So what will be the next trainer?

[KPax]

https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/raf-starts-exploring-hawk-t2-replacement-options-to-support-gcap-fleet/157106.article (https://l.facebook.com/l.php?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.flightglobal.com%2Fdefence%2Fraf-starts-exploring-hawk-t2-replacement-options-to-support-gcap-fleet%2F157106.article%3Ffbclid%3DIwAR3fJFPdibFkWX7vZHa9LLOu FEQlgAIXAA_XQuU5Irp87h3KWuVeYClbE6M&h=AT0v5x3PKAnUdUe4FL1MUE R3qhrElePHfDAVme_PT-WvBvHM8__XbHVVLfdkJz5fpV5g2T5GTFcLnmB1O9S6P2Yp0qHd4XSh5XOxfQ jQVZxXYSHeos2b9fVKh3gNAs-hipq8PeRnwkZs2k28tg&__tn__=%2CmH-R&c)

In the future, please do not simply post a link. At least give a short summary of what you read in the article. For example:The UK Royal Air Force (RAF) is starting to assess its pilot training needs regarding the future Global Combat Air Programme (GCAP), having determined that its current BAE Systems Hawk T2s will not be suitable for the task
See how easy that is?
T28B
(Nutloose found the actual article, so that link has replaced the gibberish initially posted).



.



[Davef68]

They'll have all sorts of evaluations then buy the T-7, demand lots of changes, then buy 2/3 of the requirement because the costs go up. (Then give the T2s to the RAFAT)

[melmothtw]

In the future, please do not simply post a link. At least give a short summary of what you read in the article.

Yes, absolutely this!!! Also, maybe also say why you're posting the link/what discussion you're looking to generate on the back of posting the link.

[melmothtw]

They'll have all sorts of evaluations then buy the T-7, demand lots of changes, then buy 2/3 of the requirement because the costs go up. (Then give the T2s to the RAFAT)

The last CAS said he wanted a 100% synthetic training solution. I'm assuming this is no longer the case?

[ahwalk01]

Interesting to see the link comes via Facebook...

[Davef68]

The last CAS said he wanted a 100% synthetic training solution. I'm assuming this is no longer the case?

Seems that way, in fact it looks like they intend to use simulated environments in a real aeroplane.

[melmothtw]

Seems that way, in fact it looks like they intend to use simulated environments in a real aeroplane.

I mean, that's pretty much what the Hawk T2 does with its synthetic radar, but they do certainly need to move away from the 100% simulation. I remember Gen Brown being asked about it, and him having to preface his answer with a lot of, "Mike is a great friend of mine..." and "Mike is a great guy..." etc. Clear he thought it was nonsense.

[Bob Viking]

To be fair to Wigston I believe he actually suggested a 90/10 split of synthetic/live training. Still bonkers but at certain levels even those of us that love flying have to accept that, for certain tasks and aircraft types, simulation can be as good as or even better than the real thing.

As for the next trainer I have to say that I find it hard to believe there is any circumstance in which the Aeralis trainer (I still can’t believe nobody else is talking about the fact that they have completely changed their design from high wing to low wing in their concept art) can do something that the Hawk can’t. Unless UK jobs is your sole driving factor. And assuming it is developed and manufactured in Britain. As always I will caveat that by saying that I hope to be proven wrong and that the Aeralis jet becomes a great British success story.

BV

[Martin the Martian]

With the T-50, M346 and T-7 either in production or about to enter production, I think Aeralis will find it difficult to gain a toe hold inthe market, even if the RAF buys it.

[sandiego89]

They'll have all sorts of evaluations then buy the T-7, demand lots of changes, then buy 2/3 of the requirement because the costs go up. (Then give the T2s to the RAFAT)

Don't forget, "rip out perfectly good gear and insert UK sourced black boxes to boost UK sourced content, further increasing delays and costs, and shovel tons of money to BAE to try to get it to work....."

[dagenham]

Don't forget, "rip out perfectly good gear and insert UK sourced black boxes to boost UK sourced content, further increasing delays and costs, and shovel tons of money to BAE to try to get it to work....."


lets look at this a little bit sensibly… the t7 is a partnership between Boeing and Saab. Bae also have a partnership with Saab. The t 7 has been designed for synthetic training with one of the types we seem to be purchasing.

logic would suggest the red tail being an optimal choice. That said it probably won’t be

[Lonewolf_50]

sandy: FWIW, keeping the UK defense industrial base warm is important to do. (See current events for why). So if it keeps BAE in the UK warm, perhaps (in the long run) a good path forward.

