I dearly want the Aeralis project to work. I would love to see a successful British start up company break into the market with a brand new training solution.

I just don’t get how it’ll work though.

Touting Aeralis as a solution to the current Hawk problem is inexplicable. Ascent never bought the Hawk T2s. UKGOV did. So where are Ascent getting the money to fund the R&D and production of a new fleet of jet aircraft? It also makes a mockery of the ‘common fuselage’ concept when your customer only needs one type.

Even if the money were there to buy a fleet of Aeralis jet trainers how long would it take to see students launching on a GH1 profile in their shiny new steed? My guess would be that ten years from now would be an incredible achievement. If we’re willing to wait that long now why not just invest in a bunch of T50s or 346s straight off the production line?

My belief is that the Hawks will get sorted in the not too distant future and they will continue as planned (ish) for the next 20+ years. By which point Aeralis will either have found a large scale launch customer and be the global market leader, or circumstances will have changed beyond our current comprehension and a totally new solution will be required. Judging by the way everyone else is going it’ll either be a much higher performance trainer, a 100% simulated training syllabus or a world in which we no longer need to train pilots to get airborne in actual fighters. In any of those situations I’m not sure where Aeralis fits in.

Anyway, please prove me wrong and make me eat my words when Aeralis makes a fortune and saves the RAF in the process.

BV

The one I was wondering about was the Advanced Hawk - the BAE/HAL thing with a new wing and a large screen display in the cockpit. Seems to have disappeared. If an upgrade like that cannot get funded then how would a totally new set of airframes?

[meleagertoo]

I can’t see the Aeralis taking off… 🤔

It would be a trainer at best! What else could it do? Even if you swapped the wings and engine. It doesn’t seem viable to me. 😬
Puhleese! They are swapped "out". Quite why they are not swapped "in", "through" or "by" I am at a loss to know.

[Bob Viking]

The one I was wondering about was the Advanced Hawk - the BAE/HAL thing with a new wing and a large screen display in the cockpit. Seems to have disappeared. If an upgrade like that cannot get funded then how would a totally new set of airframes?

It could have been great but that will definitely not happen.

BV

[pr00ne]

I’ve said many times before, I dearly want the Aeralis project to work. I would love to see a successful British start up company break into the market with a brand new training solution.

I just don’t get how it’ll work though.

Touting Aeralis as a solution to the current Hawk problem is inexplicable. Ascent never bought the Hawk T2s. UKGOV did. So where are Ascent getting the money to fund the R&D and production of a new fleet of jet aircraft? It also makes a mockery of the ‘common fuselage’ concept when your customer only needs one type.

Even if the money were there to buy a fleet of Aeralis jet trainers how long would it take to see students launching on a GH1 profile in their shiny new steed? My guess would be that ten years from now would be an incredible achievement. If we’re willing to wait that long now why not just invest in a bunch of T50s or 346s straight off the production line?

My belief is that the Hawks will get sorted in the not too distant future and they will continue as planned (ish) for the next 20+ years. By which point Aeralis will either have found a large scale launch customer and be the global market leader, or circumstances will have changed beyond our current comprehension and a totally new solution will be required. Judging by the way everyone else is going it’ll either be a much higher performance trainer, a 100% simulated training syllabus or a world in which we no longer need to train pilots to get airborne in actual fighters. In any of those situations I’m not sure where Aeralis fits in.

Anyway, please prove me wrong and make me eat my words when Aeralis makes a fortune and saves the RAF in the process.

BV
BV,

They are getting their funding from the MoD, more specifically from the RAF Rapid Capabilities office, Rolls-Royce and other institutional investors.

[Bob Viking]

They are getting some funding. Not enough to build a factory and start building and flight testing jets. I realise that may come in time but it’s still a hell of a commitment to be customer number one. Especially with a limited defence budget and a current fleet of 15 year old training jets.

All that being said, it is still one of the rare times in my life where I want to be proven wrong.

BV

[pr00ne]

They are getting some funding. Not enough to build a factory and start building and flight testing jets. I realise that may come in time but it’s still a hell of a commitment to be customer number one. Especially with a limited defence budget and a current fleet of 15 year old training jets.

All that being said, it is still one of the rare times in my life where I want to be proven wrong.

BV

Very true. But if, and I realise that it is indeed a huge IF, there is any intent or commitment to increase RAF/RN fast jet numbers, maybe re-equip the Red Arrows, provide some capacity for aggressor/adversary training, beyond the 6 contracted fast Jets that have so far replaced the whole of 100 Sqn and 736NAS, and in the long term maybe replace the T2's, then there may be a hope for this new challenger. Can't see BAE ever reinstating Hawk production, and the only other alternative would be yet another expensive overseas buy.
But, as you say, far more funding and some real estate required.

[chevvron]

BAE have so far been strangely silent about the need for a Hawk replacement; are they working on one?

[Bob Viking]

Let me start this post by reiterating that I sincerely hope to be proven wrong and that I’ll gladly fly the machine if it ever enters service.

I see that Aeralis’ latest press release shows an image of a completely different aircraft. Aside from the fact that I still don’t believe they will gain anything like the market share they claim and that it is a fundamentally flawed concept, it does worry me a little that after several years of ‘work’ they have now radically changed their mind on how the aircraft will look.

BV


https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1170x1449/img_9775_e778da70c7437d84c77f8742aea88479b6ee89d0.jpeg
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1170x729/img_9776_31ffb266b49d83e43cec56a00042f133d4d6935b.jpeg

[Video Mixdown]

Let me start this post by reiterating that I sincerely hope to be proven wrong and that I’ll gladly fly the machine if it ever enters service.
I see that Aeralis’ latest press release shows an image of a completely different aircraft. Aside from the fact that I still don’t believe they will gain anything like the market share they claim and that it is a fundamentally flawed concept, it does worry me a little that after several years of ‘work’ they have now radically changed their mind on how the aircraft will look.
BV
I suppose one can see design elements of various existing aircraft in both images. Maybe the advantages/disadvantages of each are so finely drawn that a change in one area causes other areas to roll over to an alternative. Your reservations are well put, but like you I wish them well. What, if anything, emerges remains to be seen.

[chevvron]

They are getting some funding. Not enough to build a factory and start building and flight testing jets.

BAe will want to keep their Warton factory going and will almost certainly try to 'takeover' the Aeralis project like they did by closing Dunsfold and transferring all Hawk and Harrier production to Warton.

[Davef68]

More 'Hawk' than 'Alpha jet'

[skua]

Don't think just in terms of BAe/British cos wanting to take over this baby.

[andyy]

looks like Babcock are involved now, albeit Babcock's French arm. Slightly odd, perhaps.

Babcock and military jet developer Aeralis agree partnership (msn.com) (https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/babcock-and-military-jet-developer-aeralis-agree-partnership/ar-AA1gHAyw?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=f8b44253a937466b8f2dbbe7ec7ebe83&ei=26)