The excellent Hawker Siddeley / BAE Systems Hawk aircraft has been used to train RAF and Royal Navy fast jet pilots since 1976 but is is urgent need of replacement. Here we look at the current situation and a unique British approach that potentially meets the requirement for a modern and affordable replacement.
Background
The UK’s Military Flying Training System (MFTS) which is supposed to produce highly trained pilots ready to join frontline squadrons is not delivering adequate numbers. A key factor in the problems with MFTS is the decreasing availability of the Hawk trainer aircraft. The T2 fleet at RAF Valley suffers from poor reliability, a shortage of spare parts and issues with Rolls-Royce Mk 951 Adour engine which have pushed maintenance costs to the point where it is more expensive to operate than front-line combat aircraft.
The UK has been forced to partially outsource portions of flying training to allies at a cost of over £50M a year. This reliance on foreign support not only wastes precious funds but also undermines sovereignty and disrupts force cohesion.
The failure to train enough new pilots (compounded by difficulties in retaining experienced aircrew) is not just an obscure RAF problem but is already impacting on the Navy as a contributing factor in the Lightning Force’s inability to generate and sustain an adequate air group for the aircraft carriers. More broadly it’s a deep concern for the defence of the UK and its interests as aerial threats increase. Ideally, a much larger cadre of fully trained fast jet pilots is needed as a reserve and to allow a potential increase in combat aircraft numbers in future.
While uncrewed combat aircraft are on the horizon, a completely autonomous fast jet force is a several decades away in the future. Crewed aircraft will likely remain the core of combat air, although supplemented by teamed, autonomous or remotely piloted air vehicles. The need for skilled pilots and a jet aircraft to prepare them for frontline operations will remain a requirement for many years to come.
A legacy at risk
From the Jet Provost to the Hawk, British aircraft have trained generations of fast jet pilots for Britain and its allies. The US used the Hawk as the basis for the T-45 Goshawk, subsequently adapted to allow carrier deck landings. The design also proved capable of modification into a combat aircraft, the T1A serving the RAF briefly in the 1980s and several combat variants were also developed for export customers. 28 new Hawk T2s with a digital cockpit were delivered to the RAF between 2009-12.
BAE Systems has chosen not to develop a successor to the Hawk T2 primarily because there was no firm demand signal from government for a new trainer. Putting off making a decision, the MoD had optimistically hoped the Hawk could serve until 2040, but mounting costs and availability issues have since proven otherwise. With BAES focussed on more high-end platforms such as Typhoon and GCAP, as well as foreign competition in the jet trainer market, a Hawk successor has not been forthcoming.
Since entering service in the 1970s, over 1,000 Hawks have been sold globally, contributing more than £15 billion to the UK economy. This legacy of British aviation excellence could disappear without proactive decision-making. The T1 fleet was retired in 2022 (apart from the Red Arrows that still fly the T1). The official out-of-service date for the T2 is 2033 which means a plan for replacement needs to be made now.
An alternative approach
Founded in 2017, AERALIS is the first British company in over 50 years to develop a new jet trainer aircraft. Its offer is unlike anything currently on the market: a digitally engineered, modular aircraft system built around a common core fuselage. This design allows different variants to be quickly assembled to suit specific roles – from basic flying training and advanced tactical training to light combat or display duties.
The aircraft is designed with NATO and European air forces in mind, and its modularity supports international collaboration. Overseas customers can ensure they have a high proportion of national workshare by selecting domestically manufactured components. Partners could adapt the airframe to national requirements, build under licence, or integrate into joint training programmes.
AERALIS has already spent five years developing the jet which is currently about 60% complete. The design is low-risk, fusing existing, proven technologies with new digital tools. It can be civil-certified, allowing it to operate in both military and public airspace, including aerobatic displays.
The project leverages partnerships with over 40 UK-based firms and if selected by the MoD, would support around 4,000 British jobs and likely generate significant export revenue. The development is privately funded and does not require upfront investment from government. All that is needed is a commitment from the MoD to utilise the aircraft, for training, for the Red Arrows, or as part of a broader defence-industrial strategy.
The taxpayer will also not have to cover the capital cost of each aircraft and will simply pay by the number of flying hours. This commercial approach reduces financial risk for the customer. The modular system is estimated to be 50% cheaper to develop, 25% cheaper to acquire, and up to 60% cheaper to operate through life, than compared to traditional jet trainer fleets.
Flawed alternatives
If the British solution is not selected, then it would default to a choice between foreign designs with significant drawbacks. The Leonardo M-346 is already in use by some RAF trainees but is a twin-engine gas guzzler with an older design heritage and limited adaptability. It was originally a Russian Yak-130 design before diverging in the 1990s, hardly a strong selling point in today’s geopolitical climate.
The Boeing T-7A Red Hawk is suffering cost overruns and development delays. Other options, such as Turkey’s Hurjet, the Swiss PC-21, or Korean T-50, either lack the necessary performance, carry sovereignty concerns, or push trainees too quickly to front-line types.
Critics argue the Red Arrows are an expensive luxury that contributes little to operational capability. Costing the MoD at least £12M per year, their role is largely ceremonial and symbolic. However, they are held in great affection by the public and effectively promote the RAF and the UK overseas, in a powerful demonstration of soft power. Their ageing Hawk T1s will have to be grounded for safety reasons by 2030 at the latest. If the AERALIS solution is not selected, the only alternative would be to fly a foreign aircraft, potentially one derived from a Russian design, or the team will have to be disbanded.
-
The Leonardo M-346 was originally developed in partnership with the Russian Yakovlev Design Bureau in the early 1990s. Some UK student pilots are currently being sent to Italy to train on it out of necessity. Leonardo are trying to persuade GCAP nations that this should become the de facto trainer, despite the dated design and thirsty twin engines (Photo: Leonardo). -
The Boeing T-7A Red Hawk is a high-performance transonic trainer designed for USAF requirements. It is facing development delays and rising costs so exports would help offset Boeing losses. However, buying more expensive aircraft from the US than already committed to, may become politically increasingly untenable (Photo: Boeing). -
The Korean Aerospace Industrial T-50 was jointly developed with Lockheed Martin and entered service in 2005. It is a supersonic trainer with combat capabilities but would be expensive and not easily adapted for export or sovereign customisation. -
The Turkish Aerospace Industries Hurjet is a modern trainer. It is possible the UK could purchase this aircraft and negotiate a partial domestic workshare, but it would be ceding UK leadership and potential exports to Turkey. -
The PC-21 Pilatus was developed in Switzerland and entered service in 2008. Although a cheaper option, as turbo-prop aircraft, it would not fully prepare pilots for Typhoon or F-35B. Student pilots would, therefore, have to spend more time utilising precious frontline jets flying hours before becoming qualified (Photo: Adrian Pingstone).
Doing procurement differently
The AERALIS jet trainer proposition is also an opportunity for politicians and Whitehall to rethink procurement more widely. There is a need to consider innovative companies offering options in addition to the usual Primes. Avoiding the ponderous CADMID cycle, rigid requirements, prolonged reviews, unnecessary competitions and Byzantine bureaucracy, there are many ways that effective systems could be delivered to the frontline faster and more efficiently.
Across defence, an increasing number of capabilities have been dangerously ‘gapped’ because a decision on the replacement was put off, either due to Treasury constraints or by politicians happy to let their successors take the hard decisions. In addition to the effect of collectively weakening security, delays almost always imply increased future costs or even permanent loss of entire capabilities and their supporting industry.
Although AERALIS does not yet have a flying prototype, it needs commitment from government to advance this relatively low-risk solution to the next stage. There appear to be few downsides with no capital outlay for the taxpayer. This would be an affordable and timely solution, utilising British skills and industry and an opportunity for the UK to regain its formerly strong export market share. With no jet trainer replacement currently selected, the window for action is closing fast.
Aerialis does not bring enough to the table to make it a competitive export and will just end up costing us for a small fleet
We do need to ensure it’s got export potential.
From the sound of it, the competition isn’t outstanding. The one true European option, as stated above, is outdated and costly to run. From what I can find with a quick search, the French are also without a jet trainer, and apparently both they and the Spanish were in talks with us to develop a new jet trainer jointly.
Given European NATO’s currently…tense relationship with the US, a modern UK-developed trainer fill a lucrative niche
The RAF requirement isnt more than 30 planes.
No way will Britain fund a new trainer jet for those tiny numbers and the Tempest program in the same time scale.
if the EU defence funding budget wants a new trainer, let them pay for the costs. And the RAF can just be a purchaser if required
Maybe SAAB will remove the after burner for a European and others specific version of its and Boeings Red Hawk.
this is far away most likely outcome. Duvhok
Red Hawke has no weapons capacity. This will give it limited appeal as some countries, like Australia, will want a multi use small jet to use as a trainer, escort, light combat and/or for some reconnasaince purposes.
A SAAB development could add that , easy peasy. Australia like britain uses it only as lead in fighter trainer. I dont think the RAF includes weapons training on Hawk T2 now [ edit its simulated weapons training so no stores carried]
Actually Australia has 2 squadrons of Hawks. One in NSW is used for lead in in fighter training. The second in WA is used for continuation training and fleet requirements for RAN units based in West Australia. Given the distances involved a single sqn is not practical.
The WA aircraft have at least a nominal sidewinder capability simply because they are the only fast jets in WA.
I would assume the WA requirement would continue if not grow.
I believe Australia also bought a number of 30mm Aden cannon pods for them & dropping standard & laser guided bombs is possible. The Sidewinder is/was the older 9M variant – does RAAF still have any operational 9M’s? 9X’s aren’t listed as compatible.
If it’s a 1:1 direct replacement for the aircraft already in service, we’re already looking at 40; 28 T2 trainers, and the 12 T1As of the Red Arrows.
Given that the RAF is struggling to get enough pilots through fast jet training, it’s also not unreasonable that, between increased focus on defence and domestic industry, a further increase in the replacement fleet could be seen.
“if the EU defence funding budget wants a new trainer, let them pay for the costs. And the RAF can just be a purchaser if required” that’s exactly the type of attitude that has killed a lot of strategically important industries. If we want to see the benefits, we need to take the leap.
Once the RAF had the Red Pelicans, Black Arrows and Yellowjacks display flights . Red Arrows was the amalgamated name
I’m not sure what this advert for AERALIS is proposing. The jet is only 60% finished, and it wouldn’t need public capital outlay to complete. This seems to be a request to contract a minimum number of hours, presumably at a minimum price, for an aircraft that doesn’t currently exist and might not fulfil RAF needs. On the back of this contract AERALIS will borrow the money to complete the plane. Is that right? This kind of high risk venture can come right-ish, but it always ends up more expensive than originally promised.
I agree that MOD needs to do something in this area as a matter of urgency, but buying a pig in a poke with our children’s money might not be the best solution. If we think AERALIS is the right company, I’d rather see the public money going in now, possibly by buying a stake in AERALIS.
And does anyone know what that 60% is 60% of? To a first flying demonstrator, to a fully operational trainer, to the full modular concept with different plane types? And 60% meausered how? Cost? Effort? Timescale?
Development and production industrialisation costs far exceed a demonstrator that isnt even a prototype
Looks like AERALIS may not be around much longer anyway. The company accounts say as much (https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/09752004/filing-history)
Some of the directors have an interesting list of other directorships – Film, Hair, Balloon companies etc. Also Zheng Group Ltd whoever they are…
Haha! this article is not serious.
The current Strategic Defence Review must produce a plan to acquire fast jet trainers in the near future. The UK can’t risk this decision being bottled.
Should properly fund the existing Hawk maintenance and overhaul. Its the same way the RN ships maintenance and upgrades are defunded year after year
The Treasury demands annual efficiency cuts of 1-2% in operational spending, and this is the result. Over 10 years it creates a mess
Issue is not funding or servicing its the RR Engine and turbine blades and RR cannot meet demand, its affecting the USN Goshawk fleet as well. parts for what is a old engine. RR Not interested
I’ll reserve judgement till it flies or gets canned.
We need something. The other options are not exactly great, are they? OK, agree with some of the comments – but it is looking like a viable option at a time viable options are limited. We need to invest in BRITISH defence companies and rely more on ourselves. America is proving to be a country we want to start downgrading as far as defence expenditure goes. Do we really want to go towards ‘inferior’ options that don’t do the job like the others quoted? If not investing in AERALIS – what do we invest our future in for a trainer? And yes, go for a few that can be used where the high end planes would be overkill!
The reason why developing Aerialis is a waste of time is because we will only be ordering enough to replace our current trainers and Red arrows probably won’t be replaced at all, talking less than 50 aircraft for a development program that will cost billions
Agreed if it was the Government developing it. However, if the post is right and it is basically a private company ‘There appear to be few downsides with no capital outlay for the taxpayer. This would be an affordable and timely solution, utilising British skills and industry and an opportunity for the UK to regain its formerly strong export market share.’ – different situation. A private company is trying to build a competitive product for sale elsewhere. That’s, for me, a good idea. Whether it’s viable or not is a different question.
Very much in agreement, Rob. An added bonus is that the unmanned option would also offer a versatile UAS system option with economies of scale that our small purchases of American systems fail to deliver.
Seams to me the first thing that needs to be done is to sort out the problems with the Ardour Engine.
Doesn’t have ‘problems’. Its lack of maintenance funding thats the problem.
The Ardour has been in service since 1970s with 2800 built.
Current T2 fleet has:
‘The Adour Mk 951 is a more fundamental redesign… with improved performance (rated at 6,500 lbf (29,000 N) thrust) and up to twice the service life It features an all-new fan and combustor, revised HP and LP turbines, and introduces Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) The Mk 951 was certified in 2005.
For Gods sake it has not anything with “maintenance funding” , USN just had to land their Hawks and certainly is not an organisation that “lacks funding”.
Next USN trainer competition will between this:
Leonardo-Textron M-346N x Boeing-Saab T-7 x Lockheed Martin-KAI T-50.
When they arent getting the required hours on an ongoing basis its because the maintenance funding to a different contractor is the problem
The USN engine problem was a one off. All military engines have these now and then. Surely you know this
https://www.navytimes.com/news/your-navy/2024/05/20/navy-lifts-operational-pause-on-t-45c-goshawk-fleet/
The RN has the same lack of maintenance funding for its ships.
There have been several T45 stoppages due to engine issues.
The US Navy has been forced to halt T-45 Goshawk training flights after one of its aircraft experienced an engine failure earlier this month. The issue is believed to be related to engine blades, a problem that has previously affected its T-45 fleet
turbine blade wear rate is the same on the entire hawk fleet worldwide RR issue not servicing
RR Issue is its a 1970s design and since its been updated they have developed a design flaw on the turbine blades and need increased servicing and replacement. its not lack of funding its now these costs on a fixed service contract are eating RR profits. so they are in no rush to sort.
Re Red Arrows. 12 million is cheap advertising. It gets additional news coverage for free. Anywhere they are appearing gets automatic coverage – tv, radio, newspapers & internet.
BAE will develop anything possible if you pay them. If you don’t, they will develop what they think will make the most money. The difficulty with developing a new trainer is if your own military is not interested & no equivalent steps up. If BAE develops a new trainer but UK says no thanks (even if just for now), all the smaller nations start wondering what’s wrong with it. If US says yes, then not a problem. If NZ says yes, do you think Australia, Canada etc will say “we should be looking at this”? MoD needs to realise that defence companies pay taxes, employ people & exports do matter to both the trade balance & the bottom line. If the MoD saves 10 million but the country looses/pays 100 million then overall you are 90 million down. (add as many zeros as appropriate). That’s not to suggest it’s a good idea to promote a dud. Reputations, once acquired, are very hard to get back once lost.
