Aeralis Modular Trainer
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…
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…
DARPA ALIAS links - https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us...-autonomy.html
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!
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!
LJ
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
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
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: The Jungle
Posts: 364
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
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
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.
Aeralis - one more thing.
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
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
Originally Posted by Bob Viking
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
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Wherever it is this month
Posts: 1,709
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
9 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Brum
Posts: 852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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
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
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Horsham, England, UK. ---o--O--o---
Posts: 1,171
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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! 👀
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! 👀
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).
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).
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: england
Posts: 802
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
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.
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.
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!
Yup the Daily Fail is reporting the same, they are building the new Red Arrows lol..
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-Arrows.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ed-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.
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.
The following users liked this post:
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Suffolk-based Aeralis was given £200,000 by the RAF to develop a new aircraft….
Originally Posted by ORAC
Are they sure that’s not to design a new paint scheme or logo? Not sure what £200K would buy these days….
CG
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Where the heart belongs
Age: 54
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of them have bet their house on the concept? Or are they just looking to use other people’s money ?
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: The Home of the Gnomes
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
As to a particular air arm buying one aircraft with three sets of wings, etc. Utterly barking.
