Re-equipping the Red Arrows . . .

robunos

robunos

You're Mad, You Are.....
Senior Member
Joined
1 May 2007
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
1,752
In THIS THREAD, the re-equipment of the Red Arrows has been touched upon, so I thought it would be a good idea to break out a thread to discuss this subject.
What should the Red Arrows use after the Hawks are retired?
Should the Red Arrows continue after the Hawks are retired?

cheers,
Robin.
 
More Hawks. BAE still offers the design in a modernized form, after all. Certainly makes more sense than vaporware from an untested company.

And while you're at it, just plan to buy new Hawks for the trainer role. Makes zero sense for the Red Arrows to have their own unique type.

(Which leads to the suspicion that tipping Aeralis for the RA demonstration role is a back door way to try to lock them in for the LIFT role as well. Never mind they have no experience building a plane, let alone an integrated flight training system with simulators and the works.)
 
What should the Red Arrows use after the Hawks are retired?
I would have thought that the MoD would have done an exhaustive evaluation on what types might be suitable before issuing any tenders. Firstly it doesn't have to be a jet, sure jets look and sound spectacular but given a new mount will probably have to last into the 2060s its not clear that a jet is that sustainable (economically) or sends quite the right messages. It has to be safe, reliable and capable of aerobatics.

The Aeralis story ignores another factor, the MoD doesn't buy aircraft any more for non-frontline uses, it does Public Finance deals, they ask for tenders for private contractors to supply and maintain aircraft. It could ask Ascent to cost up some more Texan IIs but that would bump up training costs. They could ask industry for tenders for a dozen aerobatic training aircraft and pick the most cost effective choice.

Politically can the flagship national display team have a non-British aircraft? Would the Patrouille de France fly a non-French jet? (actually they formed on Thunderjets), would the Thunderbirds fly a non-US aircraft?
Trouble is we have no choices.

Could the Hawk line be restarted? Probably not, Brough is now turned over to other BAE work, jigs and bits might still exist at Warton - but given it wasn't much more than 24 months ago that BAE was begging for a Kuwaiti order to keep the lines open it wouldn't have hurt the MoD to place an order back then. Instead they sat on their hands and indeed seem indifferent to replacing Hawk T.2 at all, let alone worrying about the T.1.
For me the Hawk T.2 is too much aeroplane for the Red Arrows. Sure it has fleet commonality but the Red Arrows are a display team, the advanced avionics would be a boon I have no doubt but it would be an expensive way to run a team - lets not forget the RAF only has 26 Hawk T.2s for all its advanced flying training needs, the Red Arrows needs a fleet half that size just for impressive joy rides...
So that's 38 Hawk T.2s and still only 26 usable as trainers - don't forget the T.2s are based at Valley and the Reds will be at Waddington.

Aeralis is the only home-grown design likely. Maybe it will end with BAE Systems taking a big stake in the company and bringing something to fruition by providing technical support and all the simulators etc. needed. But a dozen aircraft is pennypacket stuff. It would be cheaper to reopen the Hawk line.

Should the Red Arrows continue after the Hawks are retired?
This is a thorny issue.
It would be too easy to say "it's too expensive" and "they are joyriders" and ditch it, but then you could easily argue the same for the BBMF - a bunch of antique aircraft that many warbird operators could probably maintain just as well. So its a slippery slope going down the "it's expensive" path.
Making the Red Arrows the only official display team back in 1964 meant the team became de facto the national display team. To have an RAF without them is as unthinkable as having an RAF without a 617 Squadron.

Unless they are to switch to relatively economical turboprops, the economics of operating fast jets just for audience thrills its harder to justify. As I point out above, could the RAF really justify having a third of an enlarged Hawk fleet dedicated to airshows? If there was some way to move them to Valley and integrate them within the Hawk community and fleet it might make more sense, but you'd still have the problems of swapping liveries or earmarking certain aircraft.

Here is a far-out idea, what about not just a PFI deal for the aircraft but the whole team - a tender to supply the RAF with a display team including aircraft, pilots and support staff, travelling roadshow, the full PR machine and have them go out around the country and the world.
You might cry "but then its not the RAF!" but so what, your Ascent-owned Grob Tutor or Embraer Phenom flown by Ascent-employed instructors might have RAF roundels on them but they ain't the RAF either. Your BAE Systems engineer sitting on a dusty apron in Cyprus crawling under a Typhoon ain't an RAF engineer either, your Voyager Tanker is owned by a private company too... So maybe its time to bite the bullet and have a private 'RAF' Red Arrows?
 
Hood said:
"it's too expensive" and "they are joyriders"
Click to expand...

These sentiments were seen in Italy against the Frecce Tricolori team (that this year turned 60), anyway Italian Air Forces had already traded with Italian Government to replace the aged Aermacchi MB-339A with the brand new Leonardo T-345 in near future.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Why not the T.2 airframe but replace all the advanced boxes with ballast? It would keep the airframe logistics but remove the really expensive part the Reds don't need anyway.

The T.1 will need replacing in service very soon anyway so a "downscaled" T.2 might not be a bad idea afterall. Or maybe the future is a high performance turboprop in the PC-21 range?

As to the value of the Reds - never underestimate public opinion. I come from a country where very few people see the value of a peace time defence force yet cry whenever they are called upon, but due to severe funding constraints only a couple helicopters, one Herc etc available on the day... The Reds are pivotal in the public image of the RAF. Once that image fails and doesn't win votes anymore its a fast ride downhill.
 
Why not Nine, new build Spitfires painted red? The Spitfire is about the only complete aircraft currently being produced in the U.K.

It’s finally becoming inescapable that the U.K. mayn’t have a viable aircraft industry I.e one that can offer a whole aircraft/engine combination, even for something as simple as 2 seat trainer.

The idea of buying Hawk T2 just seems wrong (it’s like a heritage offering, so why not go properly heritage) even though it’s a good product. An imaginative new product is desperately needed and the Hawk, although good in its day, is really at the end of its development life…. Buying a dozen more will truly be the end of a whole product capable U.K. aeroplane industry. Fortune favours the brave and that attitude been singularly lacking in U.K. in the last 20 years.

The last time I visited BAESYSTEMS at Warton I marvelled at the state of the art, comprehensive and indeed expensive flight test infrastructure, which is just the sort of thing Aeralis would need;- given it was all paid for by the U.K. tax payers, will they give Aeralis access? There’s no longer any RAE equivalent facility.
 
Last edited:
France will soon face the same issue with the PAF Alphajets. They have been in service since 1980 (not the airframes, but the type !)

And since the AdA seemingly only wants to replace its Alphajets with palliatives...
(Tour and Cognac flying schools merged... Cartouche Dorée dissolved...)
brace yourself for
a) Belgian upgraded Alphajets PAF (ROTFL)
b) PC-21 PAF (the horror !) 26 aircraft so far in Cognac...
c) private trainers PAF
d) nothing
e) Alphajets until 2095 at least (seems we will keep 50 of them as agressors and for the PAF)

air-cosmos.com

L'Armée de l'Air conservera une cinquantaine d'Alpha Jet après 2023

C'est une surprise : malgré les apports du Pilatus PC-21, le nombre d'Alpha Jet dans l'Armée de l'Air et de l'Espace va rester encore important.
air-cosmos.com air-cosmos.com

I bet on PC-21s... a) first foreign PAF aircraft since the F-84s and b) first PAF propeller driven aircraft.
 
Last edited:
The Royal Canadian Air Force recently announced that they are updating some Canadair CT-114 Tutor jet trainers with glass cockpits, etc. to keep the Snowbirds display team in the air for another 20 years. The Canadian Armed Forces/RCAF display team have been flying Tutors since 1967 when the Golden Cenntenaires first flew formation aerobatics in front of the public. A year or two later, they re-painted their Tutors in the now familiar red, white and blue paint scheme.
Mind you this update is coming a few years after the RCAF retired Tutors from their training role. It seems silly to me to keep an airplane type in service long after it has disappeared from its primary role.
I seriously question the expense of display squadrons.
I was outraged to meet a Royal Canadian Navy band member who only spent a single night at sea during his 20 year military career! Heck! I was not even a hard sea trade, but spent hundreds of nights at sea.