O heavens, not another power by the hour operation. I would hope the MOD has learned enough from the refueling tanker aircraft shambles to bury this proposal very quickly.
Any proposal that says ‘we are not looking for government capital funding’ simply means that they will seek funds from commercial providers (banks or worse finance companies). Not only does that mean paying commercial rates of interest (which are always higher) the MOD will find itself guaranteeing the borrowing one way or another with no way out.
THIS!
The AERALIS plane might or might not do, hard to say, but the ‘pay by the hour’ outsourcing model is plain bad.
Except ofcourse if you are a staunch neo-liberal …who wants everything to be an opportunity for private profits.
A much better idea is international cooperation . Get together with European allies and find a solution.
Several of these still train new pilots in the US, that might also be a dead end street now.
The Italian option is a bit older, but Israel just bought it, so it can’t be bad either.
Regardless….DO NOT OUTSOURCE the military!
These people have been at it for years and achieved nothing.
To me their main problem is a lack of capital. To bring a new aircraft to market together with the support system it needs involves investing a huge amount of money. To get customers to sufficiently believe in the project to order aircraft they need to be confident that the manufacturer will be around for the next 20+ years.
These requirements are effectively impossible for a startup to achieve. The best thing this company could do is to sell its self to a much much larger and well established defence contractor.
Yes. Cant compete with say a Red Hawk made by SAAB for europe and others without the AB.
Boeing and Saab. And the Red Hawk is having issues according to an article.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRkAmqIVAdo
I’m not usually in favour of MOD competitions, but perhaps that’s the best route for a trainer. No decision or money will come from the government until after the implications of the SDR have been digested. Unless the government have learned lessons from Harland and Wolff, they are quite happy to let British companies go to the wall rather than take financial risks.
There appears to be no urgency coming from the MOD. Creating an understood procurement route, through requirement and competition, hopefully at a highly accelerated timescale, may be the only practical way to move this forward.
50% article and 50% advert for Aerlialis?
The T-50 looks to be the way forward. Enough performance to minimise need for Typhoon or F-35 hours, and potentially have a combat ability like the old Tornado+Hawk pairing concept.
Never gonna get enough for a combat role
All
All in all, it is quite unbelieveable that this onmi-shabmles has been allowed to continue for more than twenty five years – to the point where it is now costing us more “per plane”. than the Typhoon fleet
Yet another example of MOD being = “penny wise: pound foolish”
It is the bureaucrats in Whitehall who really need to have “L plates” stitched on ther suits!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
That is a rather expensive plane, for a trainer. It is basically a Saab Gripen B without all the bells and whistles that make for a good fighter.
As a ‘companion fighter’ it might have potential, but it would compete with buying true fighters and I think that is not a popular option.
T-50 is over performant for training, but it depends what you want to do. I am not seeing RAF wanting to use it for full combat like Poland. If it wants then it should be the chosen option.
At the moment the ideal is the M-346 that RAF pilots are already training with it in Italy at ITFS, it is in use by Greece, Israel, Singapore.
Of course this piece is sycophant propaganda. Probably the worst article written in this site.
Just the “modular” is an issue in itself regarding weight and extra complexity, i would even get iffy from an established manufacturer.
Tough read — to get so much wrong takes some doing.
Hawk replacement — BAe need to be put in the spotlight.
They had a good business and threw it all a way.
George Ezra business plan — soon it will be the full album.
Trainer / light fighter — huge demand out there.
The world cannot rely on the F35 till 2075.
Good business? Dead business, no one was buying Hawks anymore
Hawk jet trainer — did good business for a number of years.
The trick with cash cows is succession planning.
Move with the market preferably ahead of the market.
Air forces still need training aircraft.
Worst comes to the worst buy in a design.
CADMID — techie or is it forces slang?
Google it.
Are the Hawk T2s with the joint Qatar Squadron impacted or is it just those at Valley?
The RAF has hours and slots with Qataris, it’s returns some the costs (not much though) of training on RAF Typhoons. The Qatari aircraft have a different contract with BAE.
Some of the Valley problems stem from quite simply not buying the correct number of engines or even spares for the Hawk T2 fleet initially.
All Hawks worldwide if they are using the RR lump, created a turbine blade wear issue and cannot produce new or fix fast enough
Fast jet training — might be old news …
UK — we thrift talent at an early stage.
Stream candidates into helicopters / slow jets / fast jets very early on.
France — everybody gets fast jet training but not everyone gets the gig.
They stream after fast jet training and pick the best.
Main point — they have a larger talent pool if things get hot in the future.
Is this the full story / still the case?
That’s actually changed. For last 10 years, all RAF pilots have had to qualify at fast jet standard, no longer fully streamed. So, plenty of pilots are moving between rotary, multi engine and UAS (unsure about Fast Jet tbh)
Cant possibly be the case. Theres only 28 or so T2 hawks.
Advanced flying only, ie fast jets, on the Hawk. The truck drivers switch to type after wings on the Texans
What law of physics is stopping BAE updating the Hawk physical architecture and putting in a new engine?
New fuselage materials used to update the existing shape factor?
UK PLC making a go of development.
You never know it might catch on.
Does Ukraine have any designs on the go?
They are pretty good at bashing metal that flies.
BAE is not interested in restarting production for what will be 20-30 units
Then sell the Hawk business on to someone else.
They should have done that when they shut the East coast factory.
Huge market in an area where UK PLC was nearly the market leader at one time.
Lazy / low energy margin sniffing has left us with nothing but regrets.
10 years too late now. It needs a new design & no-one wants to pay for an old design that is past its used by date.
OK — fair point.
But what about the F16?
A triumph of development over design.
Still looks the same so why the appearance issue with the Hawk?
New engine / new cockpit / simpler fuselage — 21st century gear is all they need.
Or is the big issue it can’t do Mach 1.something?
Over the last 50 years, F16 sales average out at about 100 per year. Hawk about 20 per year in the same time frame. F16 has had considerable ongoing investment & sales to pay for that. Planes don’t last forever, so countries will eventually replace them. The Hawk design works (aside from the current engine problems), but it doesn’t compare well against the opposition if you are looking for new build planes in the near future. They are also saying 2-3 years to fix the engine problem. Some countries also weaponise their trainers – Hawk has not kept up there either.
BAEs no longer interested in the manufacturing business, its far easier to buy a existing firm to produce there parts and get them to bolt together
SK wants to develop a carrier-based version of their KAI KF-21 Boramae, KAI KF-21N for future carrier use plus a sixth-generation fighter.
Could a suitable deal be worked out that benefits both us and them? A STOVL version to replace their F-35Bs might also interest them.
“The GE F414 is a derivative of the F404, featuring a larger fan for increased airflow and thrust, while also incorporating advanced technologies for improved performance and durability.
The F404-GE-102 is the latest derivative for the Korean KAI/LMTAS T-50 advanced trainer/light fighter.
The F404-402 engine is being modified to power the single-engine T-50.”
“KAI plans to develop and produce 170 twin-engined jets initially, with 50 destined for export to Indonesia, a person with knowledge of the matter told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity because the situation was confidential.
More engines are expected to be sold if KAI successfully exports the KF-X to other countries seeking a relatively cheaper replacement for their U.S.-supplied jets.
To power the aircraft, KAI has opted for F414-GE-400 engines, produced by GE Aviation, over a rival bid to supply Eurojet EJ200 engines, made by a consortium that includes Rolls-Royce Holdings PLC and MTU Aero Engines AG.”
Pretty sure they recently canned their carrier ambitions
It still appears to be moving ahead as of 12.03.2025.
We really should have worked out a lasting partnership with SK a long time ago. We would have had more kit on time and on budget for all three services.
08.04.2025
LINK
Desire for sovereign production and in general clashes in specification and requirements make foreign collaboration difficult
That plane will NEVER become a vertical landing plane.
Not possible!
That’s why I’m suggesting a joint STOVL option using UK tec and SK speed of delivery.
You never know, we might even sell them on the idea of a UK carrier!
Think Tariffs along with trust.
No. Just buy into the USN Undergraduate Jet Training System (UJTS) when they settle on a replacement for the Goshawk.
Our problem isn’t which airyplane to buy. Our problem is FJ pilot recruitment and woke / DEI politics within our forces.
That system doesn’t work very well for the UK. The RAF use the Euro Nato training system aswell. It can train crews fairly quickly on the mechanics of flight but because of the US overall training system and out-put it doesn’t develop the “Pilot”. It places less emphasis on navigation, night, poor weather flying and tactical training with that being left to the very expensive Operational Conversion to type squadrons.
The RAF and Navy don’t want to burn precious flight hours and surprisingly expensive sim time on front line types that can be done more economically on a trainer.
Eh? Goshawk is the USN version of Hawk. Where did I say put UK pilots through USN pilot training? If we have a joint buy with the US for an aircraft we get it CHEAPER.
Our training system wasn’t bad. It was the upper echelons of the RAF political obsession and government cuts that have armed recruitment.
The aircraft is selected as part of a system, academics, simulation and the aircraft. An aircraft training system for training carrier crews will focus on different aspects leading to a specific training outcome ie launching and landing from an aircraft carrier.
The USAF and USN/USMC require two different systems for their training for this reason.
For the RAF the Hawk problem and training in general has always been cost. MoD wants it as cheap as possible, selects a PFI – MFTS then, because near continuous waves of cuts from the early 2000s through to a couple of years ago means training is chaos. This creates problems with instructors, courses and front line crews to carry out ops and train the newly qualified to fly and operate the frontline aircraft. That isn’t the RAFs problem, I believe the Navy and Army faced similar problems. As to the situation Wigston created, well that joined the training pipeline problem and compounded it with the political direction to boast diversity when he SHOULD of pushed for training stability.
RAF has used the Canadian Nato training scheme – which uses ….
Whats this Euro-Nato scheme you speak of ?
A plus for the RAF that the Hawk is used as a lead in fighter trainer – as thats how they use it too
Euro Nato (ENJJPT) at Shepherd Air Force base, not the NFTC which was similar to UK standard training.
Is there a department at the MOD that looks further than next week? It can’t have been a surprise that the Hawk will go out of service at some point. We seem to be running out of ships, aircraft and armour at an alarming rate without even fighting a war!
“Is there a department at the MOD that looks further than next week?”
Colin114
NO!
Peter (Irate Txapayer)
PS
The hawk going out of service “soon” was being actively discussed in MOD back in 2001
There are several issues I have with this analysis. Most pertinently, this is not obviously a “British solution” although you paint it as such. Almost 20% of the shares are owned by Al Shamal, which appears to be a part of the Qatari ministry of defence. And another Qatari state entity, Barzan, has a loan outstanding which converts into 50.1% of the equity. So basically one way of looking at the idea you lay out in this article is that the RAF should pay for the R&D of the Qatar defence ministry. It is I suppose a sovereign option but not obviously a British one..
Except the core work would mostly be done in the UK, utilising a British supply chain. There are very few major companies that are purely British-owned, most have at least some of their shares belonging to overseas interests.
But this is essentially owned by a foreign government!
The Russian connection in the M-346 is massively overstated, the Yak-130 and M-346 share nothing more than a basic shape. There is really nothing wrong with either the T-50 or M-346, the whole article feels like it’s clutching at straws to justify choosing the Aeralis. I’d like to see them succeed but not at the cost of losing training capability, time is running out for a capability that we cannot do without.
I like the new Korean fast jet trainer.
Does Saab do a two seat Gripen?
Cheap and known — Council spec for training / second string defence.
Plus mates rates to BAe for a bargain MOD buy.
Gripen Popular Plus — how low could the cost go?
Next step a RR engine.
My memory says it is GE powered.
No chance, far too expensive and high performance for what is initial training
Lets get VW onboard.
And this time it would be legal.
Two engine maps …
One for the initial training gig.
And another for a support / light fighter role to pad out the fast jet numbers if things get hot.
We could call it the Jag Mk2.
The Gripen must be pretty cheap to make — the Swedes are as tight as Casey’s drum.
Stripped back wood is not fashionable but it is cheap — IKEA marketing does the rest.
£25mill ex works with 90’s tech emulated on commodity electronics?
Fast jets are not dear once you get past the unobtanium.
Western defence costs are 400 per cent away from reality.
Yes there are 2 seat versions. The gripen cd is inexpensive to maintain and fly using a modified 404 ge engine and can mount meteor missiles. I think it would be ideal as an advanced trainer light combat jet
Sounds expensive
Hugo
Running costs of the Gripen per flying hour are about half that of the Typhoon
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
What is the purchase cost. It’s a fighter not a trainer, it’s going to have equipment and design that makes it inherently more expensive
Welcome to the pareto frontier — penny wise pound foolish pseudo engineering wrapped up as optimisation.
The Gripen is pretty efficient plus a council spec fit out / USSR export level of systems would be cheap and more than enough for a trainer / light fighter.
Metal bashing even Big Aero metal bashing is affordable if you keep away from service ego trips and gold plating.
Gripen is commodity
As an ex Hawker employee at Woodford ( now a housing development )if we don’t build it in the UK then more aerospace expertise and jobs gone.
A bit of faith in British manufacturing would be nice.
For the small numbers the RAF requires (30+) -purely as a lead in fighter trainer now not possible to be a UK project – while Tempest is in development
not the full flying training RAF used when they had 175 of T1 Hawks
The issue from BAEs perspective is that British aerospace expertise are better focussed on Typhoon/ Tempest and F35. Which is why they’ve not bothered with a Hawk successor.
Monkey management strikes again.
So you give up part of the market because there is better margin elsewhere.
Instead of a 3 string bow you are now down to 1 and a quarter.
Market you walk away from gives an opening to someone else / bulk to a competitor who will use it well plus you become a one club golfer with no back-up.
And what happens if your great white hope comes out as a great white dud?
First they walked away from commercial aerospace and now they are down to national champion show ponies with glacial delivery leaving the Typhoon to wither on the vine.
That is not an aerospace business it is a government funds mining operation.
Back in the day we should have transferred the Hawk product family over to Saab — they have history in making the most of limited resources. The Gripen fuselage / physical architecture would have been a good place to start for the NG Hawk.
To be very fair Tony since BAEs closed most of its factories and retired that workforce, that skill set disappeared as no one cam along to fill the void. We no assemble things in the UK built from a host of parts from other countries.
Having cut my teeth on HMS Iron Duke — Dukey to those who knew her curves — I know what a tight ship looks like. She creaked, groaned and smelt like wet socks in July, but by God she delivered. Can’t say the same for the MoD these days.
Now we’re facing a pilot shortage so grim we’re practically outsourcing Top Gun to Tuscany. And the solution? Apparently it’s to stick our finest into a reheated Yak with an Italian accent and pretend it’s fine. It’s not fine. It’s like borrowing your neighbour’s Speedos — uncomfortable, undignified, and absolutely not built for you.
Meanwhile, AERALIS is offering a proper British bird — sleek, modular, cheap to run, and with more flexibility than the Ship’s Warrant Officer on karaoke night. No upfront taxpayer cash, built here, designed here, and good enough to train our best without the whiff of foreign compromise. And still, the suits in Whitehall are twiddling their thumbs like midshipmen in a storm looking for their sea legs.
Look, the Hawk’s had its glory days — it trained legends, showed off in the skies, and earned its pension. But it’s limping now, burning cash like a drunken fleet week, and dragging our fast jet dreams down with it.
So here’s the call: if we put the Red Arrows in some foreign tart of a trainer, we may as well swap the Union Jack for a white flag and call it a day. Time to get our act together, back the home team, and give AERALIS the green light before we lose the last bit of British aviation we’ve got left.
The problem is Aeralis aren’t offering anything currently, they haven’t done so much as a taxi test. How long do we wait to see if their pipe dream actually materialises?
For the project fear.
Brexit means Brexit and take back control
with swashbuckling, buccaneering Britain dominating the world
and enjoying free trade with the USA.
And we get 350 million back per week, let’s get Brexit done
,,
Cough… EU has tariffs of 20%, Britain 10% under Trumpageddon
Britain is free to negotiate with US
– EU is prime example of a high tariff trading block that Trump wants for US
In the spirit of all this noise about European collaboration and cooperation on defence procurement. What’s wrong with the Czech Aero L39-Skyfox? Asking for a friend. 😏
European co-operation means the UK paying for it and everybody else working with the majority of the work share.
Designed by the British, built by the Germans and Spaniards………
BAE is a builder of a major part of the Typhoon airframe, the most important part.
The EAP shown had no contribution from Germany or Spain. The left wing was made by Aeritalia in Turin, the RH one came from Samlesbury. Tailfin came from a Tornado.
Why…..just why?
I agree that Hawk should have iterated onwards….but that ship sailed 20 years ago when MoD didn’t make a big order of T2 and showed zero interest in anything further.
Pilots need to experience the vagaries of fling military grade aircraft so a fast jet trainer is an absolute must and many more than the 20 or so that others have mentioned.
If the number of frontline jets is to be increased then pilot throughout has to be as well.
This plane is probably a single engine derivative of M346. Leonardo does the front fuselage and wings and new rear fuselage structure for the single engine
Famously similar done for the Northrop F-20 from the twin F-5
Aerialis propose a training solution that is not even flying. This seems high risk for RAF and RN. Surely better to fully explore M345/M346 and the Aero L39NG Skyfox which seems to have been carefully excluded from this article.
Australia has weaponised its Hawkes making them light combat and trainers. It will need new light jets soon. Could be room for some collaboration between UK, Aus & France
Thanks for that
https://www.airforce.gov.au/aircraft/hawk-127
We’re only going to to replace our trainers
Hawk 200…………
What are the problems with the Ardor engines referred to?
Compressor Blades Fracturing AFAIK.
RRs have managed to design in a turbine issue they cannot fix
It should not be forgotten that BAES flew the Advanced Hawk demonstrator in 2017. This was a further development of the Hawk 100 series with the cockpit featuring a new HUD and wide area display, together with a redesigned wing and new defensive aids. It did not attract any orders but signaled that the company was prepared to further develop the design. Almost in parallel BAES and HAL collaborated in the development of the Hawk i, an upgraded Hawk 100 series flown by the IAF. The development of the Hawk continues, if not in the UK, in India. Further orders are in prospect with production prospectively continuing into the 2030s.Hence there appears to be some considerable development life yet with co-development and co-production shared with the UK and India being a possibility. Others have noted in this thread that the F-16 first flew in 1974 and is still in production, hence longevity should not preclude an aircraft from selection as the RAF’s next jet trainer. And, it should not be forgotten that 900+ Hawks have been built signaling that it is a very successful design chosen by a diversity of countries ranging from those with the smallest of air forces to the USN. That success could continue with a new variant. Two further points should be noted. 1) The Hawks illustrated in the article are T.1s, not T.2s. For an article which purports to be a scholarly examination of the subject at hand this is a basic error. 2) A possible alternative Hawk replacement not mentioned in the article is the Leonardo M-345 which is a cheap aircraft that can fulfill all the RAF’s requirements.
Finally, for your consideration is this article written by the respected aviation writer Alan Warnes: https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/defence/why-the-humble-hawk-still-has-plenty-to-offer
Platform agnostic — that phrase seem to come up time and time again.
Who needs to make anything when you can sit at the gate and put your hand out.
It is not a case that we don’t make anything anymore it is a case that we don’t want to make anything any more — Napoleon was right.
The Victorians were just a blip in our national character.
All good points.
Interesting that the Red Arrows and Italian equivalent Duda float together today….
What?
Sorry should have read:-
‘Interesting that the Red Arrows and Italian equivalent flew together today….’
Look on the BBC website.
Thanks.
Hawker Siddeley orginally deveoped the Hawk as a private veture. What comes through strongly in this is the utter uselessness of BAe who won’t do anything without their hands being held. They have lost the international trainer maket that they had through sheer idleness. It would seem that they would rather close their own factories than compete for business.
I am no member of the BAES fan club.
But BAES had to refocus on the US market because of lack of MoD spending in the UK – simple as that.
There needs to be a credible customer to sell a platform to.
As others have pointed out up thread there was an iteration of Hawk with an all glass cockpit, as late as 2017, that got no MoD interest.
To be Fair BAEs took a big hit from the MRA4 program and went down swinging and lashed out at whatever it could.
1/ Removed Harrier airworthiness certification. govts don’t ground airframes
2/ Stopped servicing of the Gearboxes of the Invincible class carriers,
3/ MRA4 too fat to get its airframe off the ground after spending all that money.
and various other systems and services along the way.
BAEs could no longer tender as a lead contractor on any UKGovs MOD contract had to partner as a secondary partner.
was when they had to diverse
Our aircraft industry was scuppered by the 1957 Defence White Paper aided and abetted by the US.
BAE are more a conglomerate now. They will have a company somewhere that can do something to meet your needs. They are not as integrated as say Leonardo.
Exports is the benchmark to quality.
Living off the MOD was never a credible business plan
You need product quality not flag waving skills.
Plus what about the Typhoon?
No development effort at the moment — losing sales to allcomers because BAe and the MOD have moved on.
That is not how a real business is run.
BAE is only one of three companies that build Eurofighter. Airbus has the biggest slice of the workshare so you can hardly blame BAE for not pushing the type. Germany and Spain are only concerned about jobs not development. Don’t forget Airbus is partly French and there is always Rafale somewhere in the calculations.
RAF may have pushed Eurofighter’s capability envelope but British governments aren’t interested in defence. British Aerospace may have developed EAP but that was in another era. Yes it is a shame that more was done here with it considering at first it was our aeroplane. Down the years I have often wondered and pondered about a few squadrons of two-seater Typhoons with conformal tanks for maritime strike………..
Gripen is no substitute for Typhoon. It is an excellent plane. But it is a class below Typhoon. It is a well spec’ed Ford Fiesta and Typhoon is a Mondeo.
…….with 6 Marte ER.
Nice graphic…….
Is that 3D?
I picked it because it showed the tanks from a difficult angle.
Sure, just asking if it is prototype flying or fictional image.
More political ineptness, dithering and cost cutting. Every PM starting with Major have systematically dismantled HM Forces ability to conduct phase 1 sustained war fighting. Dire
It goes back to Nott and perhaps into 1957 Defence White Paper and even to WW2.
Both WW1 and WW2 were centred on mass armies. Millions who had never thought about war were exposed to it, but saw all our defence issues in terms of the land. Whereas our defence has always been centred on the sea. This has somewhat skewed our outlook. Similar the RAF fought the war from home so the light blue uniform was everywhere. The navy’s work was far from land and sea power more exoteric; you could understand why the navy’s importance to the public lessened.
Concentrated force of the industrial age are an anachronism in the nuclear age.
As soon as we had enough atomic weapons we should have retreated back to the sea. But the Army and RAF held sway so we stayed on the German plains. Look what we did in the Falklands with a few spare battalions of light infantry and a force of escorts built for ASW mid-ocean. And then think what we could have done with an Army re-rolled to look more like the USMC and a more rounded in capability terms navy.
James
This very same topic was being “hotly debated” 25 years ago (Note1)
…….when there was plenty of money available to spend on buying new jet trainers (i.e. the new BAE version rather than the Nike version)
THESE TWO REPORTS MAKE “RATHER INTERESTING” READING
This NAO’s 2000 report, “Training new pilots” found that existing core flying training was taking far too long
UK National Audit Office Report: Ministry of Defence: Training new pilots (HC 880 1999/00) – Full report [1072 Kb]
The next one was from 2015 – a full decade ago
Military-flying-training-Summary
The simple truth of the matter is that this question of “what jet trainer planes to buy?” is only one small part of a much larger issue.
That is:
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Interesting the issues with Hawk availability due to the extension on service – as it’s a relatively simple aircraft. This will be an issue for our Merlins with 2040 being unrealistic OSD for helicopters that are being worked hard now.
The Leonard’s option may make sense: deepen our partnership with Italy on aircraft (both GCAP and Helicopters) or perhaps a combination of M345 (single engine Italian training jet) and some Grippens for both fast jet lead in and additional combat mass…..
Merlin OSD was 2030 but the extension is based on the current fleet wear and service availability, Apart from the Crowsnest variates that are suffering from stressed airframes. so 2040 without a suitable replacement is a good option.
only if Airbus enter the market with a serious contender to rival the red hawk there is limited choice as a option as the leonardo option is as old as the hawk t 2
Currently nearly all Nato Air forces are suffering from the same problem on the lack of a new fast jet trainer. with the Red Hawk the only new option on the table, and as the USN pointed out that is not a Carrier based Trainer, as with there Hawks suffering the same poor RR service as the RAF. only 2 viable options are currently on or near the table Leonardo M-346 is only one in operation. Red Hawk is late. issue that any aircraft will have and like the Hawk T2s and even tranche 1 typhoons, will be the anti collision flight systems that is deeply embedded in the flight control unit, and BAEs wouldn’t or couldn’t switch off in the Above, apparently all the worlds Airforce display teams are struggling for airframes without ACFS.
AERALIS is overcomplicated and trying to solve to many problems, pick a design and get a move on or your market will be gone.
But forget home built option, as it will late expensive and is 20 years too late already
Critics argue the Red Arrows are an expensive luxury that contributes little to operational capability. Costing the MoD at least £12M per year, their role is largely ceremonial and symbolic. However, they are held in great affection by the public and effectively promote the RAF and the UK overseas, in a powerful demonstration of soft power. Their ageing Hawk T1s will have to be grounded for safety reasons by 2030 at the latest. If the AERALIS solution is not selected, the only alternative would be to fly a foreign aircraft, potentially one derived from a Russian design, or the team will have to be disbanded.
£12m per year is currently about 1 days running cost of the NHS, makes you wonder
It sure sounds like the proven M-346 integrated training system is the solution.
Cheap rent a jet financed by the UK tax payer, they could at least let the UK own the jets but no, they will save money and derisk (LOL) by letting Aerialis own the airplanes…. I am crying of laughter here