Aeralis Limited, the British developer of a modular light jet aircraft intended as a potential future replacement for the Red Arrows, has entered administration after sustained cashflow pressure linked to continued delays to the UK Defence Investment Plan, the company stated.
The board of Aeralis has appointed David Buchler and Joanne Milner of Buchler Phillips as Joint Administrators. The appointment notice states that the collapse followed a sustained period of pressure on the company’s cashflow as a result of continued delays to the Defence Investment Plan, combined with geopolitical factors affecting sources of funding.
Aeralis had developed a modular light jet platform designed to support military training, operational support, and aerobatic display requirements, with the company having positioned itself as a potential future replacement for the Red Arrows. The business had established intellectual property, strategic partnerships, and advanced digital engineering capabilities during its development programme.
Robin Southwell, Chairman of Aeralis, said the board had taken the decision after careful consideration. “The Board has taken this decision after careful consideration of the Company’s position and the funding challenges it has faced over recent months. We will continue to support the Joint Administrators as they explore viable, sustainable options for the future of the business and engage with interested parties.”
Joanne Milner of Buchler Phillips said the administration process presented an opportunity to explore routes to preserve value. “Aeralis has developed a highly differentiated proposition within the aerospace and defence sector. We hope that the administration process will provide an opportunity to explore routes to preserve value and develop that value for stakeholders.”
The administrators say they will continue to work with management and stakeholders to assess strategic options for the business and its assets, including opportunities to secure investment and support the continuation of the Aeralis programme in an alternative structure.
The Defence Investment Plan, which is intended to set out the MoD’s funding priorities and programme commitments, has been subject to repeated delays. Its finalisation has been cited in recent parliamentary correspondence as a blocking factor for a number of capability and infrastructure decisions across the armed forces. The Aeralis administration is the most direct public consequence yet of those delays for a UK defence company.
Well done Labour, excellent job helping to destroy British defence with your constant inaction while you wait for the beaurocrats.
Or the fact that this company has been taking the nick for years with paper plane projects meant it was always going to end like this.
A little bit of both sadly…..
Unfortunately, to be a runner and rider in the Hawk replacement race ( when the starter gun is eventually fired), the company would at the very least have to have a flying demonstrator.
That obviously requires huge sums of money, so the company would need to team up with an existing aerospace manufacturer, with deep pockets.
In reality that means BEA Systems from a UK perspective. That didn’t happen, so this promising design never left the computer..
Very sad, but unfortunately an obvious outcome to defence watchers like us lot.
I suspect ( as most of us do) the Hawk replacement will be supplied under private contract and will obviously be one of the excellent Italian jets on offer.
Any decision being booted very firmly into the next governments lap anyway.
But not to worry, Picfords truck Starmer has said the DIP will come ‘very soon’, he didn’t mention what metric he was using for ‘very soon’ however, released by the next PM perhaps??
Apparently DIP in June, with an extra £18bn for defence over 4 years.
Do you have a link or source for that. I would be very interested if there is anything to read or if you could elaborate.
Thanks in advance
CR
Front page of today’s Times
Thanks Paul, that is interesting. Is it an £18b up lift of the total spend over 4 years?
According google search AI MoD Budget is £65.1b for 26/27. So does the uplift mean a spend of £83b in FY30/31? If so that is quite an uplift and much needed. However, it could a £4.5b one off uplift which over 4 years gives you £18b which would not even cover the current ‘black hole’ in the budget. Will be interesting to see the details.
Lets just say I have healthy suspicion of political spin.
Cheers CR
Sadly CR, I don’t have a subscription so I can’t see any detail behind the headline. I think you are right about the spin. If I had to guess I would say that Starmer is announcing the release of as much funding as Reeves has budgeted. This would include previously announced uplifts but it will not close the SDR ‘gap’. I’ve not been following all the financial twists and turns but £18b versus £28b has been quoted as the gap. If so that would still mean big decisions on funding programs like MRSS and T83.
Telegraph and the Times reporting it
Yes, they are reporting it as an £18Bn uplift.
Very hard to understand what it might actually mean but I am sure there will be some Brownian double counting.
If it is an extra £4.5Bn a year it might start to make a bit of a difference. The £28Bn black hole relates to a 10 year plan.
Then there is the issue of how to get to 3 or 3.5%….TBH the issues with getting to 3.5% are so large I cannot see how it can happen. Personally I wold be very happy with a real proper 3% provided it isn’t all swallowed by DNE.
A bit like a Country mile I fear. And that’s assuming he is even still leader because who knows what might happen with a new one looking for a review of a review.
I’ve gained $17,240 only within four weeks by comfortably working part-time from home. Immediately when I had lost my last business, I was very troubled and thankfully I’ve located this project now in this way I’m in a position to receive thousand USD directly from home. Each individual certainly can do this easy work & make more greenbacks online by visiting
following website—.,.,.,.,.—>>> JobatHome1.Com
Quite possibly – but how can it do anything else without getting an income to do more? And we’ve seen major companies berating the government over this issue. Leonardo, for instance – only available product on the market, government delayed over a year. Leonardo even threatened to pull out of the UK over the delays.
They didn’t compete for any other contracts around the world, they tied their fate solely to being a Red Arrow replacement. Even if they had won that they would still have needed to get other work to break even.
France were interested too as an Alphajet replacement and they could possibly have got sales back to their Qatari investors. But yes, they were effectively dependent on winning a single competition to survive.
The problem for a great many uk companies trying to break into the field sadly, British technological innovation rarely becomes mature through British investment at best it gets to a promising state and sold to a foreign Company to take true advantage. Look at YASA even a company producing undeniably the best performing and innovative electric motors in the World has to become part of Mercedes to realise that fact not just potential like most others. During Labour’s reign a number of innovative UK businesses at the forefront of innovation have died, been foreign acquired or simply transferred to being a US company so that they can get the support and investment they need, like Engineered Arts. The UK will never become a successful dynamic economy until it turns this drain on our potential around and stops claiming such foreign acquisitions as a sign of investment in British ingenuity. In the bigger picture does anyone seriously think an amazing Company like RocketLab would have taken off here, when our own leading rocket launcher Company, despite being chosen for investment by the ESA, is allowed to fall months before its first launch. Meanwhile Spain is ensuring its own promising entry is likely going to flourish, the Germans have 3 such companies and the support to go with it.
As for Aeralis, well I suspect we all knew this was pretty much inevitable when it didn’t announce a cooperative agreement with an established aviation Company. I was surprised in our environment it survived as long as it did.
This I think should be the real takeaway from the Aeralis saga. Any other nation would have jumped at an opportunity to produce its own trainers again but in the UK it simply isn’t possible.
Given how few nations are actually doing so, I’m doubtful.
Ask Annie Kane for advice she gained $ 17,000 in 4 weeks
This story is bollocks, this company has always been a scam looking for tax payers money. It has nothing to do with the DIP as it was never getting a contract.
Evidence for that please?
That they’ve been just one more year away from their flying prototype for many more years than just one? That for all their “signing up industry partners” we never saw even structural examples, let alone flight ready hardware. That UKDJ has been covering them for at least the better part of a decade (there’s two more pages of articles but the Search engine is broken so maybe longer) and there’s still nothing from them?
Sounds a reasonable analysis.
Agree, I do not think the DIP would have helped here. Scam might be a bit harsh.
Have you ever had dealings with company. I have spoken to their engineers they were doing really interesting work.. flippent comments like this based on political biased aren’t particularly useful. And you really think it was a scam provide your evidence to the police, press or parliament, report the directors.
I think it was people with fundamentally sound innovative ideas and approaches who through wanderlust wanted to see them realised but in an environment where sadly there was virtually no chance of it ever being realised. Scam seems a deeply unfair assessment, overly optimistic (certainly in Britain) but typical of the reaction here to anyone invested in seeing something knew becoming real and moving technology along. In thus Country I suspect RocketLab would have attracted a similar scathing response, certainly much pompous laughter by those apparently ‘in the know’, most great innovators here have suffered that response by their established peers let alone generally un-informed others and the establishment. After all I well remember Thatcher setting the scene way back with refusing to support Airbus because it was ludicrous to think anyone could compete with Boeing, or anyone could create a launcher to compete with NASA. Thankfully the likes of Sir Peter Beck refused to listen to all that and turned his ‘scam’ into what may well end up being the most successful rocket company over the coming years. We have become far too cynical or simply disinterested in creating the future here, mostly apart from the few followers once others have shown things work. A sad reflection of our own decline and view of ourselves but deeply ingrained now with distrust of anyone offering any real change, especially when they fail. We love a failure and have created an environment to make it difficult not to fail, just it seems so we can congratulate ourselves in knowing its inevitability all the while.
To be honest was this ever a goer ? They have not even yet build a single prototype aircraft.. I’m all for preserving sovereign capability..but less keen on throwing money at PowerPoint companies.
How many other companies and businesses will potentially go under with the DiP not actually coming when it’s needed. It will be the same old story, projects that are over budget, not on time and not what we wanted.
Space X never built a rocket, 10s of Chinese companies never built cars or even electric cars. Its not the building which is an issue its the funding be that private or government.
The reality is were going to buy European its the governments plan always has been.
They were never going to be able to build a prototype without money, nobody was going to give them money without a prototype.
The paradox of trying to design a manned aircraft in a new company in today’s world.
Certainly in the World here in the UK, though I agree this particular project would have been tough to bring to fruition almost anywhere. Whatever the technology merits it’s difficult to see without a large aero company’s support, how it could produce let alone sell enough to make a real business case longer term in a competitive environment. It’s not pushing the frontiers of science it’s just pushing the frontiers of a very mature and established but relatively small technological sector, though if successful it might have pushed wider boundaries. But all a big leap of faith that was never likely going to attract commitment unless it first received established players involvement.
Sadly long expected, amazing that they kept going this long. Realistically there was almost no chance of the MOD giving a £1 bn order to replace the Hawk’s to a small startup company with no prototype aircraft, no cash flow and no deep pocketed multinational parent guarantor. It’s now a 100% chance (rather than 99%) that BAE will get the order, licence building a UK variant of the Boeing/Saab T-7A Red Hawk. And the first order is needed quickly as currently the last season for the RAF’s Red Arrow’s will be 2029 unless they get 10 new planes by March 2030 for pre-season training. I wouldn’t be surprised if the first few aircraft have to come off the Boeing production line to meet deadlines. [Incidentally. is the commonality of all the names just a coincidence?]
T7A Redhawk, unlikely, too expensive to buy and operate.
My money would be on one of Leonardo’s excellent platforms, simple off the shelf procurement, or more likely leased from Leonardo.
Unless there’s a increase in the defence budget, (that won’t happen under Labour), thats abundantly clear now they have descendedinto civil war, then nothing will happen until 2029 (at the very earliest), so the Reds will be ‘gapped’, probably quietly disbanded.
No additional money will mean a power by the hour lease agreement on 30 odd jets, 40 if the Red Arrows survive.
A proper uplift to 3.5% and other options become viable.
Logic, common sense and cost doesn’t apply here. Having the Red Arrows flying Italian built jets would be just too politically embarrassing. Whether deliberate or not, having the team flying British assembled jets called the Red Hawk would be a good look, and even [mistakenly] suggest that there was actually a plan that led to that!
No one cares bar some plane spotters
I just cant see it, a UK line to build a maximum of 40 airframes with zero chance of exports would be an insane move..
The unit cost would be on parity with F35!
The reality is, with a requirement for just a handful of airframes, the UK is, in effect, out of the trainer game.
The RAF have been sending student pilots to Italy to train on the M-346 and in light of the ‘relationship’ forged with Leonardo over the NMH deal and govt economic strategy to get closer to Europe I think M-346 is favourite. Maybe we will even see it being assembled in Yeovil.
Possibly, who knows Paul. I suspect a lease option is the most probable outcome.
Ha, watching them take off on the Grass airfield would be Interesting 😁😁😁😁
“Bumpsy daisys”
“You can teach Monkey’s to fly better than that”.
I agree RedHawk has a lot of animosity growing around it in the US. Cheaper less risky option more likely.
Its incredibly sad after the success of Hawk, we are now effectively out of the game..
Must admit I’m relieved. Especially with the possibility of a new PM soon and the resultant ministerial changes. There was always a chance some politician would believe the hype and commit to buying “British” leading to the inevitable decades long delay and massive cost overruns that would emerge.
Now they just need to pick something. Either the M346 or the T-7. I’d prefer the former but right now we just need something that works. and lots of them. Perhaps Boeing could give us a deal on a few dozen with a dozen more T-6 thrown in? What if we order another half dozen P-8, would that help?
Well, you can dream can’t you.
Seemed a bit ambitious for a start up company. They would have found a market for cheap drones, target aircraft or cruise missiles, that’s where the money will be.
Yes the Goldilocks zone seems to be lower or higher than where this project aimed really. Too expensive and ambitious for the lower, not aiming to open up a whole new high technology sector and market where serious feed public investment might have been worth it above it to give us a technological lead. To be honest the latter rarely gets much overt support anyway, certainly in an unproven start up. The days of De Lorean are long gone and no Govt is going to forget it. Sad that an established aircraft maker has shown real interest in their ideas but valid or otherwise Bae simply doesn’t want to be in this sector anymore. When in the case of Bae you had such a big involvement in it but are happy to see it simply dissolve suggests their lack of desire or expectations of real profit from persisting with it. They clearly see better returns on skills and investment elsewhere, though that might be channeled on opportunities across the pond I fear.
Not sure why you’d use De Lorean as an example?
There goes another company with plenty of potential…
Potential PowerPoint Projects and paper airplanes… Not a huge loss, they’ve been touting themselves as the next thing for over a decade with no flying prototypes, hell did they even get a ground test example built?
How many other companies and businesses will potentially go under with the DiP not actually coming when it’s needed. It will be the same old story, projects that are over budget, not on time and not what we wanted.
Nothing to do with the DIP, this company was hollow to begin with. They were never a real prospect.
Aeralis had about as much backing as is possible for a smallish company without private orders, if they were never a real prospect then Britain should just resign itself to the idea that no startup will ever build a manned aircraft here again.
No, I disagree. If they had really, really wanted to win that Hawk contract, then they should’ve delivered a cheap, conservative trainer option in collaboration with BAE.
None of this modular, wing-swapping, role-changing complexity. Just a decent, cheap trainer that could then win foreign contracts.
They remind me superficially of Steller Systems and their MRSS concepts. Just far too radical to be credible, and therefore, never a serious option.
British startups, if they want to dethrone BAE, need to offer something deliverable and cheap. This was neither.
I agree that the modularity was too ambitious, but over the years that has been scaled back significantly in their marketing and on their website. Aeralis’ was one of the pages I checked regularly for changes and just in the last month or so they dropped down from marketing all of the aggressor, UAV, twin engine versions to just the jet trainer, I think because they realised that to get orders they had to make it clear what they were actually selling.
It would have been better in hindsight if a decade ago they had sat down and said ‘we are going to focus entirely on winning the Hawk replacement as a British company’ and perhaps even produced a turboprop initial trainer first, but the company was founded around a modular jet being sold to the world and for some reason never set themselves a lower bar to bring in income first.
I see the similarity with Steller; both companies had designs that were, on paper, superior to the established products (in that I include Spartan) but because nobody would partner with them until they had MoD interest while the MoD weren’t interested unless they had someone who could build the product the designs were trapped on PowerPoint slides.
Looking at the US at the bizarre proliferation of light jet trainers and the success of the KA-50, there was a huge market if the UK got itself together to make an AH140 of the sky, but that isn’t where we started.
Textron were all over the aero defence market with their Scorpion Jet, they even built demonstrators and showed them to many Interested party’s. USAF dropped out, I believe every other potential sale ended pretty much soon after.
Even building a Demonstrator would not have helped I fear.
I wonder whether companies rejected collaboration because of MoD disinterest, or because of hidden weaknesses and flaws within the concept itself. We’ve seen BAE scoop up SMEs before, even without MoD support.
That might be so and the potential collaborators no doubt had access to much more technical information than we do.
As I said if they had stuck to winning Hawk replacement and produced the bare minimum jet trainer with the aim of moving on to a LIFT/light combat aircraft we would now be in a very good place, but the concept was in the modularity.
…or more worryingly anything substantial here again. Even successful start ups tend to see better opportunities taking the dollar, euro or yen once they hit a certain size and limited opportunities for growth here.
I’d wait and see. Kraken Technologies, for example, are clearly set to grow into the future. The unmanned market has the feeling of the pre-WW2 aerospace market, when planes could be thrown together basically by anyone.
If you haven’t already, one of the most interesting books I’ve read about the 1930s aviation industry is Slide Rule by Nevil Shute. As well as being a novellist he was also what we would call an aerospace engineer, he worked on R100 with Barnes Wallis and then helped found Airspeed (of the Airspeed Oxford), designing its first few aircraft.
Slide Rule is his autobiography of his life up to that point and he goes into quite a lot of detail about what it took to take what was essentially a startup and move into series production of commercially viable aircraft, as well as providing a wonderful description of travelling on R100 across the Atlantic and back.
Thanks, I’ll take a look. They’ve got it in the university library, so I might drop down later.
If you don’t mind me asking, which uni are you at? I’ll be heading off either next year or the year but I only really looked at places in the S of England.
I’m also in the south, as I’m down in Cambridge. Luckily, the library is a legal deposit library, so it has a copy of almost everything.
Cambridge is as far N as I applied :), whether or not I reapply is why I don’t know when I’ll be going to university.
I won’t ask you which college you’re at, but I assume you’re doing something technical like engineering or NatSci given the interest in defence? Might be HSPS if you’re coming at it from the political standpoint I suppose.
Ahh, I’m sorry you didn’t get in. It’s not all it’s cracked up to be, still a bummer though.
I won’t say what I do, just because the cohorts are quite small. You’re on the right lines with the more politically-minded aspect though. I was never much good at physics 🙂
Don’t be, looking for a placement for next year means I can justify going to the ‘careers’ page of all of the interesting Defence company websites! Also gives me a bit of a kick up the bum A-level wise which was deserved.
I should have known you were a devious political type, far too little pie-in-the-sky thinking from you 😉
You are right. Designing and building even a prototype of an advanced fast combat jet trainer is a major enterprise requiring major development funding. Aeralis had a design concept and a pile of design drawings and calcs, but were dependent on finding a big sponsor to move things forward. HMG, RAF, BAE and others looked at it, some limited funds were invested, but the company failed to attract a big investor willing to pour big money into the project. There are already quite a few modern advanced combat jet trainers on the market, not sure there was space for another one. It would certainly have been a big commercial gamble to invest a few billions in developing and certifying a prototype or two.
The defence budget is already strapped for cash and there is not the money to throw at funding a paper design through to full-scale production.
That is indeed the reality of this project, whatever its technical merits the market is one barrier that even Bae with its long and strong positioning in it didn’t see worth pursuing. That said a lot is about timing, others have moved in through decisions to pursue a new trainer needing to have been taken in the last decade, no plan to replace the Hawk got traction and if it ever had any interest Bae realised that it’s far too late now to make a business case for it and that I’m afraid has been the rule in much of the loss of defence capability and indeed British industry generally. That is an indictment of both public and private decision makers and indeed far too often if each waiting upon the other to make decisions while others took the lead making us unable to compete or finding doing so later simply wasn’t profitable enough. In the end as they both end up in the same negative space the will to compete at all dissipates at all levels beyond the newbies and naive who haven’t yet experienced the negativity of the whole long drawn out process of trying to succeed against the entrenched odds.
Bugger.
Perhaps BAE will adopt the IP? I was sort of expecting this as they had a LOT of hurdles to overcome to do anything useful, but it is a crying shame that Britain is only capable of supporting a single manned aeroplane programme at any one time.
The plane doesn’t exist except as a PowerPoint presentation.
Vastly better real aircraft are available OTS
I agree, go with the US for a licensed T-7 and build it in the UK, or bite the bullet and have Leonardo build us a fleet of M-346 so that all three GCAP customers operate the same trainer aircraft.
Concurr.
I’d go with the Italian job, it’s a modern day Hawk already in widespread use.
The T-7 is a very gold plated USAF centric solution.
The T26 existed on paper once, so did tge Hawk. Everything starts on paper. So the only argument is does Britain have the engineer capabilities to build a fast jet trainer, I would say yes. Does it have the appetite clearly not. Unfortunately aircraft manufacturing isn’t as romanticised as ship building by the progressives.
Slight difference in that T26 had some rather experienced designers and companies behind it.
And yet I remember reading back at how some people said Babcock didn’t have the experience to design a frigate, that no shipyard could ever compete with BAE when starting from scratch.
Firstly, they had carrier experience.
Secondly, Babcock’s proposal had the backing of several other, more experienced companies. It was also a proven hull. Babcock did an excellent job selling the design on the basis of mitigated risks, even despite being a new supplier. Aeralis definitely has not done that.
I remember all that, must have been ten years ago but here we are, still waiting for the first to be completed.
Babcock didn’t ’design a frigate’ – they modified an existing and proven design to UK requirements
Oh,
A Re-Design then.
Not even that.
Back in the 1970’s the RAF Ordered 175 Hawk T1 Trainers,add all the Exports of various flavours,plus the 28 T2,any investment then was well worth the risk.Today the RAF are probably looking at 30 max,the Exports are just not there anymore,the Sums would never add up !.
… and that’s because we have let the whole idea or support for a replacement drag on into a time and place where trying to do so is now practically impossible, as others committed to it long ago. At this point it never seemed practical I agree, even for Bae it doesn’t any longer, unless perhaps it’s a licensed deal. But doesn’t stop it being a page from a bigger Shakespeare tragedy of indecision and intent that plagues this Country. I think it was Rory Stewart who related the story recently about while talking to a Chinese official the latter mused not a little mockingly ‘you have been discussing a new runway at Heathrow since the 1990s, we have built over a dozen new airports in that time.’
So much for driving growth with defence spending!
What Growth? What has the company produced after the better part of a decade touting itself as the next thing? What test models have we seen, when if ever were they going to start test flights? What have they actually done?
The Only thing they ever produced were artists impressions.
I didn’t see this coming. Said nobody, ever.
No surprise really. The T7 RedHawk has suffered major problems and long delays after a fairly rapid design phase. Even Boeing are struggling to build as planned and are incurring big losses on a fixed price contract.
Does UK really need an after burning supersonic trainer with all the additional cost that performance entails?
Perhaps keeping Hawk in production a bit longer might have been a wise move.
The Hawk wasn’t even top of the range 60’s technology when it was designed in the 60’s.
Its literally a museum piece
The advanced Hawk, revealed in 2017, could have brought it up to date.
It was just a Hawk, with some Indian bells and a few whistles.
Well it was a successful project that sold well in a competitive market, we do like to be negative about our own successes. Rarely is a training aircraft going to represent the cutting edge of technological advancement, certainly if it wants to be timely and competitive in the wider market place. Red Hawk is a good example of even pushing the envelope on relatively known quantities can be troublesome. Hawk as a design did everything expected of it (certainly until the present engine problems that don’t reflect upon the design itself) and over a long period so let’s not damn it for not being a technological masterpiece if it’s time, who wants that in a trainer? I can imagine the damning on here and more generally, had it aimed for the stars and suffered as a result all the delays, costs and failings in the market as a direct result.
There comes a point in a world of composite airframes, when you are training people in techniques just to service an old and niche airframe.
The Hawk was a winner because it was mainstream and no one who could fix a fast jet couldn’t fix it. It was Hawker Hunter technology and that was in RAF service into the 90’s.
‘Even Boeing’ sorry that did bring a smirk from me. But shows the complexity true.
… Not saying it should, but I wonder if Babcock or BAE would swoop in and buy the jet design and with their backing make it less a paper plane and more a reality.
Jesus Christ no, that would be a bonkers idea 😳.
It DOESN’T exist!
Amazing things happen when folks comment. I’ve lost count of the number of positive posts I’ve read about Aeralis over the last couple of years and how the government of the day should get on with an order. Now apparently some suggest it was all a scam and the company had no right to exist. Funny old world.
Funny, I can think of plenty of comments highlighting their lack of progress, the distinct and significant challenges of their proposed modular system and the high risk of a delayed, expensive bespoke product if the UK actually signed on, particularly compared to other low cost/risk options that are available.
Only the uninformed thought that Aeralis had any chance of success, most commentators on here saw through the Guff and realised it had no chance 🙄😳.
What the story fails to mention is that of Aeralis was financial backed by the Qatari Government (via their Barzan Holdings), and they decided to stop all further funding.
You’re going to see Gulf States reducing investments in the West and selling-off those they have as their oil income plummets due to Operation Epstein Fury’s blockage of the Straits of Hormuz.
HMG would have been nuts to choose an aircraft that only exists digitally and designed by a company that has never built an aircraft. It could easily have been a flying Ajax.
👌 100% agree.
I say Gulf states have been dropping UK for a while they won’t even send students here for fear of radicalisation.
Now you’re just talking bollocks.
The UAE said just that actually. They have warned repeatedly about allowing islamists (particularly the muslim brotherhood) into the uk and have stopped their students from travelling to the UK. So as usual, you are the one talking bollocks. Islamist apologist as always.
You vote Green by any chance?
Having a foot in the university sector this true.
The moderate gulf states do a lot of work to keep extremists out.
So they don’t want their young indoctrinated in the UK now very strange university system where what I can only describe as islamists hating everything non Islamic appears to be OK.
The university indoctrination myth is quite funny for anyone who’s actually studied at a major British university over the past years.
You’re just as likely to encounter reactionary right-wing, anti-Islamist operators as you are with left-wing operators. The difference is that whilst left-wing talkers have a victim complex for other people, right-wingers have one of their own.
Both insufferable to be around.
Yup, well it may be funny to you but the gulf states don’t share the joke.
We have large groups within the UK that the gulf states go to great lengths to not allow into their societies.
There are broader aspects where the UK population isn’t in on the joke either.
As seen in London today and the local elections last week.
Still, could be worse, and might yet be.
It is the Marxist – Islamist Alliance in British Universities that makes i worse.
“You’re just as likely to encounter reactionary right-wing, anti-Islamist operators as you are with left-wing operators. ”
You lie, The education complex in UK is left wing in large majority, and in “humanities” even Pareto is wrong…
You must be ones indoctrinated by the media so much that don’t find anything strange when they call Fidel Castro a Cuban Leader but Pinochet a Chilean Dictator… Or what is labeled as an attack vs what is labeled as a protest, or who is labeled an extremist vs who is labeled an activist…
The way things are going, I’m surprised America doesn’t buy the Yak-130 then sell it us.
It will be the Italians that will try to sell us the Yak – thinly disguised. Look at the heritage of the Leonardo trainer.
What is the disguise about it? there are no Russian components in it. It was initially developed by Yak then was a joint development by Yak and Aermacchi, but the split was more than 20 years ago. The engines are US, everything else is Italian or western.
Rather than the DIP the cause of the administration appears to be the main financial investor of Aeralis; Qatar, pulled all its credit commitments due to the national economic damage from the US-Iran conflict.
Bugger, not even an Airfix model of It to build now then I guess ?
After all the arguments that were had on here about this Project, all the experts, all the rubbish typed… all the silly childish fallouts ! 🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
Oh well, let’s all move on to the next one.
The obvious and most cost effective solution is no more Arrows.
The RAF display teams used to use the current fighter of the day – like the USAAF and USN still do.
Does the RAF have spare Typhoons or 35s to waste?
Black Jack is an Eurofighter display aircraft.
Not any more, they use the Blackjack call sign but the aircraft is no longer painted.
It used to just designate a front line squadron or 6 as a display squadron.
Flying in formation? It’s not the flex the Red Arrows portray it as – any RAF fast jet pilot can do it.
Sounds like a bullet dodged for the tax payer. If their finances were that bad, a contract that would have taken a few years to negotiate would not have saved them but would have cost the tax payer a fair amount of money.
Buy a trainer that can be used for combat light fighter .
That was Hawk’s duel role.
Several variants were sold that fitted the fighter/bomber requirements.
Hawk was a huge success, quite why that success was not followed up remains a mystery.
HMG’s policy was for two decades to avoid large capital defence projects and kick the can down the road…
Yes, exactly.
You Nailed It.
That would have required the UK govt to support UK industry (BAE)…….bit like the way the French support Dassault 😉
Because building subsonic light jets became something even 3rd world countries could do.
In many ways, the Hawk was the end of an era in jet aircraft design.
Supersonic In a dive though.
Make sense to make the replacement a more combat ready light fighter.
Unsurprising really the Government needs to show closer ties to Europe so we’re never going to fund this. As for the doubters most are clearly wearing red specs, Britain was one of the top jet producers in the world The skills still exist but are rapidly dissappear but yes if we wanted to we could build a jet trainer. China couldn’t build one 20 years ago now they can, Turkey couldn’t now they can. The reality is the Government both the last and this haven’t been interested. Lets put some perspective on this, the Hawk T2 cost 860m in today’s money. Aeralis were asking for 50m to unlock 350m of private investment. That’s 0.015% of what we spend on welfare!!!! I would imagine it would barely be missed
I suppose not being able to build a demonstrator was a major drawback and could have leveraged in additional investment. Relying on one major funding source is risky. It may have been a vital link to the credibility of the project, not only to validate proof of concept but as a mobile sales and PR vehicle. It does not however address the fact that the Govt and Treasury have done untold harm both financial and reputational to the whole of the defence industry. Well they do call him “Harmer Starmer”. I keep on hearing “You get what you voted for”
The only surprise is Airlander has outlived it…
God how I loathe these politicians.
