Here here. Plus it seems like they are planning to have it built and designed entirely in Britain. That is another plus. Even if it might not be intended for actual frontline combat, that is fine. That just means they can get approval for it faster and doesn’t need to go through so many ridiculous demands and challenges with checking all the boxes. No wonder they believe they can get it going within the decade. I’m all for this.
people can try and give that right wing stuff mocking the army "going green" but the cheeky thing for the forces is so long as they agree they can get more range or a more quite machine out of the electric they're happy to go green :) .... also no more exposing troops to burn pits
i wouldnt imagine it would take too long, depends on the configurations needed. But its a fantastic idea, UK is killing it with new with revolutionary designs lately.
I don't think switching things around is really the idea, although it will be possible. The big savings will be cost and time. It should be possible to configure an airframe for a customer and deliver, in a matter of weeks or months. Upgrading and reconfiguring the fleet for the same customer, when necessary in the future. Just as quickly because the work has already been done. Imagine if country A places and order for 12 Gripen fighters (delivery time 2/3 years, to supplement and eventually replace it's squadrons of second user F16. (It currently uses Hawk and Embraer EMB 312 Tucano as trainers.) Aeralis could provide twin seat training jet aircraft with Gripen like cockpits for conversion of F16 pilots within 2 - 4 months. 12 of them if needed, sold outright or leased for the duration of the rapid conversion process. Pilots would be already trained when Gripens arrive. Aeralis would then reconfigure the supplied airframes to both provide basic & advanced trainers. Replacing both Hawks and Tucano at much lower running costs. Should country A subsequently require to supplement it's air force with unmanned intel/recce/attack drones, utilising the existing Aeralis ground support staff. It can at a fraction of the price. There would be huge cost and time savings across the board. It really is a brilliant idea. So versatile and adaptable. I haven't even mentioned the enormous and far reaching benefits for the RAF. Just how the giants of the aviation world will take this is the obviously a problem.
Little mention of the difficulties implementing what seems simple on a model. Moreover what does modular mean here exactly? Is this a production line that can be adapted quickly, or an airframe that can be re-configured after it is initially built? I see a lot of potential for small glitches that result in big problems. There's a video elsewhere explaining how a small switch being installed inverted almost caused a commercial jet to fall from the sky when a chafed wire caused an intermittent failure.
That is a given as both FAA and RAF pilots go through the same fast jet training on various platforms and only split out at the later stages to F-35 or Typhoon as the ex RAF pilot stated. F-35s are flown by both RAF and Navy pilots and currently RAF 617 has both RAF and FAA pilots and in fact it was recently commanded by an RN officer.
Not a problem in the UK as we don't have carrier only planes. Carrier landing is a very advanced skill; one only already qualified F-35B pilots will train for.
Would be interesting to see if the engine module could be double, single, or a VTOL pack like a Harrier. Probably too complicated, but would certainly increase number of roles!
If the aircraft carriers could have arrestor gear fitted, and if the aircraft is able, could there be a possibility to operate like the Russian carrier (ski jump/arrestor gear). Then may be able to squeeze some AWACS capability out of them to fill that role for the carrier group.
The aircraft has a bright future ahead so to speak, I really do hope the idea takes off. And to be honest, a lot of flashy aircraft was introduce at the start of 2000s, but this one really caught my attention. Kudos to the Brits!
Now build an affordable PPL version for civilian training with electric engines built of carbon fibre which can be stripped down and transported in a glider trailer ?
@@jadams3427 In the video about this aircraft, it mentions that a group of British manufactures are involved in building it and it was to that statement that i left a comment. Was it too positive for you?
Nice to see some new ideas. Let’s see if it will fly. I have some concerns about integrating all options, extra weight of support structures and connectivity issues. Jack of all trades, master of none
So does this mean that the tempest won't get made? I love having the Brits as allies, especially having the privilege to serve alongside them, but military procurement has been bi-polar, it's almost getting as bad as Germanys and both are very capable fighting forces that just lack the kit needed
@@davidhouseman4328 I guess also the Hawk T2 role, which is also a pretty capable ground attack and last resort fighter, with the right avionics, ECM etc.
i love the concept but have to admit i can't see why pilots would need it configured different... that said this is a bold concept and i think it could provide a great economy of cost and be a flexible idea
the configurations are to somewhat match a fighter a pilot will train on, so you can add more engine power, streamlined wings for max speed add in a cockpit reminicent of a typhoon and you have a new training plane as close to a typhoon, or swap the wings for diamond wings, swap the cockpit for an F35 simulation cockpit and you now have a simulated f35 training aircraft. Again take off the wings, had a single fuel efficient engine, add a unmanned cockpit which means more fuel and add on wings with winglets on the end you have an extremely cost efficient plane that can be used as a small reconnaissance drone or a small fueling aircraft. Its pretty genious tbh. The modularity means that you can use the plane for many more jobs which in turn means more aircraft to be used with in turn makes the aircraft much cheaper.
'We'll show you some fancy models and mock ups and give you some 'modular platform' waffle. Thanks for the £9m MOD' Again MOD military procurement not actually based in reality, which ultimately costs us twice as much than buying off the shelf, which we'll probably end up doing anyway, just a decade too late
Why not continiue with the Tempest fighter they are developing with partner countries and buy some T-7 Red Hawk if they need new trainers. Buying one Aeralies would be like being 3 planes with all spare parts, storage, extra vehicles needed and so on.
This won't be competition for Tempest just the trainer. Having your trainer be able to better match your final aircraft sounds good, so does being able to to use it for cheaper sortie where Tempest is over kill. To be honest though I think the bug appeal would be for countries like in South America, that still want jets but don't want the cost of the latest stealth monster.
I think they will continue with Tempest. This is a slightly different concept and can be used to train future Tempest pilots, be they in the cockpit, or on the ground.
Strap some A.I. into it to Decrease Pilot Load and error Baby Step it to 3 Dedicated Versions Make Modulation Truly Cost Effective and Safe Ease of Production at or under Budget and you Could Start A Trend !.
@@raphaelgarcia6121 Anything modular has a wide variety of components, the more options you have the more chance of mistakes (the wrong part being used in the wrong circumstances), which leads to accidents.
Rediculous. From safety and certification you cannot swap modules of an aicraft from mission to mission. In the end this idea would be the same as one aicraft that is manufactured in different versions (as if that would be something new). Seems more like a clever way to hustle money out of investors.
I'm not being funny but what business does our military have pursuing "net zero"? The only scope should be to be as lethal as possible within their assigned budget.
Hang on, a private company dealing with the needs and maintenance of military aircraft? That's a slippy slope when approaching a time of need; "oh you need five ground attack aircraft for Monday? Well that gonna cost you with such short notice..."
It is not the first modular military jet, because it does not yet exist. The F-35 is pretty modular, and it exists already. The A, B and C variants share major parts, but different wing and engine modules make the variants. The BAe Hawk went from concept to operational is about the same time the Aeralis concept has existed, and we didn't have such powerful design and simulation tools then. I have followed Aeralis for a good 3 years, and progress is a bit dismal. Hawks best replacement would be new Hawks. Even the M-346, with 2 engines can only climb faster and burn fuel faster. It is not faster, and carries about the same load.
i don't concider the f-35 modular, i think it was intended to be more modular but many docs sorta show how due to preassure they ended up a lot more different underneath than they look.... they're gonna share some parts, this could be advantageous, but it's prob not concidered "modular"
Nobody will take your comment seriously when you describe an unmodulated aircraft as modular. Modular means you can change the aircraft vehicle in hours not weeks or month.
Too much modularity in my opinion. i like the cockpit control swap and the automated cockpit/ drone module. But is the arguement of: standardising the plane, with modules. better than. standardising the controls and boxes of controllers. then applying it To different airframes, and modules on airframes
not really becuase different air frames require different tasks and missions which means they all have different layouts for their preset designs. The controls in general are the same like a car. But the layout just like a care is different. SO it makes absolute sense to change cockpits according to the training of specific aircraft.
@@ashleygoggs5679 But what if i; design for all the modules and then remove as and where i need them for each aircraft? rather than simply for the trainner. Training is easier by comparison. pilot integration between airframes is easier. Again. why the focus down on Only trainning. when (the problem of insinctual operational behaviour of the pilot) affects the entire fleet. im focusing on a scenario: pilot shortage, or locational, operational problem. its better to over train on the trainer with options, to move pilots where they are needed. but familarity of buttons once in role, is what( is going/ is mentioned) to slow us down. hesitancy, or wrong presses on part of the pilot. Now the complaining: What is it about military projects in the uk? So little big picture regarding cross platfrom integration. Where's the standardisation, and the cost saving built off of it, economy of scale. Everytime " this old thing cant hack it anymore. " Meanwhile the germans and americans go: ah yes, the platform will need upgrading at this point, One looks forward, in both solution, and problem, the uk looks Far forward at problems, bu the solution seems to be: design it for NOW and not the future. and its costing us. Military advantage. Taxpayer money, and the worst. Time (the only thing you cannot negociate, in an absolutist sense)
Why would you even want to change these things its hardly cost-effective and in the end design is full of unnecessary compromises just for sake of modularity, and no civilan market is not utilizing modularity, aside from fuselage length and engine model, but its not really modular as its made in the factory at time of construction and can't be changed later.
its cost effective becuase the modularity means more aircraft can be bought to fulfill the rolls of multiple planes. By increasing numbers sold the price of the aircraft comes down drastically as more come to the market, this also means more spares are available bringing maintenance costs down significantly. Modularity is hardly hurting the aircraft as the aircraft can be configured for specific rolls. The aircraft was said in the video to largely only perform in logistics rolls such as training, ISTAR functions and Refuelling. You need to watch the video again and listen very closely... or did you watch 1 minute and stop watching?
Backlog of trainee pilots - we don’t need a new trainer aircraft, we have to stop giving the majority of training places to other countries. Ukraine/Russia surely has reminded us of British military capability first - we can’t support NATO with Qatari pilots
Maybe, it's worth consulting the people who might fly these aircraft in the future. Or do you think they have nothing useful to contribute in designing this aeroplane?
@@johnnunn8688 Actually, I was replying to the OP. Who said that consulting the Red Arrows was getting ahead of themselves. The Red Arrows fly this type of jet trainer, the Hawk T1 in their displays. So they are the best people to consult during the design phase. Does that make it any clearer?
Nothing like negative comments to a future developement of a combat airframe,you need to get a life chaps,perhaps a prolonged trip to Russia and see if their lifestyle and thinking suits you better,giving us all a break.
There are always tons of orc bots in the Forces News comment section. So they already live in Mordor. Clearly the orcs are happy with living in misery then. I say we wall them off and leave them to it.
Dumb idea when there are already very good existing aircraft for every conceivable mission. Doing this will just make it expensive for everything and no civilian sales. BA/SAAB Redhawk is an excellent F-35 trainer jet.
The F-35A', B's and C's variants, are modular military aircraft, most 3rd and 4th (Torando and Tyhpoon, or F-15, F-16 & F-18, or Raffle and JAS-37E) and 5th (F-22) Generation Fighters, are Multi-role or multi-modular. Which can be either Air-to-Air Fighters, or SEAD Figthers, or ECR Fighters, or CAS Fighters or IDS Fighter Bombers, or fully operational combat conversion training aircraft (5th Gen Boeing Saab Redhawk Trainer) too! So taking wing on and off, or changing them, or changing a cockpits from singe seat to tandem two-seat, or even pilot option less. Or changing out fuselage sections, or changing fuel tanks and/or changing engines, or changing weapons and sensors plus navigation and communication equipment too. Is really nothing new, you can go back the likes of famous Spitfires and Hurricanes fighters, or Mosquito fighter bombers and/or Lancaster bombers too. Or RAF early jets, Meteors, Javelins, Vampiers, or Hunters, or Lightings, or Jaguars, or Harriers and/or Phantoms fighters, or Jet Provests, Gnats and Hawks jet trainer or Canberras, Vulans and Victor bombers too. This new jet aircraft, maybe raking modular design open a different direction, but this is not new! There is rarely anything new in aviation, it just a new version or variant on an old theme. Maybe the last big new thing in aviation, was the Harrier Jump Jet, or Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, orvthe growing use UAV's too. All aircraft, have engines, landing gear, wings, tailfins and tail-planes, cockpits, fuel tanks, fuselage, lights, flying surfaces and controls, or navigation and communication electronic, plus sensors etc, All to some degree or another, so whats real new here? It is not as if they created or invented for the RAF, the first Endo-Exo-atmospheric aerospace Mach-10 Plus fighter plane! Which can operate in earth atmosphere and in outerspace too. That would be something new, O'h the American Space Shuttle, did fly in space and in the earth's amposhere, nearly 30 years ago too! So is there really anything new here!
what your talking about isnt true modularity though. Non of those aircraft you mentioned can swap whole new engine systems with hours, non can have their fuselage, cockpits or wings changed within hours too meet a new list of requirements needed. Yes they all have a certain amount of minor modularity, but not modularity that is listed in the video.
Big nope from me. This "age of services and subscriptions" rubbish needs to die already. You buy it, own it, use it, end of. Fancy having a private company saying "no you can't use our aircraft" in the middle of a war, then they go over to the other side and offer them to your enemy instead. Or right in the middle of a conflict, jack up the price of the aircraft subscription by 500%.
If it was actual military war time assets its likely the airforce would own the planes they would be using for wartime affairs. Anything such as training, updates, repairs etc. would be done through the company. Its a smart system to be honest.
2028 , more could news from a crippled sector playing catch up. Two Bobs in a shed , with two bob , trying to restoke industry long sold off to U.S and global owners. France ,Sweden and the US are decades ahead. Good luck.
Why don't you collaborate with Bayraktar, have a joint factory in UK to manufacture Bayraktars, and co-research your modular jets by springboarding off Bayraktar platforms? It would mean your production begins this year and investors might throw money at you. Having said that, Microsoft pays ten billion down for "everything" solutions. USA helped Alexander Graham Bell scale globally and USA love$ genius. I'd go right to Austin or Elon. Hop on a plane if you have to.
@@tams805 Yep. That's why Trump kicked Turkey of the F35 program. In a nut shell Turkey wanted to buy the US Patriot System, wanted to license to make their own and license to SELL IT but knowing now Turkey is Obama and under Trump both refused to give Turkey the license. USA will ONLY sell the system for Turkey to USE ONLY but knowing how Turkey is they are just gonna illegally copy it and sell it to ANYBODY. Turkey gave USA the middle finger and bought S400 system so Trump gave them the middle finger by kicking Turkey out of the F35 program.
@@HA-rn2iu British Taxpayers are the reason it won't be built. Their sloth, professional Victimization, stupidity and history of Cultural of being Stupid Cheap".. low quality of workmanships. Nothing to boost about as a nation.
Great to see British Brains in Forces Aviation that has a Green Intelligent future.
Here here. Plus it seems like they are planning to have it built and designed entirely in Britain. That is another plus. Even if it might not be intended for actual frontline combat, that is fine. That just means they can get approval for it faster and doesn’t need to go through so many ridiculous demands and challenges with checking all the boxes. No wonder they believe they can get it going within the decade. I’m all for this.
people can try and give that right wing stuff mocking the army "going green" but the cheeky thing for the forces is so long as they agree they can get more range or a more quite machine out of the electric they're happy to go green :) .... also no more exposing troops to burn pits
Seems like a good idea . No mention of how long it would take to switch things around. The no pilot pod sounds very good .
i wouldnt imagine it would take too long, depends on the configurations needed. But its a fantastic idea, UK is killing it with new with revolutionary designs lately.
I don't think switching things around is really the idea, although it will be possible. The big savings will be cost and time. It should be possible to configure an airframe for a customer and deliver, in a matter of weeks or months. Upgrading and reconfiguring the fleet for the same customer, when necessary in the future. Just as quickly because the work has already been done.
Imagine if country A places and order for 12 Gripen fighters (delivery time 2/3 years, to supplement and eventually replace it's squadrons of second user F16. (It currently uses Hawk and Embraer EMB 312 Tucano as trainers.) Aeralis could provide twin seat training jet aircraft with Gripen like cockpits for conversion of F16 pilots within 2 - 4 months. 12 of them if needed, sold outright or leased for the duration of the rapid conversion process. Pilots would be already trained when Gripens arrive. Aeralis would then reconfigure the supplied airframes to both provide basic & advanced trainers. Replacing both Hawks and Tucano at much lower running costs.
Should country A subsequently require to supplement it's air force with unmanned intel/recce/attack drones, utilising the existing Aeralis ground support staff. It can at a fraction of the price. There would be huge cost and time savings across the board. It really is a brilliant idea. So versatile and adaptable. I haven't even mentioned the enormous and far reaching benefits for the RAF.
Just how the giants of the aviation world will take this is the obviously a problem.
Little mention of the difficulties implementing what seems simple on a model. Moreover what does modular mean here exactly? Is this a production line that can be adapted quickly, or an airframe that can be re-configured after it is initially built? I see a lot of potential for small glitches that result in big problems. There's a video elsewhere explaining how a small switch being installed inverted almost caused a commercial jet to fall from the sky when a chafed wire caused an intermittent failure.
Very interesting, just don’t let the remaining reformers near it.
What an idea!
No mention of navy pilots training on them, I would have thought we needed as many as possible, looks a good idea, could it help out on home defence?
That is a given as both FAA and RAF pilots go through the same fast jet training on various platforms and only split out at the later stages to F-35 or Typhoon as the ex RAF pilot stated.
F-35s are flown by both RAF and Navy pilots and currently RAF 617 has both RAF and FAA pilots and in fact it was recently commanded by an RN officer.
Yes, you can buy one and keep it in your garage.
Not a problem in the UK as we don't have carrier only planes.
Carrier landing is a very advanced skill; one only already qualified F-35B pilots will train for.
@@tams805There a possibility that the British aircraft carriers will get catapults as part of there midlife refit
Brilliant 👌👍
*This is the future of military aircraft*
Would be interesting to see if the engine module could be double, single, or a VTOL pack like a Harrier. Probably too complicated, but would certainly increase number of roles!
Fantastic
lol a chance in hell
If the aircraft carriers could have arrestor gear fitted, and if the aircraft is able, could there be a possibility to operate like the Russian carrier (ski jump/arrestor gear). Then may be able to squeeze some AWACS capability out of them to fill that role for the carrier group.
The aircraft has a bright future ahead so to speak, I really do hope the idea takes off. And to be honest, a lot of flashy aircraft was introduce at the start of 2000s, but this one really caught my attention. Kudos to the Brits!
A Lego jet trainer, brilliant!
These could be easy to repair, so let's see where this go, r&d is always neat.
Impressive Idea!
Great idea, I can see the same cockpit used in different multi roles.
Excellent Concept (wow)
Whilst we all grasp how truly important our environment is this Net Zero is all rainbows, glittery unicorn farts with no weaponary as not green lol.
Strap on a Pumpkin trebuchet
Eagle launched tortoises were used in ancient Greece
Amazing!
Interesting concept.
I like the design of te model
Now build an affordable PPL version for civilian training with electric engines built of carbon fibre which can be stripped down and transported in a glider trailer ?
Love it.❤️
Awesome
BRAVO !!!!
GREAT RESPECT !!!
MAKE BRITAIN GREAT AGAIN !!!!
"More of a reason to hide in the hotel bar"
If Lego made aeroplanes.
Great to see British manufactures succeed.
Yes... it would be. Which aircraft does UK build right now ?
@@jadams3427 In the video about this aircraft, it mentions that a group of British manufactures are involved in building it and it was to that statement that i left a comment. Was it too positive for you?
*manufacturers.
@@jadams3427 loads, Google it.
@@jadams3427 they designed the VTOL system for F35B
seemed somewhat feasible, until they mentioned net zero.
@@raphaelgarcia6121 if mass production is required then this goes out the window I think lol
@@raphaelgarcia6121 Exactly. This neeeeds to be done. Might as well start with this baby. Can’t wait to see it flying.
Nice to see some new ideas. Let’s see if it will fly. I have some concerns about integrating all options, extra weight of support structures and connectivity issues.
Jack of all trades, master of none
So does this mean that the tempest won't get made? I love having the Brits as allies, especially having the privilege to serve alongside them, but military procurement has been bi-polar, it's almost getting as bad as Germanys and both are very capable fighting forces that just lack the kit needed
No, it's gunning for the trainer role, not tempest.
@@davidhouseman4328 I guess also the Hawk T2 role, which is also a pretty capable ground attack and last resort fighter, with the right avionics, ECM etc.
Vertical take-off and landing?
No.
i love the concept but have to admit i can't see why pilots would need it configured different... that said this is a bold concept and i think it could provide a great economy of cost and be a flexible idea
the configurations are to somewhat match a fighter a pilot will train on, so you can add more engine power, streamlined wings for max speed add in a cockpit reminicent of a typhoon and you have a new training plane as close to a typhoon, or swap the wings for diamond wings, swap the cockpit for an F35 simulation cockpit and you now have a simulated f35 training aircraft. Again take off the wings, had a single fuel efficient engine, add a unmanned cockpit which means more fuel and add on wings with winglets on the end you have an extremely cost efficient plane that can be used as a small reconnaissance drone or a small fueling aircraft. Its pretty genious tbh. The modularity means that you can use the plane for many more jobs which in turn means more aircraft to be used with in turn makes the aircraft much cheaper.
'We'll show you some fancy models and mock ups and give you some 'modular platform' waffle. Thanks for the £9m MOD'
Again MOD military procurement not actually based in reality, which ultimately costs us twice as much than buying off the shelf, which we'll probably end up doing anyway, just a decade too late
we will never have anything at all if the MOD dosnt spend money. No matter what, R&D money is needed. Your comment is stupidly simple minded.
