Aeralis - the new Hawk?
Discussion
I've been reading about this. I did wonder how the Hawk hole would be filled.
Maybe this is it? I think the modularity is a real ace factor and will be a boon for both the manufacturing potential and for the sales of this model abroad.
https://aeralis.com/
Maybe this is it? I think the modularity is a real ace factor and will be a boon for both the manufacturing potential and for the sales of this model abroad.
https://aeralis.com/
The modularity may help in some small scale sales but I would guess that the big ticket future sales will almost entirely be the BJT/AJT versions and for those to succeed it really needs to have an avionics suite suitable for training folks ready for 5th Gen avionics.
Even the current Hawk T2 series and it's equivalents (classed as some of the best current training aircraft) are only Gen 3+ to maybe 4 at best (mostly through simulation of F-18C "level" equipment) in terms of modern avionics so Aeralis really needs to get that sorted and so far all I've seen is airframe models and a single F-35-type cockpit computer drawing, which concerns me.
The engine/airframe aspects look relatively "simple" despite the modularity aspects, with no complex stealth, super-cruise requirement etc so designing and building the aircraft doesn't strike me as too complex for the team they've picked, but I don't see anyone there who is an Avionics system Designer/Lead or an aircraft/avionic integration designer and that would worry me as even simple COTS items with an open architecture still need to be integrated to perform their task which usually takes far more time and effort to get right the more advanced it gets and working than the propulsion/airframe side tend to do.
I'm guessing they're just going to run everything "Mission" based via simulation whilst the "Vehicle" side will remain as practical/real boxes.
Even the current Hawk T2 series and it's equivalents (classed as some of the best current training aircraft) are only Gen 3+ to maybe 4 at best (mostly through simulation of F-18C "level" equipment) in terms of modern avionics so Aeralis really needs to get that sorted and so far all I've seen is airframe models and a single F-35-type cockpit computer drawing, which concerns me.
The engine/airframe aspects look relatively "simple" despite the modularity aspects, with no complex stealth, super-cruise requirement etc so designing and building the aircraft doesn't strike me as too complex for the team they've picked, but I don't see anyone there who is an Avionics system Designer/Lead or an aircraft/avionic integration designer and that would worry me as even simple COTS items with an open architecture still need to be integrated to perform their task which usually takes far more time and effort to get right the more advanced it gets and working than the propulsion/airframe side tend to do.
I'm guessing they're just going to run everything "Mission" based via simulation whilst the "Vehicle" side will remain as practical/real boxes.
Looking at their "team", out of the first 12 people listed at the top of the business only 1 is listed as any kind of engineer and the rest are Sales, PR, HR, Marketing, Money, Admin etc who've worked for random mix of companies, only some in aviation.
Thats an odd setup for a company which needs to make and sell planes, unless they're solely interested in creating CGI vapourware that looks great in a sales brochure but with zero body of work behind it to back it up.
I understand that they need some PR to generate potential sales but you also reallllllly need something physical to show a client, rather than a rendering, as this shows your companies competence. Even it's it's just a single prototype for ground testing use only etc, having "something" real is better than a plastic model.
Thats an odd setup for a company which needs to make and sell planes, unless they're solely interested in creating CGI vapourware that looks great in a sales brochure but with zero body of work behind it to back it up.
I understand that they need some PR to generate potential sales but you also reallllllly need something physical to show a client, rather than a rendering, as this shows your companies competence. Even it's it's just a single prototype for ground testing use only etc, having "something" real is better than a plastic model.
IanH755 said:
Looking at their "team", out of the first 12 people listed at the top of the business only 1 is listed as any kind of engineer and the rest are Sales, PR, HR, Marketing, Money, Admin etc who've worked for random mix of companies, only some in aviation.
Thats an odd setup for a company which needs to make and sell planes, unless they're solely interested in creating CGI vapourware that looks great in a sales brochure but with zero body of work behind it to back it up.
I seem to remember a similar 'company' about a year ago on here. Lots of photos of supporters, and waffle, but no product nor seemingly the means to make one. What is the purpose I wonder.Thats an odd setup for a company which needs to make and sell planes, unless they're solely interested in creating CGI vapourware that looks great in a sales brochure but with zero body of work behind it to back it up.
Aeralis has now gone into administration.
Looks like the Hawk replacement will end up being something licence-built by BAE Systems, such as the T-7 Red Hawk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwp11v82lno
Looks like the Hawk replacement will end up being something licence-built by BAE Systems, such as the T-7 Red Hawk.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpwp11v82lno
Hawk replacement was always going to be either T-7 (especially with the former BAe/SAAB links) or the M346 (if Leonardo can build it in the UK)
Anyone that thought UK plc would give it to a company that had no track record of aircraft design, let alone a workforce or factory to built it, and still hadn't built a flyable/testable prototype was living in cloud cuckoo land......even the inept MOD are not that inept.
Anyone that thought UK plc would give it to a company that had no track record of aircraft design, let alone a workforce or factory to built it, and still hadn't built a flyable/testable prototype was living in cloud cuckoo land......even the inept MOD are not that inept.
aeropilot said:
Hawk replacement was always going to be either T-7 (especially with the former BAe/SAAB links) or the M346 (if Leonardo can build it in the UK)
Anyone that thought UK plc would give it to a company that had no track record of aircraft design, let alone a workforce or factory to built it, and still hadn't built a flyable/testable prototype was living in cloud cuckoo land......even the inept MOD are not that inept.
But digital twins! Modular! Agile! MVP! Did I mention Agile!?Anyone that thought UK plc would give it to a company that had no track record of aircraft design, let alone a workforce or factory to built it, and still hadn't built a flyable/testable prototype was living in cloud cuckoo land......even the inept MOD are not that inept.
Can't say I'm shocked.
Lots of grand plans that went nowhere. It's not that they didn't get other companies involved who were quite capable of delivering but nothing ever came of it and everyone drifted away.
6 or 7 years ago it looked promising but like certain car firms they had a lot of talk, some big ideas, got suppliers involved, strung them along and then... nothing. MoUs expired as everyone quietly moved on.
Didn't help that 30 seconds looking at the numbers showed how much investment was needed and that even if they'd had a fully developed product flying that was no guarantee of success. "Can it be done? Yes. But it'll cost £XXX million to develop and YYYY are already losing money on theirs"
If the concept had a future it would've been with an existing player doing it.
Lots of grand plans that went nowhere. It's not that they didn't get other companies involved who were quite capable of delivering but nothing ever came of it and everyone drifted away.
6 or 7 years ago it looked promising but like certain car firms they had a lot of talk, some big ideas, got suppliers involved, strung them along and then... nothing. MoUs expired as everyone quietly moved on.
Didn't help that 30 seconds looking at the numbers showed how much investment was needed and that even if they'd had a fully developed product flying that was no guarantee of success. "Can it be done? Yes. But it'll cost £XXX million to develop and YYYY are already losing money on theirs"
If the concept had a future it would've been with an existing player doing it.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff