The trouble with the entire Aeralis entity is it's entirely smoke and mirrors built on a fantasy solution that is entirely unproven and undesired. The company has how much experience building modern tactical aircraft?

Do they have any experience in building anything except AI imagery?

T-7A Red Hawk would mean collaboration with Boeing, which could be risky under the present US administration. But could BAeS secure an agreement with Turkey to build the Hürjet under licence? Currently T-7A sticker price seems to be substantially less than Hürjet though.

However did a small company like Folland secure an order for a private venture aircraft for a lightweight fighter which became the Gnat T Mk1? Unlike Aeralis, at least Folland had an aeroplane which actually flew before being considered.

At least Folland had a factory and had been assembling major components and sub assemblies of Spitfires, Beauforts, Blenheim's and Mosquito's during the war as well as designing and flying some of its own designs to meet Ministry research specifications, Folland himself having set up his own company in the late 30's having been Gloster's chief designer. So, while Folland may have been a small company at the time the Gnat was developed from the Midge, it was an established company which also had an established chief designer in Teddy Petter, so much further up the food chain than Aeralis are (and likely ever will be)

I don't get the approach or attitude that says - unless you have a proven track record and vast previous experience you cannot possibly succeed in a new endeavour.

I have some faith in the Great British underdog, small teams, well managed with sound governance - think Kelly Johnson's Skunk Works. Trick is in these days of scrutiny and (over) regulation its very easy to quickly be forced to grow beyond efficient size.

Not a fan of either owner but SpaceX and Blue Origin seem to be doing OK, but they had BIG backing.

Tarnished
 

I think we’re all on the same side and want the same things. We’d all love a British success story here but I, for one, am a realist.

I can think strategically and I understand the need for British industry and jobs to be protected. However, as someone intimately involved at the coal face I still cannot see a way forward for Aeralis in the next generation trainer process. They just haven’t progressed their idea far enough to be taken seriously, especially when current timeframes and likely customers are considered.

Please, please prove me wrong.

BV

There has to be money for prototypes then. Smaller companies, made up of people with new ideas and skills who see a chance to do something better need a chance to try their stuff out without it having to be everything all at once. That may be impossible given the way governments of the past forced the aircraft industry to consolidate so much that it doesn't actually make aircraft anymore. Now the area of innovation is drones (e.g. windracers) because they aren't so impossibly difficult to get started with. Malloy got R&D money for example (at least I think it did) and then when its drones were picked up in the US it was bought by BAE.

"I have some faith in the Great British underdog, small teams, well managed with sound governance "

yes but aerospace requires billlions to bring a new aircraft to completion. IIRC 30 years ago it cost Gulfstream US$ 800 million just to upgrade the GIV to the GV - and that was a well established company with years of experience. These days it would cost well over a Billion. And that's not a new aircraft.

It's not just the prototypes - the cost of certification is enormous. You're looking at hundreds if not thousands of hours of flying ..........

For me it has to be M-346 built and assembled at Yeovil by Leonardo. Allow them to build their 4,000ft runway to get it in and out. Then you have some resilience for UK-based aerospace manufacture. Warton has GCAP, Typhoon and the 15% share of all F35 to keep it afloat. But if New Medium Helo (NMH) doesn’t happen then Yeovil will fall for sure. Other than that it is Hawarden and its plant/runway now that Filton has gone.

M-346 can provide another NFTE base too with Deci and now Greece operating the type, then there will be resilience built in the NATO fast jet aircrew training system too.

I can’t think of any other way to keep the UK aerospace industry ticking over, without putting all the eggs in the Warton basket.

And presumably the 346 is quite a bit cheaper to buy/operate than the Red Hawk or T-50.
It's hard to see a need for supersonic and afterburners.
If you want a 2nd tier combat aircraft / red air buy Gripens

That smacks of the aircraft cottage industry that lasted in UK through the '60s and '70s. I remember taking a Bucc into such a location (Bitteswell ?) for servicing as late as the '80s, The place was small, run down, and not a lot going on. You need Warton as the centre, with a couple of outstations. That's all your market can support now.

Bitteswell was closed by about '84; more likely it was HoSM.

No it would have been Bitteswell when I returned from Germany in 1983.
On the A1 near Rugby, and an aerial farm to the south.

That's the place.
BAe had just built a new production facility there (built 10 Hawks there so I'm told) and closed it again soon after. Doug Arnold bought it when he sold Blackbushe in '84 and I competed there in '85 for drag racing.

Sounds good in principle but please show me the USP of another M346 campus aligned to NFTE? I’m struggling to see why I wouldn’t go to Deci or Kalamatta, and if anyone says you get the CFS tick then jeez I have abridge to sell you.

However, I’d take it everyday of the week over any hyper-inflated and unsuitable T-7A built by Bungling Baron.