It best be unmanned, nobodies fitting in that
Why not continiue with the Tempest fighter they are developing with partner countries and buy some T-7 Red Hawk if they need new trainers.
Buying one Aeralies would be like being 3 planes with all spare parts, storage, extra vehicles needed and so on.
This won't be competition for Tempest just the trainer. Having your trainer be able to better match your final aircraft sounds good, so does being able to to use it for cheaper sortie where Tempest is over kill. To be honest though I think the bug appeal would be for countries like in South America, that still want jets but don't want the cost of the latest stealth monster.
I think they will continue with Tempest. This is a slightly different concept and can be used to train future Tempest pilots, be they in the cockpit, or on the ground.
0:25 Changing the jet to unmanned aircraft!!!
good idea but will it be ready by 2028
Strap some A.I. into it to Decrease Pilot Load and error Baby Step it to 3 Dedicated Versions Make Modulation Truly Cost Effective and Safe Ease of Production at or under Budget and you Could Start A Trend !.
I doubt this idea will get off the ground.
It looks quite promising, and with the issues currently ongoing with the training backlog and the Hawk T.2 it could be a useful solution.
@@jamiegray6931 It looks like a recipe for a lot of confusion to me, and that leads to mistakes and that leads to accidents..
It might not, but I sure hope it does. The backlog of people waiting to fly is huuuge now and this could help fix this.
@@raphaelgarcia6121 Anything modular has a wide variety of components, the more options you have the more chance of mistakes (the wrong part being used in the wrong circumstances), which leads to accidents.
A easy way to get more flight time is buying the Boeing/Saab trainer that’s going into service with the US Air Force
Rediculous. From safety and certification you cannot swap modules of an aicraft from mission to mission. In the end this idea would be the same as one aicraft that is manufactured in different versions (as if that would be something new). Seems more like a clever way to hustle money out of investors.
I'm not being funny but what business does our military have pursuing "net zero"? The only scope should be to be as lethal as possible within their assigned budget.
But can it run on chip fat fuel? Eat chips and support the RAF........
Hang on, a private company dealing with the needs and maintenance of military aircraft? That's a slippy slope when approaching a time of need; "oh you need five ground attack aircraft for Monday? Well that gonna cost you with such short notice..."
It has been done for decades in the US and UK and it has worked out.
It is not the first modular military jet, because it does not yet exist. The F-35 is pretty modular, and it exists already. The A, B and C variants share major parts, but different wing and engine modules make the variants. The BAe Hawk went from concept to operational is about the same time the Aeralis concept has existed, and we didn't have such powerful design and simulation tools then. I have followed Aeralis for a good 3 years, and progress is a bit dismal. Hawks best replacement would be new Hawks. Even the M-346, with 2 engines can only climb faster and burn fuel faster. It is not faster, and carries about the same load.
Hawks best replacement would be BA/SAAB Redhawk. BAE already co operate with SAAB. They just need to do it again or license it from BA.
Yeah, but you can't swap those modules about. They're built and that's it, nothing like this
The F-35 is not modular. The B is very different from the A. The C has strengthened areas. None of it can be swapped out, even the C.
i don't concider the f-35 modular, i think it was intended to be more modular but many docs sorta show how due to preassure they ended up a lot more different underneath than they look.... they're gonna share some parts, this could be advantageous, but it's prob not concidered "modular"
Nobody will take your comment seriously when you describe an unmodulated aircraft as modular. Modular means you can change the aircraft vehicle in hours not weeks or month.
Mass produced for Ukraine?
Too much modularity in my opinion. i like the cockpit control swap and the automated cockpit/ drone module.
But is the arguement of: standardising the plane, with modules. better than. standardising the controls and boxes of controllers. then applying it To different airframes, and modules on airframes
not really becuase different air frames require different tasks and missions which means they all have different layouts for their preset designs. The controls in general are the same like a car. But the layout just like a care is different. SO it makes absolute sense to change cockpits according to the training of specific aircraft.
@@ashleygoggs5679 But what if i; design for all the modules and then remove as and where i need them for each aircraft? rather than simply for the trainner.
Training is easier by comparison. pilot integration between airframes is easier. Again. why the focus down on Only trainning. when (the problem of insinctual operational behaviour of the pilot) affects the entire fleet.
im focusing on a scenario: pilot shortage, or locational, operational problem. its better to over train on the trainer with options, to move pilots where they are needed. but familarity of buttons once in role, is what( is going/ is mentioned) to slow us down. hesitancy, or wrong presses on part of the pilot.
