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:

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! :)

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Here's the 'Team'
Some of them might be 'chancers', who knows...

These are the 'advisors':

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! 👀

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).

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 ?

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.

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

Completely insane.

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

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

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.

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.