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

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.

Taking what they have offshore? What, a couple of sketches and some poorly-worded press releases? Would be a shame to lose that...

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.

I suspect HMG have other matters to worry about

For a start the politicians will all be hoping for promotion in the Govt has to reshuffle -

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

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!

Reported yesterday 2025.11.21 -

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...iu-S7CVc59zRu7

Aeralis & Prestwick - RAeS lecture, 12th January.

Right Place, Right Time for a new Scottish Built Fast Jet Trainer

Spain has gone for the Turkish built 'Hurjet' which looks remarkably similar to the Aeralis.

Similar - it has a wing and tandem cockpit.

Different - Hurjet exists.

Indeed, and then there is this 👇🏻
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....26a3cc85bd.png

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

Just buy M346 and be done with.

Maybe with assembly in Yeovilton

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

However you are ignoring a rather large and well-known aerospace capability which has just secured another export order for Typhoon, builds 15% of every F35, and is soon to fly a demonstrator for the GCAP/Tempest. So no, Aeralis is not the "last chance saloon" for UK aerospace.

Because the skills don't exist: BAES is working on a Tempest demonstrator mainly as a way of regenerating them for GCAP (the EAP/Typhoon generation has largely retired). The idea that Aeralis is sustaining an alternative pool of design experts is just not credible, unless we are talking about PowerPoint design experts.

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.

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.

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

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...

Thanks for the vote of confidence in my analytical skills LateArmLive

Now that 2 people have confirmed that I have fallen and can't reach my beer it must therefore be true.

Just for the record, what I attended was not a "sales pitch", but it was a well presented analysis of the pros and cons, facts and fiction of the situation regarding the need to find a sensible replacement for the Hawk T2 for the UK (and other training platforms for other nations globally).

Though I am getting on a bit and rapidly approaching the KOS demographic, I'd like to think that my analytical skills (in which the UK taxpayer has significantly invested in) are up for the task. 47 years in aviation, with TI, IRE, QWI, QFI, (USAF) IP, TP, Member RAeS and Fellow of SETP (Society of Experiment Test Pilots) to my credit. True to add that having 2 more take-offs than landings I cannot therefore be classed as a good pilot!

Tarnished

That does seem a sudden change of justification, as your original justification was demolished.

Your second point also seems to be fallacious, as there is no evidence BaE and Aeralis would ever be in competition for the same sector of the market - certainly not for Hawk replacement in the required timescale, as they will be instead be ramping up manpower to support Tempest production instead.

ORAC I was thinking more along this line:
Saab, Boeing, and BAE Systems Pitch T-7 Red Hawk for UK Fast Jet Trainer - The Aviationist

Letter of Intent to Collaborate.

Should the new trainer have limited combat capabilities or be essentially unarmed.

It is a sad indictment of the British aerospace industry - BAe - that they cannot design and build the new advanced jet trainer.

Done it before - with two good aircraft, the Jaguar and the brilliant Hawk. We (RAAF) followed the RAF with a newer T.1, greatly upgraded digital avionics as the LIFT and called the Mk.127, ordered in 1996. Similar I would guess to Viking's Canadian Mk.115. The RAF's follow-on Hawk T.2 appears not to have been a great success.

Our Hawk 127 will be the next fast jet for replacement, and with no RAF indigenous project, I can see going for the T-7.

Rather than getting your panties in a know, are you able to answer how 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."

Maybe my somewhat shorter experience than yours (but still very much current) is flawed, but I would much rather the UK buy an established, proven capability rather than some modular nonsense that's been dreamt up and doesn't actually exist. "Buying British" is not the answer to all the problems.

Asturias
 

When the USAF launched the T-X process, a couple of Hawk T2s were flown to the States (2011). The T-X requirements were pretty much written to exclude the Hawk (and they were always going to buy American). That was the time that BAE could and should have taken it more seriously. Maybe a modular concept then might have gained traction based on affordability.

The problem is that a requirement like the USAF T-X programme needs an actual aircraft.

When talking about Aeralis, what’s the performance like? What’s the mission architecture? What sensor simulation will it have? How will it support 5th gen and onwards training?

So many questions and still zero answers. They wouldn’t even be able to tell you which MFDs they’d put in it and whether it would have a HUD in the back seat.

I’m a big fan of the Hawk and I’m still intimately involved with it. I also have a soft spot for BAE (they paid my wages for a few years after all!) but their best shot is obviously now the T7. Let’s see how that progresses.

Once again, please prove me wrong Aeralis and I’ll gladly eat my words.

BV

Actually the Mk.115 and Mk.127 Hawks were quite different.
The Mk.115 (and Indian Mk.132 with indigenous avionics) were based closely on the "2nd generation" Hawk, the Mk.102/3/8/9 from the mid- 80's and raster-type displays.
The mid-90's Mk.127 LIF had a substantial avionics fit to initially replicate the F-18 (Boeing did the same to make the T-45C from the original T-45A). It also included a significantly upgraged centre and rear fuselage to address all the tailplane buffet issues found well after the T.Mk.1 entered service. This airframe and fit became the baseline for the following production Mk.128 (T.Mk.2) right up to the last Mk.167 (Qatar). The T.Mk.2 included a later avionics upgrade which I think the RAAF have taken up (moving map, simulated radar etc.).
As far as I can tell, it is a useful training platform (hope BV can confirm), it's availabilty that is the problem

Many people in BAE Systems (especially at the working level) were convinced there was a new project or at least another significant upgrade required but forthcoming definite orders to justify the investment had always been a problem on Hawk. Development of the company demonstrator ZJ951 with slatted wing (by basically the same team that had rushed through the T45 slatted wing and other mods) was flown to demonstrate potential for the USAF trainer and an F-35 style display fitted, but the partnership with Northrop didn't proceed.

From my lowly viewpoint, there was always a reluctance in the RAF to take on the Hawk T.Mk.2, partly because people were unaware of the LIF capability, hostility to BAES maybe?, also (the cycnic in me thinks) RAF and DE&S people would rather than join the gravy train to Italy than sunny East Yorkshire !

Quite.
And they've closed down Dunsfold and Brough as production facilities as well. I'm sure the MOD's laughable order numbers for T.2 showed BAe it simply wasn't worth it to design and build a replacement for it, given MOD would likely only order a handful (if they were lucky)

If Aeralis were so cock-sure about their idea, and numbers of sales (when M346 and T-50 are already flying and in service and T-7 is test flying) then having a test flying prototype at least might at least go some way to proving its a viable contender.
But no, they seem to want to keep saying, trust us, give us the money and we can design a new plane, build a new factory, train new workforce, pretty much do everything else from scratch and all chances and risks associated with that, and given the reducing timelines for RAF needs........you'd have to be certifiable to give them a contract on that criteria (of course given most politicians are close to certifiable, that's probably not a good analogy :{)

The 'Hurjet' chosen by Spain is also flying.

Aah yes, forgot about that one. There had been suggestions sometime ago about a French-Spain jet trainer design, but I suspect Spain choosing the Hurjet now has killed that idea, which leaves PAF with an interesting decision in the near future for a replacement for their Alpha-Jets when they have to retire them, as PAF have said they won't use the PC-21 now in service with the French, and they won't fly a non-French aircraft...... :E

Exactly this. I’m sure the Case White play book will be being pitched 🙄 I’m sure the test campaign will be flawless as it’s a simple design and it’s digital don’t you know 🙄 It really is an unwelcome distraction to the very problem which is faced. More a Trotter’s Independent Trading vibe about it rather than Stark Industries of MCU fame.

I also find it perplexing that the pitch keeps changing around no cost to the U.K. taxpayer, so it’s free then right? The accessible market it £Xbn or is it £Ybn? The WLC cost estimate is a work of fiction too and they have no idea as to cost base (then again neither does Boeing on T-7).

Hey, but trust us right? It really does seem like one large Ponzi or laundering scheme. What exactly does Barzan, the source of the emergency liquidity, keep getting told? I’d also add that the auditors of their accounts need to be shot, it’s an insolvent and unviable entity and should not have been filed as a going concern. More red flags than a Nigerian promising me maximum ROI on some email……….

Then as for control, be under absolutely no illusion, Barzan has it.

Great in theory, but in practise the combat bit starts to drive up an awfull lot of costs and weight and then the basic trainer becomes very expensive

Yes, this is a bit of a can of worms. Any meaningful combat capability costs money, but, and it's a big but, if you combine the procurement for a future aggressor force / fleet support / JTAC training etc with your advanced trainer, then you could potentially make some signinficant long-term savings whilst significantly increasing FL capability. (And it's called something like the F/A-50!)

That way, you'd get a capable training aricraft that is somewhat representative of the current UK FL capabilities as well as a common fleet for Red Air (because fighting bizjets has been pointless for years now). The issue will be the larger initial procurement cost, so I sadly don't see it happening. The UK is a world leader in short-sighted procurement and the idiocy of saving money in the short term to cripple future capability.

Don't they fight L-159's now?

It was only an interim solution last time I checked, and still a barely credible threat.

Doesn't this reasoning actually fit nicely with the Aeralis business model? I am pretty sure they have been courting the Red Air providers and gaining an understanding of their requirements. Start off with the urgently required Red Arrow's T1 replacement which certainly does not need any of the clever bells and whitles of Embedded Training Systems and threat/sensor emulators - all the Reds need is a jet with nice Red paint, good handling qualities, good thrust response (might need a tweaked engine) and a smoke system. Cockpit needs simple avionics and a Martin Baker ejection seat (which the T-7 does not have). Whilst you are getting these first jets flying you are working on your training system probably followed in close order by your Aggressor solution - which does not need to carry or deploy actual weapons. Hey presto, next step is your UCAV fitted out for the roles you most need at that time.

I don't think that Aeralis will build ALL the different options that they are portraying at present, but the current "urgent need" to get the Reds a new mount actually helps in my opinion.

On the matter of funding, I actually think that having the development funds coming from non-treasury sources will result in far better scrutiny and accountability. When the MoD buy stuff the money does not come out of anyone's pocket so there is not imperative to ensure the funds are being well used. Investors want to get their money back and with interest. HMG often justify the development costs by claiming that they will recoup them in export sales, rarely does this pan out. I am sure Barzan have done their homework and due diligence before offering up a considerable chunk of dosh, they see a profit in the business.

T

Tarnished
 

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/hawk-t1/

The attached article suggests the Hawk T1 will go out of service after the 2029 display season.

How exactly do Aeralis go from a crayon drawing to a display team of flying jets in three years?

Nobody wants to see another successful British built training aircraft as much as I do (there’s a good chance I’ll end up flying whatever is chosen after all).

If Aeralis miss the Red Arrows boat, which they almost certainly have, they just don’t stack up against the current competition for the other roles being discussed.

BV

What 'urgent need'....?
Just maybe, CAS being brave enough to chop the Reds at end of T.1 life (or sooner) would be the very public media wake-up call 'joe public' needs to reinforce the terrible situation the RAF is in, regarding being hollowed out, capability gaps, and a broken training system. As long as the Reds keep trailing red-white-blue smoke over the Mall a few times per year, 'joe public' think we still have the RAF we had 30 or 40 years ago.
And you'd be surprised at how many people on the street, have no real idea how much its been hollowed out, because, we have the Reds so all is OK with the world.