I think you’d be very surprised on the op cost front, particularly factoring in WLC around obsolescence and assurity of supply chain.

Bitteswell delivered the original batch of Red Arrows Hawk conversions (smoke system/paint etc).
I cannot remember if the aircraft were flown in from dunsfold or roaded in from Kingston/Brough.
I converted 2 x Hawks at Dunsfold in the 1980's as attrition replacements
Smoke trials had originally been carried out at Dunsfold though - the Adour exhaust was much cooler than the Orpheus and it took some time to get the correct dye to cope with that.

Or build them there, and road them to nearby RNAS Yeovilton for final assembly and test flying. Its been done plenty of times before, and with more difficult and bigger aircraft to move over longer journeys than Yeovil to Yeovilton...?

Or as I said, when the hard runway is ready, first flight from Yeovil to land at Yeovilton like they did with the VC10s Brooklands to Wisley and Brough to Warton for the last Hawks..

In a fast jet trainer there's only a very small amount of mass which can be left uninstalled at the first flight stage (a handful of avionics boxes at the very most), so the VC10 logic doesn't cross over. And BAES briefly resumed Hawk flights out of Brough only so that Warton final assembly capacity could be redeployed for Typhoon, with surface finishing and flight testing for both types being consolidated there. This made best use of the company's existing workforces at both sites.

Extending the runway at Yeovil could avoid the need to establish a final assembly facility at Yeovilton. But attaching wings to fuselage post-road move is a simple task that would only need a small facility, much cheaper to build and maintain than a jet-capable runway at Yeovil. And with the sites so close together, it would effectively be one workforce working across them. So, to me it would not make commercial sense to extend Yeovil's runway purely to allow a short hop to Yeovilton.

And the short hop from Salmesbury to Warton for the Lightnings IIRC.

Is the hard runway a certainty though?

The 873m hard runway at Yeovil would be adaequate for takeoffs; I'm sure Brough was about the same length.

Chevvron
 

Maybe with a ludicrously strong headwind.

Modern operations (for single engine jets) tend to call for the the ability to stop before the end of the runway from Vrotate. Brake chutes and barriers help and I accept that a single take off is better than routine ops. However, a runway of less than 900 metres is not going to be an attractive prospect for anyone who has to sign off on the risk of takeoffs from such a runway in this day and age.

BV

According to Wiki, the main runway was 1054m. The final Hawk flights (new build or TMk.2 on airframe Mods) took off away from the offices towards the fishing ponds

Tow them to Yeovilton? Buccaneers were built at Brough and towed to HoSM.

Bitteswell was a BAe facility that closed in 1983. The airfield was sold to Doug Arnold but he had shut up shop by 1987 and the airfield site was redeveloped into the huge Magna Park. It was the old Armstrong Whitworth, then Hawker Siddeley maintenance and repair organisation and dealt with Vulcan, Shackleton, Buccaneer and Hawk. BAe never built a production line for anything there as it was never a manufacturing unit under BAe, just MRO. It was closed as part of a BAe rationalisation that also saw Hurn and Bracebridge Heath close. The Hawk confusion probably arises from the fact that it prepped and delivered the Red Arrows Hawks. When BAe, in another bout of rationalisation, closed Dunsfold and Kingston the Hawk production line moved north, initially to Warton and then to Brough with the new build Hawks doing a one time take off from the short runway at Brough to Holme on Spalding Moor, but when BAe also closed that they went to Warton.

The first Hawks built at Brough, as opposed to a series of components, were the RoKAF Mk67s. They were transported by road to Warton for flight test. This carried on through all of the Mk100 and 200 production, until, due to work levels at Warton, permission was obtained to fly the completed jets from Brough. A new final assembly line and flight shed was completed and the jets made a single flight from Brough to Warton for paint, flight test and final delivery. This covered the remainder of the Mk132 Indian aircraft first batch (before switching to production in India) and the RAF T2 aircraft from number 3 onwards).
No Hawk ever flew to HoSM from Brough which had been shut by then anyway. Subsequent aircraft, RSAF Mk165, RAFO Mk166, QAF Mk167 all reverted to completion at Brough, with road transportation to Warton for first flight.

Remember being at Brough when the Swiss QA team started rejecting airframes for workmanship... owch

Are you suggesting folding wings and an arrestor hook as part of the UK trainer spec?;)

Hawks from Bitteswell
 

1. Oct 81, picked up XX 346 & 348 from Bitteswell. Took them to Chiv. Brand new.
2. Get building NOW at Yeovil. Final assembly at VLN.
3. Buy nothing American.

Yeah, I’m sure using a MOD establishment as a FACO wouldn’t raise any challenges. Buy nothing American, better find a replacement for the F124 motor then……

Again, showing the cottage industry that British aircraft manufacture became.

But is the M-346, as a twin-engined aircraft, really suitable either for the RAFAT or as a replacement for the Hawk trainer?

The French have used the Alpha Jet in that role for decades

They struggled finding tradesmen - especially skilled riveters is I remember correctly.

The Swiss were pissed off at BAe for shifting final Hawk production away from Dunsfold to other sites - we had a great relationship with the Swiss going back to Hunter days.
We had done a fly off against 2 x Alpha Jets at Emmen AFB in the spring of 1986 and the Swiss team were not aware at that time that the Hawk final assembly was going to be moved northwards - the Hawk move must have come as a real shock to them.
I started at Dunsfold in 1984 and we were Kingston/Brough division for final assembly of Hawk/Harrier - production fuselage manufacture for Hawk/Harrier was at Kingston,Wing Manufacture was at (B)rough,Canopy from Hamble (+ tailplane ?? - T/P insp stamps have become a bit hazy over time) -
Inspection stamps were - Hawker (Kingston/Dunsfold) was HA,Brough was BGA (Blackburn General Aircraft).
Looking at some pictures online - it is indeed possible there might have been a small Hawk final assembly line at Bitteswell to help with Hawk T1 production in the late 70's/early 80's - we did end up with a few ex Bitteswell strange guys at Dunsfold :)

I can remember Doves (GARBE was one of them) going from Dunsfold to Bitteswell then on to Brough (or possbly HoSM) for a short period; don't know when; normally they just did Dunsfold - Brough/HoSM and return.
I'm sure a new building was erected at Bitteswell on the northern end of the airfield separate from where the 'normal' Argosies/Victors were serviced in 3 x T2s which were south of the airfield across a road. They had a controller named Merril there who was ex Boscombe Down.
I drag raced at Bitteswell twice in 1985 after Doug bought the airfield and I'm sure I saw a building of some sort at the northern end of the runway where I turned off it after making a run but I only glanced at it briefly as I drove back round the eastern taxiway (which had a pronounced 'dip' and corner in it) to the paddock which was on one of the shorter runways; we used the main runway for actual racing.

You've touched a raw nerve there!
My Father-in-Law was an inspector and closely involved with the first Swiss airframes. The management wanted to keep the customer at bay, but he took their rep through all his inspection records, drawings and components and got everything Swiss-stamped - he was in trouble for that!
Part of the problem at Brough was successive run-downs and build-ups. Lots of people left in the Buccaneer days when SA batch 2 was cancelled and various other HSA projects (Hawk/Harrier/Trident/146/SkyShadow pod etc.) came and went, with Phantom as a constant. But "workmanship" can be pointed at any organisation in my experience, as I've heard horror stories from all other places I have been involved with.
In addition to Pr00nes comment, Kingston had already passed all Hawk DA, production and testing to Brough well before they closed (I spent the winter of 86 going back and forth with a copy of the stressing calcs!). They were just managing all the Harrier workload. Similarly, Dunsfold had problems with staffing levels, although the regular guys I met were good blokes.

Around 1990 Hawk production was reorganised and instead of sub-assemblies being built at Brough and Kingston with final assembly and flight test at Dunsfold, almost all sub-assemblies were built at Brough with final assembly and flight test at Warton. The 100 and 200 series aircraft were still to a degree in development but also in production at the same time, hence lots of changes and rework. We were building a wide range of aircraft marques, rebuys of Mk 51 and 60 for Finland and Zimbabwe, Mk 67 for Korea, Mk 102 for Abu Dhabi, 103 and 203 for Oman and 108 and 208 for Malaysia. Major changes were made to the production management structure as a result of the 'Warton takeover' and lots of shop level supervisors took over areas they were unfamiliar with. The original Kingston philosophy which seemed to have accepted a lot of 'fettling' by skilled craftsmen did not lend itself to what was now happening. I was based at Brough in Flight Systems but spent a lot of time at Warton in the early 90's doing production support. I did not have any experience of dealing with the Swiss but the Finns were absolute masters at finding fault in the build standard of their aircraft. They had an absolutely ace inspector on site, aided by a UK AQD inspector contracted to the Finnish Air Force who happened to be an ex 'Broughie' They could be a real pain in the arse but I admired their thoroughness and professionalism and we are still friends today. Eighty hour weeks were common, being called in to assist re-rigging and testing nosewheel steering on the Mk 67 in the middle of the night was a pain but it was one of the most interesting and satisfying periods of my career and I learned a lot about dealing with customers when carrying out acceptance testing with the Finnish, Korean and Abu Dhabi reps.

UK Preparing Groundwork For Hawk T2 Replacement Contest
 

In Aviation Week.

Click the link for remainder of article.