LAL
 

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

It's a pretty horrible concept all around really.

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


https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....1dd3dfffc.jpeg

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

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....106b6e3a1.jpeg

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

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

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. 😬

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.

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.

Muppet
 

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

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.
.

<cough>

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9d952e6238.jpg

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.

Not a fighter, no weapons and only one of them.
The clue is in the name EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT PROTOTYPE

LJ
 

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

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.

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:


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

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.

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?