Cadets to get new Aircraft?
 

Noticed this on the latest acquisition lists, with that budget it cannot be maintainance of the current fleet?

Provision of training aircraft for Cadets £550,000,000.00

https://www.defenseadvancement.com/n...ampaign=buffer

So, twice a year MoD fine tunes its list of future requirements, and tells industry. IIRC it was called long term costings.

Half a billion pounds for cadet flying? YGBSM!

Does not say in all fairness if it is RAF cadets, or Air Cadets..

That is everything over a 12 year contract and as Nutty states it says “Cadet” - I suspect this is Project TELUM (https://www.contractfinderpro.com/do.../project-telum) which states:

“Project TELUM will provide the end to end solution for Air Cadet and University Student flying experience, whilst simultaneously supporting Army and Royal Navy flying grading and streaming.”

When you start to see the size of it, and the fact that it is a 144 month contract (ie. 12 years) to provide aircraft, engineering, spares and support plus also synthetic training then I can quite imagine it all adds up to this total (although they will be pressing to stay inside this). The other thing is that TELUM has also got some zero-emission goals (or at least Net-Zero) as stated here: https://www.defensenews.com/smr/ener...rbon-aircraft/

Now I know that the Rapid Capability Office has trialled the Pipistrel Alpha Electro and also made the first flights with net-zero synthetic fuel, and so TELUM is likely to be quite expensive as it is leading edge technology too. Now even though the Pipistrel Alpha Electro won’t yet meet the requirements of all of TELUM, they are £120,000 a pop - there are roughly 100-odd Tutors to replace across the 3 Services, so in Aircraft alone that is £12,000,000. Add in a higher performing aircraft likely to meet the requirement (let’s say £250k a pop) and you are now at £25,000,000 for 100 aircraft. Then think of spares, new infrastructure, engineering, simulators and support and you could easily get close to £500,000,000 over 12 years. But remember this is a maximal figure.

Here is the Alpha Electro on the flight line at Cranwell:

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....9342ec03e.jpeg

Article here: https://flyer.co.uk/raf-trials-elect...el-two-seater/

So, this is in effect an eventual Tutor replacement for those aircraft that weren't replaced by the Prefect. With all the AEF's, UAS's, 16 Sqn, 115 Sqn and 727NAS that could be a lot of aircraft!

If they do replace some with the aircraft shown above, do you think they could get the flag the correct way round?

And £250,000,000 for the "National Flagship"! Err is that not called the Royal Yacht?

Joining the LAA
 

MOD realise that the LAA operate affordable aircraft that the Pilots can fix themselves.

That little electric microlight isn't even aerobatic?

Is the MoD really intending to dumb down Air Cadet and UAS flying to such a degree?

Perhaps the RAF is no longer interested in training MILITARY pilots and this is yet more wiggy-woke 'save the planet' tosh?

Awesome......

BEagle

Beags, the Alpha Electro doesn’t even come close to matching the requirement. However, Das Tutor arguably provides too much for an elementary trainer and air experience aircraft. So, as ever, there is a compromise in there. What I suspect we’ll see is something more akin to the Bye eFlyer: https://byeaerospace.com/electric-airplane/


https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....ef220b75b.jpeg

The eFlyer 2 is capable of a maximum rate of climb of the aircraft is 1,150fpm, while the normal speed varies between 55k and 120k. The aircraft has a flight endurance of 3.5 hours. The two-seater variant has a wingspan of 11.58m, wing area of 129ft² (12m²), cabin width of 1.16m and glide ratio of 18.5. It has an empty weight of 1,460lb (662 kg), while the gross weight of the aircraft is 1,900lb (862kg). The operating cost of the eFlyer 2 is $14 an hour - try that in a gas guzzling spam can - you could multiply that by 10! Cost is around $400,000 an aircraft.

They also do a 4-seater. The operating cost of the four-seat eFlyer 4 is $19.80 an hour, compared to Cessna 182’s $122 an hour.The variant has a wingspan of 38ft (11.58m), wing area of 129ft² (12m²) and gross weight of 2,700lb. It has a cabin width of 46in (1.16m) and a glide ratio of 18.7. The aircraft is powered by an electric propulsion system with a rated power of 105kW. The maximum rate of climb of the variant is 1,250fpm, while the normal speed is between 55k and 120k. The flight endurance is 4 hours.

But probably the RAF will be leveraging into the UK markets - Rolls-Royce hold the current world electric flight speed record and so could partner with a GA manufacturer.

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4e0a35c9c.jpeg
https://www.rolls-royce.com/products...-aircraft.aspx

Or, we could see synthetic fuel, created via renewable energy from solar and wind generation capabilities. Gp Capt Willy Hackett recently flew the world’s first synfuel flight in an Ikarus C42 powered by a ROTAX 912. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/w...synthetic-fuel
https://cimg0.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....4c0a49650.jpeg


So lots of possibilities and the expectation is that there is 7-8 years to develop something for 2030 :ok:

But could you not operate a dual fleet? The Alpha for basic training and circuit work and the rotax powered Virus for Aeros? But then again as it is early days, maybe an electric version of a nose wheeled Virus is on the cards as they are a similar aircraft.

https://youtu.be/l_spPYSLB8M

https://youtu.be/RXknOIUu6lk


..

You all forget, if the RAF operates an aerobatic aircraft they must have parachutes and even a lightweight parachute would be too heavy for what is basically an electric microlight.

Btw you can access the POH on their website for all models

https://www.pipistrel-aircraft.com/a...alpha-electro/

Air Cadets already operated microlights in the past; during the period late 1996 - early 1997, some 19 microlight Flying Scholarships were awarded (some of them personally) by AOC Air Cadets when they trained at RAF Halton using Chevvron 2-32s equipped with 32hp piston engines.
I was also awarded the flying 'badge' as I was an HQAC recognised AEF pilot using Cyclone AX3s also at RAF Halton.
Unfortunately the funding for these awards was withdrawn for reasons I was never told although a second 'try' was attempted in about 1999 using a Cyclone AX2000 based at RAF Halton but by this time, I had 'moved on' and was no longer associated with the project due to the local OC of the Wing deciding to dispense with my knowledge and skills. There were other reasons for my ceasing my association with Air Cadet flying after 36 years service however it would be innapropriate for me to go into this,

Pilots handbook for the electric one, it has a ballistic chute as standard that can be used at near max speed and low level.

https://www.pipistrel-usa.com/wp-con...ation-Pack.pdf

The aircraft has a ballistic recovery chute.

An SR22 has a BRS and back in the early days of microlighting (c1980s) many microlights had them.

The Cirrus needed it as it is poor to recover from a spin, hence it was a requirement I believe.

Will crew helmets be a requirement? if so all those aircraft suggested will need modifying unless you only want severely restrict who is to fly in them. Of course restricting the size of the crew helps keeping the aircraft within the regulated weight limits, but military AEA adds weight not taken into account by civilian aircraft designers so your crew will have to be even smaller/lighter, especially if you are installing lots of (heavy) battery power.
I have the misfortune to be tall sat down (98 %tile buttock to crown) and as such found myself being used as an anthropometric dummy during my time at the A&AEE (Islander, Harrier, Tornado, Jaguar, Robin 2160, Grob 109, Grob115, Slingsby Firefly). Whilst I can just fit in some of the light aircraft types without a helmet, there are many I can't. In those I did fit without a helmet any clearance between canopy/structure and helmet was reduced to nil or less than the 50mm clearance required when the Mk4 helmet went on. Whilst modifiying existing civil aircraft types to accommodate military AEA requirements is possible it does of course have consequences, remember the Firefly. So will the crew of these new aircraft be required to wear helmets or is the future of flying only for short arses?

One of the pilots K** F**** on No1 AEF at Manston when they had Chipmunks, being a very tall person was not able to wear a bone dome over the cloth inner. One day he hit turbulence but had failed to tighten his straps and his head knocked out the glazed Perspex panel above his head, fortunately without causing injury. I was told that was why the RAF used the multi panel canopy rather than the bubble canopy used by the Canadians, as they were cheaper to repair.