The Ministry of Defence has confirmed continued engagement with British aircraft developer Aeralis as it considers options for replacing the RAF’s Hawk fast jet trainer.
Speaking in the House of Commons, Alan Gemmell, MP for Central Ayrshire, pressed the Government to back Prestwick as the site for future production of Aeralis’s proposed aircraft.
“The Minister may know that I have spent months convincing British scale-up Aeralis to choose Prestwick as the location at which it will build a proposed Hawk replacement—the first British jet built in 50 years. That would create 4,000 jobs,” said Gemmell.
“Will she do all she can to bring Aeralis to Prestwick, and make the Red Arrows British and Scottish?”
In response, Defence Minister Maria Eagle acknowledged Aeralis’s progress and reiterated the MOD’s active interest in the programme.
“I have met representatives of Aeralis on a number of occasions, as have my senior officials,” said Eagle. “The MOD has provided the company with considerable support as it develops its concept of a modular aircraft with digital design. The Department remains engaged with Aeralis, and with the sector as a whole, to seek a solution that will generate the combat air pilots of the future.”
Aeralis is proposing a modular aircraft platform designed to replace the ageing Hawk T2 fleet and meet future RAF training needs. The platform’s innovative design allows various mission roles to be supported with a common core fuselage, cutting costs and simplifying maintenance.
Prestwick is one of the candidate sites under consideration by Aeralis for production. A facility there would create thousands of jobs and mark a significant milestone—potentially becoming the first British-designed and built military jet project in half a century.
The proposal is backed by stakeholders aiming to revitalise the UK’s sovereign military aviation industry and secure long-term training capability for the RAF.
As a basic jet trainer yes.. but as an advanced trainer to do tactical weapons and fighter training no..
It needs to have an after burner advanced Head up display and have a secondary roll as a ground attack also fighter attack .
Afterburner . . Why ?
Being ex airforce.. I will explain.
We need an advanced jet trainer that also has a secondary roll.
During the 60s and 70s we had the hunter it was lacking an afterburner.. So when pilots had finished tactical weapons training then moved onto aircraft at that time like Lightnings Phantoms and later Jaguar Tornadoes.. It Takes time to get used to using ABs.
Today we have Typhoons ..
Basic trainers fine no need but Combat training on advanced aircraft yes.
I maybe only 1 on here who believes an advanced trainer should have a secondary roll. Is the aircraft in question up to being an advanced trainer NO. basic trainer Yes.
But it is an advanced trainer we need
My feelings about the Aeralis aircraft are well known. The ability to change the aircraft from single engine to twin, replace the basic trainer wing with an advanced trainer wing etc. Is in my opinion trying too hard to achieve what? A platform that is all things to all the needs!. It is a classic case of failing to understand keep it simple stupid. As this type of development carries a huge amount of risk, which in the end is likely to be unachievable. The design is also very basic, aerodynamically it has not developed beyond what the current Hawk can achieve.
I agree for a advanced lead-in trainer you require something that is much more representative of what comes next, i.e. Typhoon, F35 and GCAP. If we concentrate on Typhoon initially, which is primarily designed as an air superiority fighter. Then the flight profile is all about conservation of energy and how to recover it quickly. For example the standard BVRAAM type of engagement would be, detect the targets, accelerate to supersonic, release the weapons and quickly do a sustained supersonic turn to evade. This is currently taught in the Sim, where a pilot may then get a live fire shot when on the Squadron.
Secondly for close in “dogfighting” its all about who can maintain their energy during one/two circle turns. The person who does can get into their missile firing envelop much sooner than their opponent. This is where the aircraft must be able to achieve high alpha, but also have high roll rates and good authority when lift becomes marginal. But in doing these high-G manoeuvres, it will bleed off a lot of energy. Which is where you need an afterburner to reaccelerate the aircraft. Especially if the aircraft is carrying a lot of weight or ordinance under the wings.
My question remains what are Aeralis trying to achieve? They are trying to put a positive spin on something that their current design cannot achieve. Either keep it as a basic jet trainer or evolve it into an advanced trainer. Which is then suitable for lead-in training be that air combat or land attack. Giving it a secondary light fighter role would be a no brainer, similar to South Korea’s KA-50.
Is there a training aircraft with an after burner? Can’t see why that’s needed. As for the other points I seem to remember it being presented as a modular design capable of being adapted to such roles and capabilities to suit potential clients.
T7 Redhawk.
T38 Talon.
T38 (in 1961)
The ability to pull high g’s and perform mid-air refueling would be nice too.
Why would a trainer aircraft need midair refuelling? They’re not flying far.
Just seems a complete waste of money.
They have planned variants, such as an advanced jet trainer, a basic jet trainer, an operational trainer, an unmanned platform, a Tanker, and an ISR tanker, as well as a light combat vehicle. So the marketing goes.
It’s the Red Arrows replacement too, high Gs will be part of the requirement!
Pulling ‘high G’ is a given requirement for a military fast jet trainer aircraft
No, it really doesn’t need any of that.
Doing so will only serve to jack up the price per airframe, resulting in a puny purchase and doing nothing to alleviate the problems we have in training fast jet pilotd in a decent time frame.
Why are afterburners needed? Hawk never had them. Fast jet pilots learn to use them in the OCU squadrons for Typhoon and F-35.
Why have an advanced HUD? Again, just increases price.
And why a secondary role as ground attack? The Ukraine war has shown that such aircraft would be lambs to the slaughter in a modern war; to improve survivability you’d need more sensors and defensive suites, all of which increases the costs; then you’re looking at £50 million+ per airframe. We’d get a few dozen and they’d be spread thin between training new pilots and combat duties.
I’d rather buy another 20 or so Protectors or other drones and have them for ground attack or CAS missions. Keep the trainer aircraft just for training.
OT, Trump’s just offered the F47 to Japan, should they take him up on his offer or stick with GCAP/Tempest ??
Considering the bad blood over the Mitsubishi F2, one would hope Japan stays well clear of more US vendor lock-in. Especially with Orange at the table.
Guaranteed the offer is aimed at derailing GCAP and increasing reliance on the US MIC.
Can’t find a reasonable argument against that!
It’s quite transparent and I can’t see Japan going for it.
I agree Dern, they will probably attempt to tempt Japan away and kill GCAP.
That would leave the door open to offer the UK and Italy an advanced F35 derivative with local assembly.
Luckily I seriously doubt Japan will be moved by any US offer to destroy GCAP.
or offer them “F-47 but worse” too. It’s pretty typical of how America wants it’s cake and to be able to eat it too. “We want you to spend more…. oh no but not on your own MIC’s and economies, and no good now please don’t make large structures that might mean you are not reliant on us to provide them.”
They fell out over US refusal over technology transfer and that was around an F-22 derived if updated aircraft, so that hurdle exacerbated by Trump being even less cooperative on sharing or considering non US interests and sensibilities or cares about sticking to agreements or decisions, seems highly unlikely. As Trump doesn’t seem to understand the difference between twin engined and twin manned when he talks future aircraft designs I very much doubt that any fundamental offer he makes would mean much beyond any notable success in joining some numbers and words together in a sentence mentioning any such offer. The companies behind it would have to be the prime negotiators behind anything in detail or concrete being offered around actual technology which then depending on all manner of obscure factors, be it a weird dream about Melania or advice from the last person to buy his meme coin boasting about being a whiz on Microsoft Flight Simulator would get a yay or nay from Taco Man.
I wonder how far along the F47 truly is compared to the Tempest? It could be a sprint to the finish!
Would they really want the F47? No control over what they get and increasingly unreliable seller?
You say that, but Japan still bought the F-35.
‘Japan officially selected the F-35A Lightning II as its next-generation fighter in December 2011. The US State Department approved a deal for Japan to buy 105 F-35s in July 2020. ‘
Things have changed a lot since then…
True. It does feel like how China uses debt to get what it wants, Trump is doing with Tariffs.
And some of those have pivoted to BRAVO variants for their not carrier carriers.
The Japanese are very upset with trump over tariffs, added to historic issues with US support of japans aviation I don’t think Japan will go for it.. they tend to take some things very seriously and they presently feel very betrayed by the US. That’s not something the Japanese tend to forget in a hurry as they are not a mercurial nation.
Still not convinced Tempest will ever enter service.
Why not? Or at least, why would you be any less convinced compared to any other fighter jet at this point? There have been remarkably few major concerns, especially compared to the American projects.
It is also about sovereign capability.
Would it be good if US had the only top tier aircraft design and production capability?
What is the Tangerine Toddler, or his spiritual successor the ever so diplomatic JD, has a tantrum and decides to take our investment in the aircraft and deny specific systems, weapons and integrations.
US are not shy about playing pork barrel games as that is the way votes work in the houses.
Nope Tempest makes sense. We have the engine, radar and stealth tech all good to go.
Building a big jet is smart as systems payload is eased as well as the eternal ‘fitting things in’ debates. It also allows for an approach where the flying frame and systems can be tested and not held up by peripheral non flight critical systems. Thus easing the GANNT chart madness of everything being interlocked so if one piece of the jigsaw is out the whole program moves to the right….with cost blowout to match.
Per The War Zone, “However, there are now indications that Japan may be concerned that the Tempest fighter will not be ready for service soon enough for its requirements.”
Build it wherever you want, by the time we get anything built by this company all Pilot training will be done in Italy, using Italian infrastructure and Italian jets. Maybe we could pay extra for the service and paint a few Union Jacks on things.
According to Forces News, Japanese and British defence officials have denied this.
As UK has found with F35B having the plane delivered and having it integrated into your systems are two different things.
Given the excruciating waits to get F35B weapons and data feed integrations done, tested and deployed you’d hardly want to tie yourself to the same routine again……
Another very good point. If we develop our own missiles over here in Europe, we need to be able to intigrate them on our flight platfoms, and not be reliant on the US to squeeze us in at the end of the line, maybe, if there’s time.
If Tempest won’t be ready will the F47 actually be ready any sooner?
No one shoukd deal with US before we see what happens at next US election. So far their constitution isn’t proving up to the job of containing him.
A watered down F47, according to Trump.
GCAP is running to tight deadlines for Japan to get it operational by 2035. The UK demonstrator will fly in 2027. The F-47 will supposedly fly in 2029. It depends if that’s a demonstrator or a prototype. However, at the moment the first NGAP engine prototype isn’t due until 2032, so I think the Americans are currently running behind GCAP.
I want Aeralis to succeed but this is just cringe. There’s no way in hell it would create 4000 jobs in Prestwick and Ayr. If they have any sense and genuinely want to get flying and building within the next 5 years, they will subcontract as many structures as possible to established manufacturers and just set up an assembly and testing facility somewhere, which might employ 200/300 people if you’re lucky. And apart from having a relatively low-usage runway on the doorstep, I’m really not sure that’s a great area for recruiting established talent, another thing they ought to be thinking about. This all reeks of a desperate pork-barrel bid to get political buy-in.
I suspect that 4000 would include manufacturing and jobs in the supply chain.
I would think they could get 200-300.personnel, some local, others from the wider aircraft industry. Scottish Aviation did OK building the Bulldog trainer there years back.
But do Aeralis actually have much to offer? They have a concept and some drawings, but nothing has moved much since they started pitching.
There are many good basic and advanced trainers on the market, with loads of sales and flight time. Aeralis hasn’t built anything so far and seems to be in a continuous and not very successful quest for money and investment, .Great if they can pull something off, but I’d think it is currently a very long shot unless the RAF provides the seed funding which has got to be unlikely as a rather risky bet.
Scottish Aviation hasn’t been around for 5 decades. And that was a basic propeller aircraft.
Build some more Hawks but with an updated cockpit and avionics. Performance and aerodynamically Hawks remain ok for training. Its currently just out dated cockpit wise.
Surely this is the easier option, get a proper working engine, even if you have to boot RR, and just do an upgrade of the hawk
The Hawk T2 adressed the Cockpit issues – it is now Digital,it is the Airframe that is now in need of updating.
So what’s wrong with the basic Hawk airframe design?
Its a proven design. Why go to the expense of designing a new airframe with all of the flight testing and fatigue testing that would require.
I repeat for the intended training role a Hawk design is still capable of doing the job.
The T2 might be digital, but a Hawk 3 can be upgraded again to meet current digital cockpit and avionics architecture.
What do you think is wrong airframe/aerodynamically and performance wise.
Capable of a high Mach No.- I’ve been to M0.97 in a T1. Capable of 420kts + through Welsh valleys at less than 1000ft agl. Can sustain 9G turns.
Its a training machine.
Because it’s now a 60 year old design, things have moved on. Hawk is known to have a fairly inefficient Wing, it is lacking in range and speed compared to modern contemporaries, which also generally have two Engines.
You are just adding unnecessary cost. Why 2 engines? Single engines are reliable enough. Isn’t 420kts fast enough fir you? I repeat its a training aircraft with no expectation of combat.
The engine is predominantly the current main issue. As parts of it are French, the subcontractor (Safran) makes the low pressure compressor section. Which has been found with cracks. The normal Adour’s service life of 4000 hours has been reduced down to 1700h hours. Safran are trying to come up with a fix. But this problem also means that engines are going into maintenance a lot sooner than planned, where there is not enough spares to turn the engines around. Which leads to aircraft unavailability.
The engine could be replaced, but it would take a couple of years to get it certified.
Aerodynamically the Hawk is very good, in that it doesn’t bleed a lot of energy in sustained turns. But it has issues with maintaining high alpha manoeuvres. Also due to the engine, its acceleration is not fantastic with quite a poor thrust to weight ratio (0.68). For example if you look at the Red Arrow displays, they are very fluid and flow into the next. Whereas if you watch the South Koreans using their KAI T50s. The manoeuvres are lot more aggressive. But then the T50 uses an afterburning F404 engine that gives it a much better thrust to weigh ratio of 0.96. Hence why it accelerates much quicker.
However, the new wing as good as it is on the Hawk T2, cannot compete with the T50s. As the T50 has large leading edge root extensions (LERX). Which the Hawk cannot really have added, due to how close the wing is to the engine intakes. The other main difference is the elevator tailplane. The T50s has a much larger surface area in comparison to the Hawks. It can therefore “deflect” a lot more air, giving the aircraft better pitch control and pitch rate. The LERX are necessary as they allow the aircraft to have more high alpha pitch control. By generating a high energy vortex over the wing, elevator and the fin to an extent. The LERX also help when the aircraft transitions from transonic to supersonic by helping to trim the flow. They also massively benefit the aircraft during slow turning manoeuvres. The wing on the T50 is an active fly by wire wing, where the leading edge and trailing edge flaps work in unison controlled by the flight control computer. I’m not sure if the Hawk T2 has this, the new wing introduced leading edge slats, but I’m not sure if they are coordinated in unison like the T50’s? For the T50, it does mean the wing configuration can be optimised against the aircraft’s speed, i.e. cruising and generating less drag. Or it can be optimised for generating lift when doing aerobatics.
Currently the advance combat is taught via Simulators. The Hawk T2 has a embedded simulator function that can represent some advanced systems and the processes the pilot needs to manage to operate them. But it is not like the real thing.
It is a good idea to have your lead-in trainer capable of performing combat duties, as this can supplement your front line availability. As per the Hawk T1 role in supporting Tornado F3s. But also, being a trainer aircraft, it should be quicker to produce if there’s a need to generate an emergency fighter during a peer vs peer conflict. Although its performance and capabilities will be less than the advanced front line aircraft. Being say 80% of this capability may be good enough to sustain the Country in the fight, if the conflict gets drawn out and we loose the majority of our front line fighter aircraft.
Here’s my take on the proposal, and I’m Scottish….
Would you as an individual sign up to a house builder, who has never built a house before, no track record, no nothing but offers you something far better than anyone else can build and cheaper? They offer no guarantee, no money back…. Or do you invest in someone with a verifiable record, good reviews from previous customers and an established infrastructure to support their business and a guarantee/warranty?
Scotland has been building ships for 600 years and we can’t even get them correct today. How do you expect us to build a precision machine such as a jet. And where you getting 4000 skilled workers to build them.
It’s not going to happen.
Any chance we can have some stuff built in England too….
It would be nice but we already build the hawk, eurofighter, parts for the f-35, astute, dreadnought, boxer etc. Granted, the hawk and eurofighter are kind of slowing down.
Hawk production at Brough ended with the completion of the Qatari order, at least a couple of years ago now.
Got ya.
Good point – well made.
Why not an updated Hawk from BAe. Much more sensible than this quite frankly fairy tale prospect.
My point entirely. See my earlier comments. Its a training machine. Why do we always over specify our equipment. Much pilot training is now simulator based – however aircraft are still need for the obvious real world flying. Replacement and upgraded Hawk 3’s will still do the job.
British & Scottish? I always thought Scotland was in Britain, silly me!
Prestwick, a brilliant location for building a new British/Scottish Jet Trainer for the Fast Jet Brigade of the RAF & RN. However, is anti-everything UK, Scotland’s FM, Mr Swinney going to block/pull the plug funding young Scottish apprenticeships/apprentices in aeroegineering, as he did by pulling the plug on young Scottish Rolls Royce munition apprenticeships, youngsters learning to be welding engineers?