Now the complaining:
What is it about military projects in the uk? So little big picture regarding cross platfrom integration. Where's the standardisation, and the cost saving built off of it, economy of scale. Everytime " this old thing cant hack it anymore. " Meanwhile the germans and americans go: ah yes, the platform will need upgrading at this point,
One looks forward, in both solution, and problem, the uk looks Far forward at problems, bu the solution seems to be: design it for NOW and not the future. and its costing us. Military advantage. Taxpayer money, and the worst. Time (the only thing you cannot negociate, in an absolutist sense)
@@rat_king- your comment was incredibly hard to read.
Yak- 130
First aircraft should go to the Red Arrows. After a few displays the world and his wife will queue up to buy them. Except the Yanks of course.
The Americans bought the current fast jet trainer; albeit with some upgrades for navy use.
Privatising the RAF. Whoohoo. What could possibly go wrong? 😶
Everything.
I would never invest a dime in this.
Then you would be missing out on a decent return on your investment. But time will tell I guess. 😉
Smart boy.
its gone from what we need to what they can profit from, there should be a policy passed for only mod design and production
Wild… another large scale rc jet.
Need a pilot..?😂
Why would you even want to change these things its hardly cost-effective and in the end design is full of unnecessary compromises just for sake of modularity, and no civilan market is not utilizing modularity, aside from fuselage length and engine model, but its not really modular as its made in the factory at time of construction and can't be changed later.
its cost effective becuase the modularity means more aircraft can be bought to fulfill the rolls of multiple planes. By increasing numbers sold the price of the aircraft comes down drastically as more come to the market, this also means more spares are available bringing maintenance costs down significantly. Modularity is hardly hurting the aircraft as the aircraft can be configured for specific rolls. The aircraft was said in the video to largely only perform in logistics rolls such as training, ISTAR functions and Refuelling. You need to watch the video again and listen very closely... or did you watch 1 minute and stop watching?
It will be interesting to see just how much this aircraft costs to develop. I'm guessing that it will be done of a shoe-string.
Can it drop flyers suggesting seize fire and negotiations?
That's not in the projected mission specs.
No worries, the Russians don't need any toilet paper, they still don't know how to use it.
Not needed. The fascist terrorists have been given many options to negotiate. They don't want to. Only option left is to drive them out.
Backlog of trainee pilots - we don’t need a new trainer aircraft, we have to stop giving the majority of training places to other countries. Ukraine/Russia surely has reminded us of British military capability first - we can’t support NATO with Qatari pilots
Getting ahead of themselves a bit with the whole Red Arrows thing considering they don't even have a flying prototype.
By your way of thinking, nothing would ever get done 🤦♂️.
Maybe, it's worth consulting the people who might fly these aircraft in the future. Or do you think they have nothing useful to contribute in designing this aeroplane?
@@sandgrownun66 did the video not show the Reds pilots visiting?
@@johnnunn8688 Actually, I was replying to the OP. Who said that consulting the Red Arrows was getting ahead of themselves. The Red Arrows fly this type of jet trainer, the Hawk T1 in their displays. So they are the best people to consult during the design phase. Does that make it any clearer?
@@sandgrownun66, ah, so you were. I do agolopise.
Nothing like negative comments to a future developement of a combat airframe,you need to get a life chaps,perhaps a prolonged trip to Russia and see if their lifestyle and thinking suits you better,giving us all a break.
There are always tons of orc bots in the Forces News comment section. So they already live in Mordor. Clearly the orcs are happy with living in misery then. I say we wall them off and leave them to it.
thats great but it seems a bit small. how are people gonna fit in that little white thing?
It would probably do quite well on the export market for countries looking to replace there F-16’s
What a waste of time and resources when they can get a trainer from the US. Don't reinvent the wheel.
I'm not impressed by it's aircraft designs and ideas.
Yeah, nah.
Dumb idea when there are already very good existing aircraft for every conceivable mission. Doing this will just make it expensive for everything and no civilian sales. BA/SAAB Redhawk is an excellent F-35 trainer jet.
if you think its a dumb idea then you clearly didnt watch the video.
The F-35A', B's and C's variants, are modular military aircraft, most 3rd and 4th (Torando and Tyhpoon, or F-15, F-16 & F-18, or Raffle and JAS-37E) and 5th (F-22) Generation Fighters, are Multi-role or multi-modular.
Which can be either Air-to-Air Fighters, or SEAD Figthers, or ECR Fighters, or CAS Fighters or IDS Fighter Bombers, or fully operational combat conversion training aircraft (5th Gen Boeing Saab Redhawk Trainer) too!
So taking wing on and off, or changing them, or changing a cockpits from singe seat to tandem two-seat, or even pilot option less.
Or changing out fuselage sections, or changing fuel tanks and/or changing engines, or changing weapons and sensors plus navigation and communication equipment too.
Is really nothing new, you can go back the likes of famous Spitfires and Hurricanes fighters, or Mosquito fighter bombers and/or Lancaster bombers too.
Or RAF early jets, Meteors, Javelins, Vampiers, or Hunters, or Lightings, or Jaguars, or Harriers and/or Phantoms fighters, or Jet Provests, Gnats and Hawks jet trainer or Canberras, Vulans and Victor bombers too.
This new jet aircraft, maybe raking modular design open a different direction, but this is not new!
There is rarely anything new in aviation, it just a new version or variant on an old theme.
Maybe the last big new thing in aviation, was the Harrier Jump Jet, or Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft, orvthe growing use UAV's too.
All aircraft, have engines, landing gear, wings, tailfins and tail-planes, cockpits, fuel tanks, fuselage, lights, flying surfaces and controls, or navigation and communication electronic, plus sensors etc,
All to some degree or another, so whats real new here?
It is not as if they created or invented for the RAF, the first Endo-Exo-atmospheric aerospace Mach-10 Plus fighter plane!
Which can operate in earth atmosphere and in outerspace too.
That would be something new, O'h the American Space Shuttle, did fly in space and in the earth's amposhere, nearly 30 years ago too!
So is there really anything new here!
what your talking about isnt true modularity though. Non of those aircraft you mentioned can swap whole new engine systems with hours, non can have their fuselage, cockpits or wings changed within hours too meet a new list of requirements needed. Yes they all have a certain amount of minor modularity, but not modularity that is listed in the video.
Big nope from me.
This "age of services and subscriptions" rubbish needs to die already.
You buy it, own it, use it, end of.
Fancy having a private company saying "no you can't use our aircraft" in the middle of a war, then they go over to the other side and offer them to your enemy instead.
Or right in the middle of a conflict, jack up the price of the aircraft subscription by 500%.
If it was actual military war time assets its likely the airforce would own the planes they would be using for wartime affairs. Anything such as training, updates, repairs etc. would be done through the company. Its a smart system to be honest.
2028 , more could news from a crippled sector playing catch up. Two Bobs in a shed , with two bob , trying to restoke industry long sold off to U.S and global owners. France ,Sweden and the US are decades ahead. Good luck.
Why don't you collaborate with Bayraktar, have a joint factory in UK to manufacture Bayraktars, and co-research your modular jets by springboarding off Bayraktar platforms? It would mean your production begins this year and investors might throw money at you. Having said that, Microsoft pays ten billion down for "everything" solutions. USA helped Alexander Graham Bell scale globally and USA love$ genius. I'd go right to Austin or Elon. Hop on a plane if you have to.
Because Turkey cannot be trusted unfortunately.
@@tams805 Yep. That's why Trump kicked Turkey of the F35 program. In a nut shell Turkey wanted to buy the US Patriot System, wanted to license to make their own and license to SELL IT but knowing now Turkey is Obama and under Trump both refused to give Turkey the license. USA will ONLY sell the system for Turkey to USE ONLY but knowing how Turkey is they are just gonna illegally copy it and sell it to ANYBODY. Turkey gave USA the middle finger and bought S400 system so Trump gave them the middle finger by kicking Turkey out of the F35 program.
Are we going to give them away to the Ukrainian grifters, too?
Grifters? They are under siege. Of course they want help.
Disgusting
@Steve Insidious Since you are a fascist orc bot, when you say "we", do you mean that terrorist Mordor should donate planes to Ukraine?
And I bet in 1939 you would have been complaining about American weapons being sent to the British grifters?
Lend Lease at minimum. children
Let me guess 20 years late, triple the quoted budget and won't work! As per!
its British.. Will Never get built..
Good for UK taxpayers.
@@HA-rn2iu British Taxpayers are the reason it won't be built. Their sloth, professional Victimization, stupidity and history of Cultural of being Stupid Cheap".. low quality of workmanships. Nothing to boost about as a nation.
Amazing