I also served with the Canadian Army's Skyhawks Parachute Display Team. Back in 1981, Skyhawks were still jumping Strato-Clouds with reefing-lines a few years after civilian skydivers had all converted to sliders much less volume and much simpler to pack). I only ever saw two or three civilian competitors with reefing-lines. Given the handful of display jumps done each year by Skyhawks, I wonder about the recruiting value. Or are display teams more like shore-billets for burnt-out military elites??????
 
I'd also suggest the dead sparrows gives us a dozen or so qualified pilots in our time of need.

Cheaper than adding a sqn of Typhoon.

Just needs a major sponsor, who did well out of Covid...

So Amazon, DHL ?
 
Hood said:
Aeralis is the only home-grown design likely.
Click to expand...
Concept, not design. I'd be pretty confident that weight growth in design will kill this off, if the concept works at all.

I'll gladly pitch something like a Phenom 100 repackaged into a new airframe if there's a competition and a few hundred £m
 
Hmm, plenty of food for thought here . . .
As the OP, I'll throw my two penn'orth into the mix.
I have to say, I'm pessimistic that the Red Arrows would continue once the Hawks are retired. It's an easy cost to save. Yes there would be protest noises from the Press, but that would be countered in the form of a question; 'Red Arrows or BBMF, which do you choose . . . ?'
Should the Reds survive, then I think Hood's scenario is probably the most likely; turboprop trainers acquired on a Private Finance deal. I think that the pilots would have to remain RAF personnel, but the rest would be contractors. A disadvantage to using this type of aircraft occurs to me. They are smaller than the Hawks, and therefore less visible. Most UK airshows these days tend to be at seaside locations, with the actual display line quite some distance offshore. Having watched the Tucano display under these conditions, I was less than impressed . . .
An airframe SLEP programme for the Hawks is a possibility, the questions, as always, are how much will it cost, and where is the money going to come from.
A new jet would IMOHO be highly unlikely, but intriguing. The Aeralis concept would be good, as a British built product, however without assistance from a 'Big Aerospace Enterprise', production would be unlikely, and even with the help of said 'BAE', I feel that the modular concept would be dropped, and the aircraft built to a single, fixed configuration.
Regarding foreign aircraft, an intriguing scenario evolves around the Leonardo designs. As Leonardo have a facility in the UK (what was Westlands), a claim could be made that they are in fact 'British', and it may be possible that final 'assembly', from a CKD kit could be done at Yeovilton.
A further dimension is that Leonardo are involved in the RAF's Puma replacement process. On the the one hand, Leonardo could offer to 'throw-in' some M-345s or 346s (probably the former) if they get the Puma replacement contract, or vice-versa, the RAF/HMG could effectively say, to all the bidders, 'throw in something we can use for the Red Arrows , and the Puma deal's yours . . .'

cheers,
Robin.
 
New Hawks are pretty much out of the question, the order book has been closed by BAE SYSTEMS and Brough, which produced a large chunk of the airframe, has ceased manufacturing, however second hand ones might be a possibility. Australia are certainly looking at a new LIFT to replace their Hawks... and there are plenty of examples in the middle east if anyone decides to re-equip with T7s/M345/M346 etc...

With regards the aggressor role currently fulfilled by the T1s, its worth noting the final batch of Hawks coming of the line at Warton for the Qatari Air Force are going to be based in a joint RAF/Qatari squadron at RAF Leeming, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up taking over some of the aggressor taskings as part of their training...

Zeb
 
Last edited:
zebedee said:
New Hawks are pretty much out of the question, the order book has been closed by BAE SYSTEMS and Brough, which produced a large chunk of the airframe, has ceased manufacturing, however second hand ones might be a possibility. Australia are certainly looking at a new LIFT to replace their Hawks... and there are plenty of examples in the middle east if anyone decides to re-equip with T7s/M345/M346 etc...

With regards the aggressor role currently fulfilled by the T1s, its worth noting the final batch of Hawks coming of the line at Warton for the Qatari Air Force are going to be based in a joint RAF/Qatari squadron at RAF Leeming, I wouldn't be surprised if they ended up taking over some of the aggressor taskings as part of their training...

Zeb
Click to expand...
The HAL Bengaluru line in India is entirely closed?
 
riggerrob said:
The Royal Canadian Air Force recently announced that they are updating some Canadair CT-114 Tutor jet trainers with glass cockpits, etc. to keep the Snowbirds display team in the air for another 20 years.
Click to expand...
This is even more surprising than the Aeralis story! That would be like the Red Arrows still using the Jet Provost T.3s the Pelicans had in the early 1960s or keeping the original Red Arrows Gnats!

red admiral said:
Concept, not design. I'd be pretty confident that weight growth in design will kill this off, if the concept works at all.
Click to expand...
True, it is a concept rather than a 'design' at this stage, but its the only other 'national' contender on the table, however unlikely or unfeasible it looks.

zebedee said:
I don't know about entirely closed but they do seem to have fulfilled the two rounds of orders for 66 & 57 airframes. There appears little appetite for the third (20 or 32) in part due to bribery allegations directed at Rolls Royce...
Click to expand...
Plus the Advanced Hawk developed in conjunction with HAL went nowhere.
 
So much of this discussion/ ultimate decision comes down to deciding what the Red Arrows are for.

1. If it’s to represent the RAF and the UK as a whole then ultimately the airframe doesn’t have to be a “UK” product (though clearly more politically palatable if some UK contribution/ content).

2. If it is to sell specific aircraft types produced by the UK aviation industry (that pass some kind of “British” purity test?) then it really would have helped to have an aviation industry that was still actually produces such aircraft. And if it is this scenario then the Red Arrows should die with the Hawk going out of production.

The Aeralis proposal just doesn’t sound like a good realistic bet for the RAF.Represents a very high risk of never happening, the only thing in its favour is perceived UK purity (presumably powered by EJ200, also containing other non-pure-UK content?). Also seems a lot of trouble to go for such a small number of aircraft, especially given that the most recently acquired Hawk trainers will not need replacement in RAF service for decades.

So some rebuild of existing (RAF or bought-back) Hawks or purchase of a “non-UK” aircraft (one of the options mentioned above by other contributors) appears the most realistic workable solutions for retaining the Red Arrows.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Careful, please ! This thread, though seeingly harmless and innocent, is nevertheless endangered to drift
off into politics ! So, please, avoid comments, that aren't directly related to this theme, but about things
like British procurement policy, and the like.
 
The Aeralis notion (is it even a concept yet?) looks a little short-coupled at first glance. I have doubts as to whether they would ever be re-winged in actual service (not without disappearing back off to the factory at least) so they'll have built-in excess complexity and weight for dubious reasons (I want to call it a gimmick). If the concept is fully realized and fuselages and wings of all different ages and hours are interchanged throughout the fleet, fatigue tracking could become nightmare-ish.

If Hawks and the commonality and stability that come with them are off of the table then I agree, a M345/M346 buy packaged in with AW149 production seems like a good idea to me. The Reds could move to Yeovilton!
 
archipeppe said:
Indeed our British and French friends could buy brand new Italian M-345 and M-346 aircrafts for their purpose....
Click to expand...

Sorry for our italian fellows: the Swiss are already in the place with PC-21s.
France bought 17 of them in 2017 and last July has just ordered 9 more.
A pity, because the M-346 is pretty cool.

The way it goes, the PAF will fly Alphajets to the very deep end of their airframe life - and then probably switch to PC-21s.

Pros and cons
Pros
-it is sleek and pretty beautiful, with that Tex Avery -looking seemingly never ending nose.
-it is far cheaper, fuel wise, than any Alphajet
-prop driven aircraft can use rougher fields
- which bring us to the late Cartouche Dorée which flew SOCATA Epsilons for this exact reason: going where the PAF could not go, at lower cost

-Cons
-It's a prop driven aircraft when all PAF aircraft have been jets: F-84, Mystère IV, Magister and Alphajets
-So much slower and maybe a bit less spectacular and noisy
-It is not a French type, although that's probably just a silly argument (neither were F-84s, and 99% of the world acrobatic teams fly foreign aircraft so)
 
Archibald said:
the Swiss are already in the place with PC-21s.
Click to expand...

Already Aussies brought it to replace their PC-9 for Roulettes demonstration team.

Archibald said:
the M-346 is pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Definitely, but is also expensive too, a bit too much only to use it for a demonstration team, that's why the Italian Air Force choose the cheaper (but also cool) M/T-345:

1631618634728.png
 
M-345 should do the trick. I can not think of any valid reason to why European Air forces are not buying her. What's the cost gap b/w a PC-21 and an M-345?
 
I don't get it. Here in Cannuckistan we can afford a 12-ship team using truly ancient planes (first flight 1960!) powered by the single-shaft J85 at 0.97 sfc, and the RAF can't afford a team flying a much newer plane (1974) with a twin-spool turbofan buring 0.8 sfc with a complete FADEC? What's wrong with this picture?
 
Maury Markowitz said:
I don't get it. Here in Cannuckistan we can afford a 12-ship team using truly ancient planes (first flight 1960!) powered by the single-shaft J85 at 0.97 sfc, and the RAF can't afford a team flying a much newer plane (1974) with a twin-spool turbofan buring 0.8 sfc with a complete FADEC? What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...
Fatigue life I guess is the ultimate answer.
I'm presuming the Snowbirds have the lowest houred Tutors remaining (11 plus 13 stored spares) given that when the Tutor was still in RCAF training service the fleet was cycled to make sure the Snowbirds had the lowest-timed airframes. I also presume there must be an annual flying hours limit on the remaining airframes to make sure they last.

In 2017 we still had 75 Hawk T.1 airframes and at that point they were scheduled to last until 2030. A lot of them would have gone through the Fuselage Replacement Programme to extend fatigue life during the late 90s/early 00s.
The 2021 White Paper brought that retirement forwards to 31 March 2022 for service units for purely cost saving reasons. But that means in theory the Red Arrows have access to all the ex-RAF and ex-Royal Navy Hawk T.1s and could easily pick the lowest-timed airframes, however the stock of Adour Mk 151-02s used by the Red Arrows will be a limiting factor. I can't foresee why the Red Arrow's couldn't keep the Hawk T.1 going until 2030 as long as BAE Systems are prepared to offer support. It might even be possible to go beyond 2030 in theory if enough the Adour 151-02 situation allowed or if it proved feasible to adapt more 151-01s to 02 standard.

But then do we really want a 100-year old Red Arrow Hawk flying in 2079? By that logic they should still be flying Sopwith Snipes today... At some point something new is needed.
I'm don't see the need for it to be a 'British' plane, the average person I've overheard at airshows can barely discern a Hercules from a Galaxy or a Dakota from a Lancaster and anything with a propeller is a Spitfire... (indeed the Express can't discern a fighter from a trainer judging by their article).
 
Already Aussies brought it to replace their PC-9 for Roulettes demonstration team.
Click to expand...
Do you know they very nearly bought the M-345 lost brother, I mean the Yak-130 ?
...
And then they brutally cancelled their order and went for the M-345 without any explanation.
...
Then they said the M-345 could do the job, but not the very similar Yak-130.
Nobody understood.
...
And then somebody found the reason for their decision.
...
In the words of the great and late John Young, discussing a tentative plan to try and test the Space Shuttle RTLS risky abort mode
...
"Let's not play... Russian roulette !"
...
.
.
.
(I'll get my coat...)
...
Oh, and France also tried to sell second hand Alphajets to them. The slogan picked by Dassault ?
...
"L'Alphajet, ça marche comme sur des roulettes !"
...
(where is that coat, damn it ?)
 