Various reports that Starmer is to give an 18 Billion boost for Defence.
Wonderful!
Small print. It’s over 4 years.
Also:
Typically, just like Sunak when he knew he’d lost, it’s pledged now, not earlier, not last year, or when the DIP needed publishing.
Now…..IF you vote for me.
What scum these people are.
A nation should not be run like some Generation Game “look what you could have won” scenario.
So we’ll all be rooting for Starmer now as, WILL the leftists he’s about to face off against promise the same?
Rooting for Starmer anyway. There won’t be a GE until 2029, because Labour know they’d be slaughtered. That means either we get Starmer, or worse. I’d take Starmer, he’s had some successes.
I’m of the same opinion.
Really mate? After his speech yesterday about the UTK march today his vision for us came over as bloody scary to me!
Mate.
We’re in-between a rock and a hard place.
As you know, I find him appalling on several levels, including his UTK gaslighting yesterday, standard two tier Kier.
He, like the left, just don’t get it, and will willy nilly brand people “right wing” look at this site, we have that here as well.
I know people going to UTK today, not a far right in their body.
You know the score, government policy creates this then when people point it out and protest, you’re far right and ssshhhhh.
What worries me is that there could well be worse! Better the Devil you know?
I don’t want the far left of Labour running the
country until 2029, without any mandate, and making things worse.
Do you mate?
Did you notice they also stopped several speakers coming to the UK as far right agitators? That’s fine if they will cause unrest, but, and it’s a big but, where is the consistency?
That Egyptian agitator who condemned westerners and Jews was fast tracked here months ago “as one of the biggest priorities of this government.”
Why was ge allowed to come here?
Two Tier, as usual. The establishment created this problem but it’s those who protest against it who are seen as the problem.
As long as he remains, Reform keep rising, and more will say enough is enough.
They don’t get it, they really dont.
Too much to say really and as this a defence site I’ll shut up🤬
Exactly. We must behave….we’re probably seen as “far right” for caring and daring to have an opinion.
So, back to Defence, and my point on Starmers extra billions.
It’s not the pledge, it’s the timing and blatant dishonesty in it, he’s only doing it as s sales pitch he cares not for Defence.
Otherwise, why now?
Until we see some actual orders for kit with theses £Bs who knows where they will go!,
Reading that Unite the Kingdom was peaceful with about 25 arrests.
Meanwhile, Notting Hill Carnival had hundreds of arrests and over 500 for the Free Palestine demos.
Oh well, all us far right extremists seem to have had a great time, including meeting plenty of Persian patriots as well who flew their flags alongside the Brits.
Starmer hopefully alienated a few thousand more, including the forces veterans present. 👍
Hi Daniele couldn’t agree more all of a sudden Starmers found money for Defence ? I know the conservatives did a lot of damage on defence but starmer government still making cuts . Honestly what is it with UK governments ? First duty of a government is to petected the realm ? God help us 🙄
Not a peep from mainstream media as to how it’s been costed or where the money is coming from. Meanwhile, as soon as Reform so much as squeak it’s all unaffordable….
Starmer’s main success is disarming the United Kingdom, protecting Islamofascists, and facilitating the invasion of illegal immigrants. Any other successes?
Just in general?
I can give you a few (not an exhaustive list).
– Consistent macro-economic growth at a steady level. Britain continues to show strange (but impressive) economic resilience during extreme global turbulence, despite constant attack against the credibility and ability of Chancellor Rachel Reeves.
– 60% reduction in overall net migration (the cumulative total of both immi- and emigration).
– Significant increase in deportations over the past two years. I saw it called ‘ICE done quietly’ the other day.
– Major support for Ukraine, and closer ties with the EU.
In terms of his major failing (IMO)? Failing to inform the public and control the narrative around his premiership.
I get paid over $130 1 to 3 hours working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over $27k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.
Heress——-> http://www.giftpay7.vip