Of course this can't really be a 'zero emissions trainer' unless its 'fuel' is genuinely net-zero and all the tasks involved in building it and its components (eg mining the lithium for the battery) are also genuinely net-zero. 'Zero carbon emission at the point of use' is a cop-out. It'll be an 'elsewhere emissions trainer.'

Even after that, they've got a mountain to climb. I look forward to the (genuinely) zero emissions F-35, Chinook and heavy transport aircraft..

We had one at school that we used to shoot across the playing field, I don't think we ever got it that high though, staff probably never had the bottle. We rarely took the spoilers off tbh.

I heard tales of one being used for an aerial streak from Bicester using an airtow. I cannot swear to the authenticity of the tale as I wasn't there.

Kinda like climate change then?

Yes, but only on Twitter.

My launch crew had Shredded Wheat for breakfast :E

If we were a closed system, sure. But we’re not. The sun pours energy into the earth’s atmosphere.

Now you could make the argument that the total amount of energy in the solar system is constant, but that’s not real helpful to the things living on earth.

Is no one else tired of the stupidity? We're talking about training pilots to kill people and blow things up and if they are not the best trained in theatre get shot down/blown up themselves and instead of worrying about what is the very best training vehicle we're supposed to be worried about its carbon footprint?

What is the carbon footprint of a fuel dump explosion?

Not tired, despairing……..

It's cool that you think the MOD buys the "very best" training vehicle, not the cheapest....

​​​​

I'm sure that the aircraft designers in 1946 looking at B35/46 for a four engined bomber to fly at 500Kts and at least 55,000 ft were perplexed by the enormity of the task. And they then built it. Or three in fact. Sometimes one has to be bold.
The question is whether all this zero carbon stuff is nonsense and a complete waste of time.

One way to look at it. There is no point in defending your country if you lose your planet.

Now that discussion/argument I have no issue with and indeed wholeheartedly encourage.

The other however is just pigheaded inertia.

I think this initiative should be looked at from a glass half full perspective, At present it would seem to me the bean counters are doing everything in their power to reduce the amount of time studes actually spend in an flying airplane. I would suggest that we are at or at least very close to a practical electric 2 seat trainer with the performance to meet the primary and basic flying curriculum.

I think everyone should be banging the drum on the message that instead of spending money on simulators the services should be spending money on electric airplanes. Throw in the usual virtue signaling buzz words like enabling zero emission technologies, encouraging climate friendly enterprises, funding technology incubators, public private partnership to a green future; and future proofing air capabilities; and the mandarins will eat it up.

The end result is instead of more and more time in some "ground based learning device "the future Air Force guys and gals get more actual airtime. What's not to like about that ?

Aura Integral E could meet the spec (and I am also interested in it for the civilian UPRT task), but will be very dependent on development of the right battery technology. If Elon Musk can mass produce robust, rapid charging batteries with energy density of at least 400 Wh per Kg in the next few years we could be there.

https://insideevs.com/news/440727/el...cells-not-far/

That is the first truely rational comment so far in this topic!

I beg to differ. Before CV19 suspended flying (because of the risk of in cockpit transfer of CV), some 16000 cadets had been flown in that FY. The aspiration is/was to do more.

How much flying do you think each student gets? And if you know the rest of your "flying" career will largely be in the sim, wouldn't you make the most of what you can, when you can? And how is the RAF going to recruit people who want to fly aircraft, if they keep saying most of your flying will be in the sim. Be interesting to see what happens to retention with that cunning plan.

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....db27e1222f.jpg

Can you imagine the risk assessment for doing that now?? How many different JSPs/MARDs would you have to read? With the risk aversion pervading the military, who would own the risk? ODH? SDH? God?

Starting everyone off on winch-launched gliders would be a useful start. Electric or hydrogen/fuel cell powered if you want to be uber-green, loads of launches, circuits and landings would be good for every pilot. 30 winch launches in 2 and half days with three solos was a fantastic grounding even if every flight was 3 mins or less.
Making a decision and picking a field was certainly good training for Sully on the Hudson. RAF trainee pilots currently kicking their heels waiting for a training slot would be better employed learning in a VGS, then training cadets instead of shuffling paper or whatever they are doing.

Seriously , I wonder what some people are smoking.
Exactly what do you think the armed forces are for ?