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.