[sandiego89]

sandy: FWIW, keeping the UK defense industrial base warm is important to do. (See current events for why). So if it keeps BAE in the UK warm, perhaps (in the long run) a good path forward.

Oh I do understand that, it does makes sense for keeping industry engaged and warm, and for the political approval and jobs perspective, but undoubtedly adds cost, and when done wrong (Chinook mk3, AJAX vehicles....) can be problematic. .

[GeeRam]

Oh I do understand that, it does makes sense for keeping industry engaged and warm, and for the political approval and jobs perspective, but undoubtedly adds cost, and when done wrong (Chinook mk3, AJAX vehicles....) can be problematic. .

Its starting to add a lot of cost - largely because it becomes harder to keep industry warm as the military gets ever smaller and the multiples of numbers per order get smaller and smaller. Industry can only be kept warm with constant work. MOD and Govt in general can't seem to grasp this. At some point the numbers will be so small that bespoke will have to go out of the window....and you'll just have to buy off-the-shelf from others with no bespoke mods, just as others do.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The obvious way to keeping the defence base warm, an important part of any National Security Strategy, is to have a European defence procurement program. Each nation’s defence industry provides a particular piece of kit for all of EU, with total program benefits equalling out for each country.

I know that sounds hopelessly naive but recent events do seem to alerted politicians to the value of having a functioning defence production infrastructure.

In any case, as a Canadian I probably should not be lecturing anyone on defence production policy as Canada is a case study on how not to do defence procurement with the Cyclone Helicopter and the National Ship Building strategy as sad examples of how to maximize cost while minimizing capability.

[GlobalNav]

lets look at this a little bit sensibly… the t7 is a partnership between Boeing and Saab. Bae also have a partnership with Saab. The t 7 has been designed for synthetic training with one of the types we seem to be purchasing.

logic would suggest the red tail being an optimal choice. That said it probably won’t be

When will T-7 be truly operational? What's keeping that from happening?

[Stitchbitch]

When will T-7 be truly operational? What's keeping that from happening?

Production delivery is due in 2025, with test aircraft being delivered in 2024, but they are suffering ‘parts difficulty’ with/from suppliers.

[WideSpectrum]

With an ever reducing fast-jet fleet why do we need a fast-jet trainer? It's time to face reality - team to train overseas.

[Gordomac]

The next Trainer will look like all others; hunched up shoulders and swept-back foreheads. There is a reason. When you as it a question, it hunches up it's shoulders and looks bemused. When you tell it the answer,it smacks it's own forehead.

[VM325]

Aeralis CEO Tristan Crawford talking to the Defence Select Committee (https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/f16286b0-4561-4f17-afa4-0e0b19bd1bcd)

Scroll forward to 15:20 ish...

[DuckDodgers]

Aeralis, great concept but without 9 figures of funding it’ll lead to nothing. I suspect Barzan are playing a classic debt to equity exchange to onshore the IP and know how back to Qatar. I also believe they have no intent in buying an air vehicle.

[drustsonoferp]

With an ever reducing fast-jet fleet why do we need a fast-jet trainer? It's time to face reality - team to train overseas.

I think you could reverse that logic somewhat: if the UK has a good training standard and continues to export aircraft, increasing the capacity of the training system will allow sale of training to export customers while amortising UK costs.

It’s a shame this approach wasn’t taken with the Hawk TMk2 already, which might have both supported export customers and other nations as well as reducing the training timeline for UK aircrew. The Hawk production line is closed now, so that ship has sailed, but if Aeralis comes good then it still might be an approach with a future UK trainer.

If there isn’t a UK trainer after Hawk, continuing to endorse the existence of RAFAT will be more difficult. Taking a display team to back political messaging worldwide isn’t quite the same in an aircraft which showcases someone else’s engineering. I hope Aeralis do well, but they face a significant challenge.

[Martin the Martian]

Aeralis was supposed to have a first flight this year. I'm not sure anything physical has even been assembled yet.

[DuckDodgers]

Aeralis was supposed to have a first flight this year. I'm not sure anything physical has even been assembled yet.

They haven’t, I’m sure there will be a revised date a DIMDEX. They have no £££ and are literally playing the, ‘If you don’t fund us we’ll have to offshore’ card. The problem is that they may already be Qatari majority controlled.

“Si mi abuela tuviera ruedas seria una bicicleta”

[ORAC]

https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/ (https://committees.parliament.uk/oralevidence/14318/pdf/Q165)

Q165: Sarah Atherton: The Hawk trainer has been successful and has also been a successful export, but the MoD has started a comprehensive capability investigation into the future of combat aircrew training and a future aircraft. Would you like to give me an update on progress?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Sure. Hawk T2 was a derivative of the original Hawk. It came into service over 20 years ago, and right now it continues to meet our needs for fast jet training for Typhoon and F-35. But it was always planned to go out of service around the end of the next decade—2040 is the out-of-service date we describe. We are pretty clear that it will not meet the requirements for a Global Combat Air Programme solution. As a consequence, we need to plan now and start a programme for the replacement of Hawk as an advanced jet trainer.

The analysis is looking at the training system requirements: what is it that we need our pilots to be able to do, and what do we therefore need that aircraft to do? It is also looking at widening it. One potential opportunity that we are exploring is how we might use an aircraft that was principally bought and developed for training to provide what we describe as surrogate training for the in-service GCAP. Instead of flying the all-up combat aircraft every day, for some of those missions you could get all the training that you needed through what we describe as a surrogate platform. The benefits are that it is cheaper to fly and operate, and that it does not give away your tactics or have some of the electromagnetic emissions from the aircraft that GCAP would provide.

The second area where we might use a capability like that is to provide what we describe as “Red Air”, but a capability where we simulate another aircraft trying to attack the GCAP in this case. Thinking about the breadth of that requirement enables us to think through whether there might be a single solution. I know that you had Tristan Crawford from Aeralis in to give evidence. Tristan’s and the team’s model of a modular system would enable you to deliver capability for a number of different scenarios. It is something that we are very interested in.

I would like to bring that capability investigation to a conclusion before we get into the next spending review and defence review, because that would be the point at which we would need to establish a programme. Right now there is no money set aside in the defence budget for a replacement for Hawk, but 2040 is only 16 years away, so we will need to have our evidence gathered and developed to be in a position to make a case for investment as we go through the next spending review and defence review. The more widely that capability can support, the better the argument is. It is quite a complex area where there are quite a lot of trade-offs, but I am confident that we will get to the position where we can lay that out and initiate a programme once we have been through the spending review and defence review.

Q166: Sarah Atherton: We have been told that synthetic training will increase to 80% of the overall training, versus 20% live training.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: There will always be, in my judgment, a space for live training. There is a lot of good evidence from our own experience and from other countries that if you dial back too much on the live training—the interplay of the physiological effects of flying and the opportunity to train in that properly realistic context—you might find that you lose some of the skills, and then when it comes to people being brought into combat they are not as effective.

The 80:20 number is kicked around, but there is no definitive evidence that that is the right answer. Right now, we are looking at 50:50 as a target for live synthetic training at the frontline. We do a bit more training in the simulator at various points in the flying training programme.

It is unquestionable, to my mind, that we will rely on synthetic training for the flying training to get to the frontline, but also at the frontline. It is cheaper, and there are some things that you just cannot do in the live environment without giving away your tactics and your capability, so we have to do that in a synthetic environment. Our thinking around the training system will not be just about the aircraft; it will be about the synthetic solutions that sit alongside it as well.

Q167: Sarah Atherton: On military flight training, how are things going at Valley with Ascent?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: Across military flight training, the situation has considerably improved since this time last year. I was at RAF Cranwell on Thursday last week. I sat next to the gentleman who won the sword of honour, who was about to start flying training. He graduated on Thursday and will start flying training in June. He expects, and I expect him, to run through that system, assuming he is good enough in his fast jet, without any breaks. So there is very significant improvement.

James Cartlidge: Can I say something on that? As you know, I was recently in Wales. Part of my visit was to Hightown barracks in your constituency, but I also had the pleasure of going to Valley and discussing these matters there. It was stressed to me that for the first time we were at a stage where the number of people being trained exceeded the number who were on holds. Obviously we would not have wanted to be in that situation anyway, but that is the first time it has been like that for some time. There is still more progress to make, but generally, particularly with improved availability from the Hawk—that itself is improving but still not absolutely where we want it to be—all these factors have led to that improvement. As you know, there was a significant increase in holds, above where we would want it to be.

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: On Hawk specifically, we still have problems with engine availability. That constrains aircraft availability, which limits the number of pilots that we can put through that system. I am expecting us, for the next few years, to continue to need to put pilots through international systems, for example the NATO system in the US and Italy. We continue to drive Rolls-Royce, Safran, which is responsible for the components that have failed, and BAE Systems hard to improve the output from Hawk.

Q168: Sarah Atherton: I know that at Valley they have only 60% of the QIs they require. They want 10 QIs; they only have six. That is obviously going to have an impact on flow. What are you doing to monitor Ascent and the progress, as you have highlighted, that has already been made?

Air Chief Marshal Sir Richard Knighton: The air and space commander is responsible for oversight of the aircrew pipeline steering group and also chairs a quarterly management board with the most senior people in Ascent. Below that level, there are multiple governance structures around that in order for us to keep absolutely on top of their performance. We have absolutely no question over what their performance is and are able to see precisely how things are going. The drive and determination— actually, on both sides—to improve matters is something that I am very comfortable with.

The fundamental problem we have right now with Hawk is that we do not have the components to build the engines and to put enough of the engines into our aircraft, and that is going to be a problem for at least the next three years and potentially longer. That is why we will have to export some of that training. It is not where I want to be, but we are finding a way through it to ensure that we have enough pilots flowing through the system to get to the frontline. Ultimately, what I want is Hawk to perform to the level that it was originally designed, built and contracted for. If we can do that, we will be back to that position.

[DuckDodgers]

The engine issue is convenient and masks the real issues relating to that platform. As a taxpayer no more ££££ should be spent on T2 or with BAE and the U.K. should exit it and move it sideways at a convenient juncture, around 2030-2033.

How convenient an engineer CAS name drops Aeralis, did his mate Julian Young tell him to too? Is he a NED?

[ORAC]

https://x.com/gabriel64869839/status/1764768853769306523?s=61&t=rmEeUn68HhlFHGKbTPQr_A


​​​​​​​Before anyone blames Military Flying Training System for it, useful to remember Hawk T2 is the one training aircraft that contractor did not pick. They were saddled with it. MOD is responsible for delivery of 6-7K Hawk T2 flying hours x year and that is not currently possible.

[bobward]

As a ppl with a few hours to my credit, I don't see myself as a professional aviator. However, may I offer a few thoughts and questions on behalf of we who pay for all this.
1; NATO and others seem to be standardising on the F35 as it's main combat vehicle;
2 Some pilots are already being trained in the Us and parts of Europe to what I assume is a standard level.
3: Italy is producing two trainers T345 and T346 (?) that are pretty state of the art.

Isn't it time that all NATO got together and pooled resources?
It was done for the Tornado 40+ years ago, so the precedent is there.

Surely this would negate the need for national training organisations, freeing up trained pilots to fill the gaps in the front line.
Whilst this may (will) appear simplistic, maybe the time has come to do the obvious.

As I said at the start, I'm just a low hour ppl, who has been paying taxes for over 50 years, and would really like to see people making better use of my pension!

Retreats quickly to wind neck back in.

[MPN11]

Memories of the Alpha Jet concept? Why not, if you could get NATO Air forces to agree on a common type and capability.

What Europe must avoid is the kind of wasteful competition that has the Hawker Siddeley Hawk (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawker_Siddeley_Hawk) and Dassault-Breguet/Dornier Alpha Jet battling against each other in the world market.
— John W. R. Taylor, Jane's All the World's Aircraft 1975–1976[77] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault/Dornier_Alpha_Jet#cite_note-j75-77)

[Bob Viking]

I have two points for you.

1. M346 is great in many ways and will beat Hawk in a dogfight easily but it’s of the same generation of trainers in terms of capability. If they could be produced in large numbers though they could certainly offer a decent solution.

2. Our NATO partners are struggling just as much as us for pilots and especially instructors. Pooling our resources may help a little but the problem won’t go away.

BV

[Davef68]

Memories of the Alpha Jet concept? Why not, if you could get NATO Air forces to agree on a common type and capability.

The French won't accept anything that's not majority French; Mind you, Hawk was probably the last aircraft wholly designed and built in the UK to enter service, so maybethey have a point.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Kind of ironic the own truly transnational integrated military aircraft procurement program was done by the Soviet Union.

[bobward]

BV,
Thanks for the reply. Adds a little to my paucity of knowledge!

[GeeRam]

I find it staggering that the dumb politicians are still waffling on about UK jobs and keeping skills when they don't want to spend the money buying in the volume that will do that....basic maths isn't their strong point.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.

T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.

Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.

[DuckDodgers]

I find it staggering that the dumb politicians are still waffling on about UK jobs and keeping skills when they don't want to spend the money buying in the volume that will do that....basic maths isn't their strong point.
If they are so worried by that, why did they only buy a measly 20-odd Hawk T2's.........and not 60 or 70+.

T7 Red Tail or T-50 has to be the only sensible options to be considering with the timeline that is facing them.

Politicians don't do sensible though, that's why MOD is in such a mess.

Well said! The U.K. cannot afford to wait until 2040 and the answer is to plus-up its use across the board and realise the benefits of a 40+ deal. Does MOD even need to own the jet?

[Bob Viking]

https://www.defenseone.com/defense-systems/2024/03/air-forces-t-7-trainer-delayed-another-year/394904/

Lets hope the T38s can soldier on a little longer.

BV

[TwoDeadDogs]

You'll end up with PC 21. Just you wait and see.....

[Dan Gerous]

I think they've narrowed down the competition for new trainers and it's between Reebok and Addidas.:p

[sycamore]

Nike are better Dan.....
Maybe the Romanians can help...?

[VM325]

Attended a RAeS lecture last night by the Aeralis Chief Engineer.

Design is pretty much frozen, Hamble Aerostructures have done all the airframe CAD work (traditional aluminium airframe, very little composites), systems design is well advanced.
Change from mid to low wing followed wind tunnel work to reduce drag, and increase speed for aggressor role.

Expected that most aircraft will stay in the format they are built in with little role change in use.
Much emphasis on life cost savings if there's a mixed fleet of trainer/aggressor etc.
Options for easy change of engine as new designs mature.
Core aircraft is up to 85% common across versions.
Aiming for 55mins/flying hour maintenance - 92% availabilty.

It appears they just need someone to order it...

[Bob Viking]

You'll end up with PC 21. Just you wait and see.....

That really is not the answer.

BV

[NutLoose]

You'll end up with PC 21. Just you wait and see.....

You obviously do not understand the UK Government and MOD procedures.

What we will eventually get is a zero fatigue lifed 21st century advanced (re)winged Hawk with hardpoint capability, boasting an upgraded or a different powerplant, zero timed fuselage, a state of the art instrumentation and defensive suite that will cost us more than a new fresh built aircraft.
While also taking years to finally take to the air, as BAe squeeze's every last pound out of the UK coffers.

Then they will give it a flashy name to hide the fact they have simply regurgitated the old Hawk... something like Advanced Hawk or 21st Century Hawk. And finally produce a flashy brochure to sell it to us all.

Rather like what they did to Puma.

[DuckDodgers]

Attended a RAeS lecture last night by the Aeralis Chief Engineer.

Design is pretty much frozen, Hamble Aerostructures have done all the airframe CAD work (traditional aluminium airframe, very little composites), systems design is well advanced.
Change from mid to low wing followed wind tunnel work to reduce drag, and increase speed for aggressor role.

Expected that most aircraft will stay in the format they are built in with little role change in use.
Much emphasis on life cost savings if there's a mixed fleet of trainer/aggressor etc.
Options for easy change of engine as new designs mature.
Core aircraft is up to 85% common across versions.
Aiming for 55mins/flying hour maintenance - 92% availabilty.

It appears they just need someone to order it...

Oh please! This Barzan debt to equity sham is getting tiresome. 55 mins maintenance per flight hour is comical and plucked out of thin air. If I were to rank the options available to U.K. PLC this would be 4th out of 4. Their latest evidence to HCDC submitted after the acceptance window closed and on the same day CAS gave evidence is shameful. There’s some total comedy multiplier figures in there of an organisation desperate to attract angel investment. They designed a 21st Century CASA 101 Aviojet 🤦‍♂️