Archibald said:
Already Aussies brought it to replace their PC-9 for Roulettes demonstration team.
Click to expand...
Do you know they very nearly bought the M-345 lost brother, I mean the Yak-130 ?
...
And then they brutally cancelled their order and went for the M-345 without any explanation.
...
Then they said the M-345 could do the job, but not the very similar Yak-130.
Click to expand...
The M-346 share a common root with the Yak-130, but apart their configuration they entirely different aircrafts, in terms of engines, avionics, subsystems etc.

While the M-345 is all Italian aircraft, since it is a descendant of the SIAI S-211.
 
Hood said:
Maury Markowitz said:
I don't get it. Here in Cannuckistan we can afford a 12-ship team using truly ancient planes (first flight 1960!) powered by the single-shaft J85 at 0.97 sfc, and the RAF can't afford a team flying a much newer plane (1974) with a twin-spool turbofan buring 0.8 sfc with a complete FADEC? What's wrong with this picture?
Click to expand...
Fatigue life I guess is the ultimate answer.
I'm presuming the Snowbirds have the lowest houred Tutors remaining (11 plus 13 stored spares) given that when the Tutor was still in RCAF training service the fleet was cycled to make sure the Snowbirds had the lowest-timed airframes. I also presume there must be an annual flying hours limit on the remaining airframes to make sure they last.

In 2017 we still had 75 Hawk T.1 airframes and at that point they were scheduled to last until 2030. A lot of them would have gone through the Fuselage Replacement Programme to extend fatigue life during the late 90s/early 00s.
The 2021 White Paper brought that retirement forwards to 31 March 2022 for service units for purely cost saving reasons. But that means in theory the Red Arrows have access to all the ex-RAF and ex-Royal Navy Hawk T.1s and could easily pick the lowest-timed airframes, however the stock of Adour Mk 151-02s used by the Red Arrows will be a limiting factor. I can't foresee why the Red Arrow's couldn't keep the Hawk T.1 going until 2030 as long as BAE Systems are prepared to offer support. It might even be possible to go beyond 2030 in theory if enough the Adour 151-02 situation allowed or if it proved feasible to adapt more 151-01s to 02 standard.

But then do we really want a 100-year old Red Arrow Hawk flying in 2079? By that logic they should still be flying Sopwith Snipes today... At some point something new is needed.
I'm don't see the need for it to be a 'British' plane, the average person I've overheard at airshows can barely discern a Hercules from a Galaxy or a Dakota from a Lancaster and anything with a propeller is a Spitfire... (indeed the Express can't discern a fighter from a trainer judging by their article).
Click to expand...
Cant we just, you know, simulate it.
 
By the way does the Marche Verte (Morocco team - the Green walk) still fly sometime with their Cap232 tighten together with a chord b/w the wings?
 
Hood said:
But that means in theory the Red Arrows have access to all the ex-RAF and ex-Royal Navy Hawk T.1s and could easily pick the lowest-timed airframes, however the stock of Adour Mk 151-02s used by the Red Arrows will be a limiting factor.
Click to expand...
About 10 years ago I had a similar conversation with Red 10 at our local lifeboat open day... his understanding was that when the T1 was retired then they would have the pick of the airframes...

Zeb
 
I would like us to go back to the early 60s and have the new Lightning equip a new Display team for the RAF/RN.. Blue Diamonds anyone?
A formation hover and turn to the crowd used to be a Harrier trick at Farnborough
 
uk 75 said:
I would like us to go back to the early 60s and have the new Lightning equip a new Display team for the RAF/RN.. Blue Diamonds anyone?
A formation hover and turn to the crowd used to be a Harrier trick at Farnborough
Click to expand...
I thought you meant build some new EE Lightnings......That would be impressive.
 
sideshowbob9 said:
The Aeralis notion (is it even a concept yet?) looks a little short-coupled at first glance. I have doubts as to whether they would ever be re-winged in actual service (not without disappearing back off to the factory at least) so they'll have built-in excess complexity and weight for dubious reasons (I want to call it a gimmick). If the concept is fully realized and fuselages and wings of all different ages and hours are interchanged throughout the fleet, fatigue tracking could become nightmare-ish.

