BAE Systems Hawk Replacement?
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,532
From: Near the coast
Melmoth
Pilots get streamed FJ/rotary/multi after EFT. It has been that way for as long as I can remember (at least 1999 onwards).
With regards to RPAS, in the early days (mid 2000s) some people were streamed there from Valley. Not because they’d failed but due to service need. Some also changed over from other flying jobs.
Nowadays RPAS is a separate recruitment stream and entrants train as such from the start. They get some live EFT flying and then move onto their RPAS training.
BV
With regards to RPAS, in the early days (mid 2000s) some people were streamed there from Valley. Not because they’d failed but due to service need. Some also changed over from other flying jobs.
Nowadays RPAS is a separate recruitment stream and entrants train as such from the start. They get some live EFT flying and then move onto their RPAS training.
BV
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 49
From: The 24th & a Half Century
Rumour has it that all Aeralis employment contracts are due to expire on 30 September unless they succeed in their strategy of playing London off against Paris to secure tax payer £££. It’s suggested their latest strategem to force London’s hand is an announcement of sorts around basing and industrialisation at Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées Airport with Daher and the threat of taking what they have offshore.
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 536
Likes: 71
From: Overseas
Rumour has it that all Aeralis employment contracts are due to expire on 30 September unless they succeed in their strategy of playing London off against Paris to secure tax payer £££. It’s suggested their latest strategem to force London’s hand is an announcement of sorts around basing and industrialisation at Tarbes–Lourdes–Pyrénées Airport with Daher and the threat of taking what they have offshore.
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 409
Likes: 49
From: The 24th & a Half Century
True statement, and one I can’t argue against 😁 It did make me chuckle, although I’ll miss the back to the 70s and 80s attempt at aircraft design.
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 1,910
Likes: 129
From: Here
Formal agreement signed between Aeralis and Prestwick Airport to have final assembly at Prestwick signed at the weekend. (Lots of caveats as you would expect!)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qnv8vvqw9o
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9qnv8vvqw9o
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 670
Likes: 128
From: London
I am completely ignorant so please forgive the obviously uninformed questions. It would be interesting to understand though so I thought I'd just ask.
1. What would be the reasons for not considering the L-39 Skyfox as an example? https://www.aero.cz/en/l-39-skyfox/
I imagine its probably about not being supersonic but, because I'm obviously ignorant about why being supersonic is of much concern for training? Perhaps it's some other feature that I don't understand that really matters? It could also be that the whole approach to operating high performance aircraft is very different from that of subsonic trainers such that learning on them is only partially relevant. Perhaps there's an advantage to being able to face something closer to the real deal earlier on?
I almost question why anything matters given that one can introduce simulation technology into an aircraft to perhaps an arbitrary degree to create the mental loads a pilot needs to simulate. Perhaps its the physiological stress that cannot be replicated?
2. I did wonder about the BAE/Northrop Grumman contender for T/X. I realise that would put the entire development cost on the UK and yet that's roughly what Aeralis would be doing. I'm sure it's an unrealistic idea but is it really completely silly? Please don't hesitate to say so if it is!
1. What would be the reasons for not considering the L-39 Skyfox as an example? https://www.aero.cz/en/l-39-skyfox/
I imagine its probably about not being supersonic but, because I'm obviously ignorant about why being supersonic is of much concern for training? Perhaps it's some other feature that I don't understand that really matters? It could also be that the whole approach to operating high performance aircraft is very different from that of subsonic trainers such that learning on them is only partially relevant. Perhaps there's an advantage to being able to face something closer to the real deal earlier on?
I almost question why anything matters given that one can introduce simulation technology into an aircraft to perhaps an arbitrary degree to create the mental loads a pilot needs to simulate. Perhaps its the physiological stress that cannot be replicated?
2. I did wonder about the BAE/Northrop Grumman contender for T/X. I realise that would put the entire development cost on the UK and yet that's roughly what Aeralis would be doing. I'm sure it's an unrealistic idea but is it really completely silly? Please don't hesitate to say so if it is!
Last edited by t43562; 9th September 2025 at 12:18. Reason: Try to frame the question better
Joined: Dec 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 875
Likes: 674
From: Budapest
I am completely ignorant so please forgive the obviously uninformed questions. It would be interesting to understand though so I thought I'd just ask.
1. What would be the reasons for not considering the L-39 Skyfox as an example? https://www.aero.cz/en/l-39-skyfox/
I imagine its probably about not being supersonic but, because I'm obviously ignorant about why being supersonic is of much concern for training? Perhaps it's some other feature that I don't understand that really matters? It could also be that the whole approach to operating high performance aircraft is very different from that of subsonic trainers such that learning on them is only partially relevant. Perhaps there's an advantage to being able to face something closer to the real deal earlier on?
I almost question why anything matters given that one can introduce simulation technology into an aircraft to perhaps an arbitrary degree to create the mental loads a pilot needs to simulate. Perhaps its the physiological stress that cannot be replicated?
2. I did wonder about the BAE/Northrop Grumman contender for T/X. I realise that would put the entire development cost on the UK and yet that's roughly what Aeralis would be doing. I'm sure it's an unrealistic idea but is it really completely silly? Please don't hesitate to say so if it is!
1. What would be the reasons for not considering the L-39 Skyfox as an example? https://www.aero.cz/en/l-39-skyfox/
I imagine its probably about not being supersonic but, because I'm obviously ignorant about why being supersonic is of much concern for training? Perhaps it's some other feature that I don't understand that really matters? It could also be that the whole approach to operating high performance aircraft is very different from that of subsonic trainers such that learning on them is only partially relevant. Perhaps there's an advantage to being able to face something closer to the real deal earlier on?
I almost question why anything matters given that one can introduce simulation technology into an aircraft to perhaps an arbitrary degree to create the mental loads a pilot needs to simulate. Perhaps its the physiological stress that cannot be replicated?
2. I did wonder about the BAE/Northrop Grumman contender for T/X. I realise that would put the entire development cost on the UK and yet that's roughly what Aeralis would be doing. I'm sure it's an unrealistic idea but is it really completely silly? Please don't hesitate to say so if it is!
Three more L-39 Skyfox combat training aircraft have arrived in Kecskemét (central Hungary) from the Czech Republic as part of the defense and military development program. “Eight modern Skyfox aircraft are now supporting the training of Hungarian pilots and the development of the air force’s capabilities. The aircraft are equipped with a world-class simulator system and a complete ground training package,” Defense Minister Kristóf Szalay-Bobrovniczky announced on social media.
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 1,444
Likes: 55
From: Under a recently defunct flight path.
Aeralis & Prestwick - RAeS lecture, 12th January.
Right Place, Right Time for a new Scottish Built Fast Jet Trainer
Last edited by Lyneham Lad; 30th December 2025 at 14:53.
Joined: Apr 2003
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 10,588
Likes: 805
From: Northumberland
Qatar’s state-owned investment company Barzan Holdings has increased its stake in UK modular trainer aircraft developer Aeralis by converting part of a previous £5 million ($6.7 million) loan into shares.
Responding to questions from FlightGlobal, Aeralis says it ”has always been (and remains) a majority British-owned company.”
With the UK Ministry of Defence poised to begin the process of replacing its BAE Systems Hawk trainer fleet, a requirement which Aeralis believes can be met with its modular light jet offering, the company notes it is the ”only British designer and manufacturer in the running to replace Hawk.”
”It follows therefore that our investor [Barzan] will not invoke rights that might adversely affect the contractual opportunities available to companies in which it invests,” Aeralis says. That includes taking the company out of majority UK ownership.
”The only event in which such an outcome [Barzan majority ownership] can now occur is subject both to UK government Investment Security Unit approval and in the event the interests of the company and its shareholders materially and substantially change.”
Additionally, Aeralis has secured another £1.8 million loan “from shareholder support”, repayable on demand and bearing an annual interest rate of 8%. As of 31 December 2024 – the period covered by the accounts – Aeralis had £5.8 million in outstanding loans.
No details of the source of the latest funding are disclosed in the accounts, however. Companies House documents show that as of 30 April 2025, there were 59 separate shareholders in Aeralis.
With the UK Ministry of Defence poised to begin the process of replacing its BAE Systems Hawk trainer fleet, a requirement which Aeralis believes can be met with its modular light jet offering, the company notes it is the ”only British designer and manufacturer in the running to replace Hawk.”
”It follows therefore that our investor [Barzan] will not invoke rights that might adversely affect the contractual opportunities available to companies in which it invests,” Aeralis says. That includes taking the company out of majority UK ownership.
”The only event in which such an outcome [Barzan majority ownership] can now occur is subject both to UK government Investment Security Unit approval and in the event the interests of the company and its shareholders materially and substantially change.”
Additionally, Aeralis has secured another £1.8 million loan “from shareholder support”, repayable on demand and bearing an annual interest rate of 8%. As of 31 December 2024 – the period covered by the accounts – Aeralis had £5.8 million in outstanding loans.
No details of the source of the latest funding are disclosed in the accounts, however. Companies House documents show that as of 30 April 2025, there were 59 separate shareholders in Aeralis.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 460
Likes: 31
From: Warton on Sea
I was fortunate on Monday evening to be able to attend the RAeS lecture on Aeralis given by their Strategy Director and former F3 display pilot Archie Neill. Despite the weather it was a surprisingly well attended lecture with many inciteful questions from an interested audience.
My take-aways from the evening are as follows:
Aeralis represents the “last chance saloon” to retain an aerospace capability in the UK. By that I am not ignoring the multitude of smaller projects and programmes currently in progress, but what UK plc loses if there is no Aeralis is the ability to design, develop and produce an aircraft system with the potential to sell/export significant numbers of units around the globe. Even if there are no such programmes after Aeralis, why give up such hard learnt skills to foreign alternatives.
Strikes me as a complete “no-brainer” when the government is effectively being offered a shot at a new trainer with absolutely zero cost to the tax payer for its development. The Qatari wealth fund WILL release the funds and the project starts in earnest the moment the letter of intent to procure is signed. The French DGA have enthusiasm for the project, while in the MoD there seems to be some blinkers and defaulting to trusting in a competition. What seems to be needed is a reincarnation of John Prescott who forcefully banged on the table to overthrow the M346 (if that’s the right number) in favour of the locally produced Hawk T2 back in 2000(ish).
The current UK flying training system is FUBAR’d. It cannot produce the throughput required to meet the steady state needs of the front-line fleets of Typhoon and Lightning II. Witness recent case where Valley instructors had to be seconded back to Marham to ensure there were enough pilots on the boat to ensure validatioIMO there needs a full review (TNA) Training Needs Analysis and not over specifing on the ETS such as was done on the Hawk AJT, it takes far too long to train a Valley QFI/TI/IP/QWI (or whatever they are called, to be competent to instruct all of the available capabilities.
If we accept any of the current alternative fleets we are shackled to them for life. My personal experience of instruction in the US shows very little evolution in their training methods and a 65 year old T38 is bravely hanging on until the arrival of the Red Hawk which is already late and troubled. I do not believe that the US will happily allow units to go to foreign customers until after its own needs are adequately satisfied.
Certification of multiple configurations is not going to be as big an issue as I had previously thought. In this digital age a lot of work has already been done to pave the way to reduce time and cost that has plagued the likes of Typhoon, Chinook and F35 certification and release to service.
Replacing the Red Arrows T1s appears to be the time critical thing, but surely there are interim solutions to fielding a display team to fill the availability gap – for example doing a deal with South Africa to use the 20ish airframe that are currently hangered (this is my own note, not a product of the lecture)
The clock is ticking and I believe the company need to work very quickly and decisively in the lobbying department to get the local and national support of MPs and Ministers.
I came away truly believing the fact that this modular approach is indeed going to be a game changer, but I fear that the opportunity may well be lost if action is not taken soon
Tarnished
My take-aways from the evening are as follows:
Aeralis represents the “last chance saloon” to retain an aerospace capability in the UK. By that I am not ignoring the multitude of smaller projects and programmes currently in progress, but what UK plc loses if there is no Aeralis is the ability to design, develop and produce an aircraft system with the potential to sell/export significant numbers of units around the globe. Even if there are no such programmes after Aeralis, why give up such hard learnt skills to foreign alternatives.
Strikes me as a complete “no-brainer” when the government is effectively being offered a shot at a new trainer with absolutely zero cost to the tax payer for its development. The Qatari wealth fund WILL release the funds and the project starts in earnest the moment the letter of intent to procure is signed. The French DGA have enthusiasm for the project, while in the MoD there seems to be some blinkers and defaulting to trusting in a competition. What seems to be needed is a reincarnation of John Prescott who forcefully banged on the table to overthrow the M346 (if that’s the right number) in favour of the locally produced Hawk T2 back in 2000(ish).
The current UK flying training system is FUBAR’d. It cannot produce the throughput required to meet the steady state needs of the front-line fleets of Typhoon and Lightning II. Witness recent case where Valley instructors had to be seconded back to Marham to ensure there were enough pilots on the boat to ensure validatioIMO there needs a full review (TNA) Training Needs Analysis and not over specifing on the ETS such as was done on the Hawk AJT, it takes far too long to train a Valley QFI/TI/IP/QWI (or whatever they are called, to be competent to instruct all of the available capabilities.
If we accept any of the current alternative fleets we are shackled to them for life. My personal experience of instruction in the US shows very little evolution in their training methods and a 65 year old T38 is bravely hanging on until the arrival of the Red Hawk which is already late and troubled. I do not believe that the US will happily allow units to go to foreign customers until after its own needs are adequately satisfied.
Certification of multiple configurations is not going to be as big an issue as I had previously thought. In this digital age a lot of work has already been done to pave the way to reduce time and cost that has plagued the likes of Typhoon, Chinook and F35 certification and release to service.
Replacing the Red Arrows T1s appears to be the time critical thing, but surely there are interim solutions to fielding a display team to fill the availability gap – for example doing a deal with South Africa to use the 20ish airframe that are currently hangered (this is my own note, not a product of the lecture)
The clock is ticking and I believe the company need to work very quickly and decisively in the lobbying department to get the local and national support of MPs and Ministers.
I came away truly believing the fact that this modular approach is indeed going to be a game changer, but I fear that the opportunity may well be lost if action is not taken soon
Tarnished
Last edited by T28B; 17th January 2026 at 14:52. Reason: formatting assistance
Joined: Jul 2003
Aviation Qualifications: Military (Retired)
Posts: 2,692
Likes: 1,532
From: Near the coast
Tarnished
I’m afraid it seems that they have just done a great job of presenting an argument and you’ve fallen for it.
If they had an actual design and a production prototype I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
I’d love to see a British designed and built successor to the Hawk T2, but I sadly do not believe that Aeralis are it and nothing from their glossy brochures and presentations has convinced me otherwise.
Three points though.
1. I desperately want to be proven wrong and see an awesome British designed aircraft enter service in record time.
2. The idea of a modular design is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.
3. Where politics are concerned, nothing would surprise me and I would not be remotely surprised if, 15 years from now, we have a fleet of underwhelming training aircraft built in Prestwick that the military will just have to accept and get on with.
BV
If they had an actual design and a production prototype I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
I’d love to see a British designed and built successor to the Hawk T2, but I sadly do not believe that Aeralis are it and nothing from their glossy brochures and presentations has convinced me otherwise.
Three points though.
1. I desperately want to be proven wrong and see an awesome British designed aircraft enter service in record time.
2. The idea of a modular design is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist.
3. Where politics are concerned, nothing would surprise me and I would not be remotely surprised if, 15 years from now, we have a fleet of underwhelming training aircraft built in Prestwick that the military will just have to accept and get on with.
BV
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,049
Likes: 535
From: Wherever it is this month
Aeralis represents the “last chance saloon” to retain an aerospace capability in the UK. By that I am not ignoring the multitude of smaller projects and programmes currently in progress, but what UK plc loses if there is no Aeralis is the ability to design, develop and produce an aircraft system with the potential to sell/export significant numbers of units around the globe.
Even if there are no such programmes after Aeralis, why give up such hard learnt skills to foreign alternatives.
The long term requirement for fast jet trainers is also unclear to me. It's very much open to question whether GCAP/Tempest will be crewed for its whole service life; if pushed I'd say not, but the bigger doubt for me is over the training needs of its pilots (WSOs?). What we're seeing in the current crop of next gen concepts are large, long-ranged aircraft that are likely to be less manoeuverable than 5th and certainly 4th gen aircraft. The main demands on the operator are going to be maintaining situational awareness and managing uncrewed wingmen. I'm sceptical that a clean sheet trainer design is needed to address that.
Joined: Nov 2005
Aviation Qualifications: PPL
Posts: 12,458
Likes: 368
From: Wildest Surrey
Remind me, a couple of years ago weren't they were planning a hard runway at Yeovil? They could do like Vickers did at Brooklands; first flight of a VC10 they would land at Wisley so Leo could do the first flights from Yeovil and land at Yeovilton.
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 460
Likes: 31
From: Warton on Sea
Paolo6691
Re M346
Quote Wiki:
Originally co-developed with Yakovlev as the Yak/AEM-130, the partnership was dissolved in 2000 and then Alenia Aermacchi proceeded to separately develop the M-346 Master, while Yakovlev continued work on the Yakovlev Yak-130.
Further:
The Hongdu JL-10, also initially known as Hongdu L-15 Falcon, AVIC Int. contracted the Yakovlev Design Bureau from Russia — and designer of the Yak-130 trainer — as a technical and scientific consultant for the L-15 programme
I believe there is a quote out there somewhere along the lines of “over my dead body, will nine jets of Russian origin fly down the Mall to celebrate the King’s birthday” and I happen to know from bitter, bitter personal experience that CAS likes nothing with Chinese connections.
Bob Viking
I won’t respond to the allegation that my intelligence has been hoodwinked as I don’t believe I have “fallen” for anything.
If they had an actual design and a production prototype I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
They do have a CCF (Common Core Fuselage) that has been fabricated and built – can’t recall where Archie said it was, Hamble Aerosystems I think. There is a lot of design work and modelling that has already been done, sufficient enough to get a reliable estimate of performance figures. All waiting to be unlocked when the funding comes.
The idea of a modular design is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist
I disagree, from a commercial perspective the modular design concept solves the problem of producing a return on investment. It allows the development costs to be amortised over a number of different product lines. It really struck me how sensible the idea is when you consider the other places a small jet platform can be engaged. I personally don’t believe that the will end up producing all the different variants that the brochure and website currently show, but even a subset of that help the affordability.
Easy Street
I take your opinion re BAES/GCAP/Tempest. I was thinking more of having a production capability that would give the option of an alternative and not leave the UK with a single manufacturer with the monopoly and the leverage to set higher prices. Lack of competition leads to complacency.
Your question of the need for future training is supporting my contention that the current system is FUBAR’d . There is an urgent need to conduct a deep analysis of what is actually required. The truth is that its actually quite hard to build a training system that doesn’t have the KOF, wrinkled, grey and grumpy sitting there recounting the good old days and “that’s not how we did it”. It also takes far too long to train an instructor to teach all aspects of any syllabus.
KOF = knackered old fart
Best
Tarnished
Re M346
Quote Wiki:
Originally co-developed with Yakovlev as the Yak/AEM-130, the partnership was dissolved in 2000 and then Alenia Aermacchi proceeded to separately develop the M-346 Master, while Yakovlev continued work on the Yakovlev Yak-130.
Further:
The Hongdu JL-10, also initially known as Hongdu L-15 Falcon, AVIC Int. contracted the Yakovlev Design Bureau from Russia — and designer of the Yak-130 trainer — as a technical and scientific consultant for the L-15 programme
I believe there is a quote out there somewhere along the lines of “over my dead body, will nine jets of Russian origin fly down the Mall to celebrate the King’s birthday” and I happen to know from bitter, bitter personal experience that CAS likes nothing with Chinese connections.
Bob Viking
I won’t respond to the allegation that my intelligence has been hoodwinked as I don’t believe I have “fallen” for anything.
If they had an actual design and a production prototype I’d be more inclined to agree with you.
They do have a CCF (Common Core Fuselage) that has been fabricated and built – can’t recall where Archie said it was, Hamble Aerosystems I think. There is a lot of design work and modelling that has already been done, sufficient enough to get a reliable estimate of performance figures. All waiting to be unlocked when the funding comes.
The idea of a modular design is an answer to a problem that doesn’t exist
I disagree, from a commercial perspective the modular design concept solves the problem of producing a return on investment. It allows the development costs to be amortised over a number of different product lines. It really struck me how sensible the idea is when you consider the other places a small jet platform can be engaged. I personally don’t believe that the will end up producing all the different variants that the brochure and website currently show, but even a subset of that help the affordability.
Easy Street
I take your opinion re BAES/GCAP/Tempest. I was thinking more of having a production capability that would give the option of an alternative and not leave the UK with a single manufacturer with the monopoly and the leverage to set higher prices. Lack of competition leads to complacency.
Your question of the need for future training is supporting my contention that the current system is FUBAR’d . There is an urgent need to conduct a deep analysis of what is actually required. The truth is that its actually quite hard to build a training system that doesn’t have the KOF, wrinkled, grey and grumpy sitting there recounting the good old days and “that’s not how we did it”. It also takes far too long to train an instructor to teach all aspects of any syllabus.
KOF = knackered old fart
Best
Tarnished
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 536
Likes: 71
From: Overseas
I fail to see how the answer to the problems with the UK training system will be solved by a fantasy aircraft that doesn't exist, that's been imagined by a company with zero experience of building aircraft. Glad to see someone fell for the sales pitch though...