If Hawks and the commonality and stability that come with them are off of the table then I agree, a M345/M346 buy packaged in with AW149 production seems like a good idea to me. The Reds could move to Yeovilton!
Click to expand...

The Aeralis design work is a lot advanced than you realise. It’s been one slow burn for the best part of ten years and recently has accelerated when’s Atkins became a share holder.

If designed appropriately the change of wing type/and other major parts would be really quick. The key parts will be secured with pins, with clever thought the removal and installation could be achieved in minutes;- I’ve designed quite a few pin joints in my time. The Harrier wing could be structural refitted in less than an hour, it’s just four bolts, fuel and hydraulic disconnects ;- During my training I’ve been part of a team that put a wing on a GR3. What took much longer was the rigging of control pulleys but in these days of fly by wire, this is replaced by electrical connectors…..each of which can be installed in seconds.

As for fatigue monitoring, the electromechanical FI counters and component part card index systems were excruciating painful but it’s very last century. Now we have a digital twin for every production component (down to serialised part) which gets updated for fatigue damage in real time as the g is pulled. This is automatically assigned to the serialised parts and down loaded into RFID’s embedded in the components ID plate. Almost effortless.

The U.K. existing aerospace industry is a fading shadow of its former self. With the exception of Tempest BAESYSTEMS haven’t had the courage to launch a new project in 30 years. I remain doubtful Tempest will go the distance. Airbus U.K. has become a branch office with a total loss of whole aeroplane capability;- international partnership, while preserving production capacity, in the long run kills capability.

I wish Aeralis well in their future endeavours, think they have a clever/feasible concept and am genuinely in awe of the entrepreneurial spirit. The whole of the previous UK (and others) aero industry grew from such an acorn. The problem was that when the original entrepreneurs were gone the people that took over lacked imagination, courage and just don’t get it. So they resort to dumb and cowardly asset stripping and personally taking out big bucks for scrapping off what they could never create.

I reckon Aeralis is a clever concept to maximise production at minimum design expenditure. They deserve better than having there concept prejudiced against obsolete technology standards.
 
Last edited:
Zoo Tycoon said:
sideshowbob9 said:
.
Click to expand...

The Aeralis design work is a lot advanced than you realise.
Click to expand...

Is that so? I remain somewhat skeptical that it is anything more than a glossy brochure at this stage but I am waiting to be amazed.

Zoo Tycoon said:
They deserve better than having there concept prejudiced against obsolete technology standards.
Click to expand...

Sorry to upset your sensibilities but I don't personally owe Aeralis a damned thing and reserve the right to comment on them as I see fit. So far, this jaded and apparently obsolete (thank you kindly) engineer is not terribly impressed. If this is indeed the brave new face of the RAF, Aeralis have much to prove! As it stands now? Meh.
 
If Aeralis can break even on only 12 airframes (the approx. numbers the Red Arrows would need/ buy) then fair dues to them, they will have performed a miracle,

Otherwise, on purely commercial grounds (though I and other contributors would clearly have technical queries and concerns) this appears to likely be a case of throwing good money after an overly ambitious unrealisable proposition.
How would such an aircraft succeed in face of current competition in this sector, including the new US T-7, given that even the best of the current designs struggle to generate enough critical mass to be commercially successful
And how many unrealistic and/or ultimately unsuccessful designs do we see in this sector? What proportion even fly in prototype form or enter service?

Refurbished Hawks until the road map for replacing the Hawk T.2 is worked out (minimum 15 years away?) makes a lot more sense.
 
Last edited:
archipeppe said:
Archibald said:
the Swiss are already in the place with PC-21s.
Click to expand...

Already Aussies brought it to replace their PC-9 for Roulettes demonstration team.
Click to expand...

The RAAF bought them to replace all PC-9s, not specifically for the Roulettes (they are not a full-time team, they are flown by Qualified Flying Instructors who work at the Central Flying School, RAAF East Sale). IIRC the Roulettes aircraft are not soley used for display work, I remember a Roulettes painted PC-9 at RAAF Edinburgh for Test Pilot CT (continuation training - 'hours').
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom