Modular a/c for the RAF?

[22A]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technolo ... ocid=ientp

The Royal Air Force has backed a British firm to develop a new aircraft that can be converted from basic trainer to aggressive fighter by swapping engines and wings.
Suffolk-based Aeralis was given £200,000 by the RAF to develop its 'modular' two-seater aircraft that will come in one of three variants depending on requirements.
The variants have the same fuselage, but by fitting different engines and wings it can be transformed - allowing the RAF to operate with fewer aircraft in its fleet.

[Fighterfoto]

A very modest investment by the RAF which shouldn’t be interpreted as it having a requirement for a Hawk replacement let alone a swept wing little jet or mini-U2.

[somerset]

Seems like an awful lot of hard work , just buy the scorpion

[Vulcanone]

So every once in a while someone comes along with an idea to get Britain an independant aircraft building idea.... You know, aside from the place in Lancashire

But why bother...buy something American again

[Fighterfoto]

Or build something we need.

And as for the tired argument about buying American, C-130, C-17 and Chinook are none too shabby.

[Nighthawke]

Here's an idea...how about give the poor bu..ers a chance before condemning them to the rubbish bin? "Why bother?" Well because they can. Just about every invention has been sneered at throughout history. Britain used to be the world leader in aviation development. People complain about us not being leaders now. Let's wait and see what happens.

[paddyboy]

Well said, Ian

[Vulcanone]

Indeed Fighterfoto they do do things right.

My comment was aimed at the lets buy Scorpion Comment.... someone polk me with an update to it, or has it already gone the same way most things do....

I am happy to support any UK ideas, so long as its something we actually require....

[RAF4EVER]

Taken from PPRuNe:
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org ... 697235.png


The two-seater aircraft will have at least three variants based around the same fuselage but fitted with different engine and wing configurations: a basic trainer, a speedier, more manoeuvrable fighter-style plane and a reconnaissance model with long wings and a more efficient engine.

Tristan Crawford, Aeralis chief executive, said the project could help the RAF rationalise its future fleets and reduce the number of different aircraft.

“We can put different wings on and different engines on so that it becomes a basic trainer for example, so it flies more slowly and it’s more easy to fly — like the flying equivalent of a family car,” he said. “Then you can put more swept wings on it and a more powerful engine so you can fly faster but it’s more demanding to fly . . . so then you're into your sort of Porsche.”

The fuselage stays the same for each design. Then different kinds of wings and engine units are bolted on to create the various options. The third option involves longer wings for surveillance missions, and Aeralis is also exploring a fourth option that will be unmanned and used as a fast-attack drone.

The aircraft will primarily be used for all kinds of training from basic to Top Gun-style combat exercises.......

Crawford, an aircraft design engineer, said that every component would come from British companies. “The last time Britain developed its own crewed military aircraft fully in Britain was 1974 with the Hawk. Everything else that has come afterwards has had to rely on some kind of overseas partnership to make it happen,” he said.

[C24]

So what’s new in the world? Re-invent the wheel and create a slot or two into which a retiring chap could move

There are/were 21 Mrs of Spitfire - piston Provost, jet versions; Strikemaster- the U2 came from the 105.

The concept is really just a variation of aircraft development.

Why not start with the current expertise and tooling of the Mk2 Hawk?

Total waste of effort in my opinion

I would be less irritated if I were to receive a slice of the pie . Or even some from the Mars effort even.

Hands, Face, Space

Yours, Lisa mona
(That’s another ten minutes of shielding used up )

[Alf]

So what’s new in the world? Re-invent the wheel and create a slot or two into which a retiring chap could move

There are/were 21 Mrs of Spitfire - piston Provost, jet versions; Strikemaster- the U2 came from the 105.

The concept is really just a variation of aircraft development.

Why not start with the current expertise and tooling of the Mk2 Hawk?

Total waste of effort in my opinion

I would be less irritated if I were to receive a slice of the pie . Or even some from the Mars effort even.

Hands, Face, Space

Yours, Lisa mona
(That’s another ten minutes of shielding used up )

I thought the U-2 came from the F-104?

[C24]

Yes, absolutely correct. That’s the one that I meant. The Starfighter or widow maker as the German’s sometimes used to call it.

At least someone reads my posts

[Kurnass]

It seems to me they had a good look at the design of the S211/M345.

[Seahornet1]

There's an awful lot of 'missing the point' going on here. The novel concept which is potentially being developed here (and in which the RAF are investing a quite small amount of money) is that of operational modularity. The actual design shown is just a vehicle on which the concept can be demonstrated.

In this context, 'Modularity' means that (let's say) airframe ZZ999 can be used to fly a primary training mission on Monday morning, fitted with wings type 'A' and engine type 'X'. By Wednesday lunchtime, the jet has been re-configured with wings type 'B' and engine type 'Z', ready to fly an advanced combat sortie. Then on Friday, ZZ999 is on surveillance duties over the Baltic, with 'C' wings and 'Y' type engine fitted.

It's a great concept, which could improve operational flexibility, cut costs, and increase airframe utilisation. However, the devil's in the details, and I imagine that the current exercise in which the RAF is investing is largely a paper exercise to study matters like rapid attachment technology for structures and systems, certification procedures, and fleet fatigue management issues.

A flying prototype within three years is a great ambition, but the odd £200,000 here and there isn't going to move them very far in that direction.

[C24]

Surely this idea has been in operation since aeroplanes were first built?

The reaction time building the correct combination of parts for a wartime situation is unacceptable. Anyway, not my problem but it does seem rather a waste.

They would be better employed using their knowledge to design mass transport such as double decker commuter trains. Also longer trains with a door system that only allowed doors adjacent to the short platforms to discharge passengers.

[Agent K]

There's an awful lot of 'missing the point' going on here. The novel concept which is potentially being developed here (and in which the RAF are investing a quite small amount of money) is that of operational modularity. The actual design shown is just a vehicle on which the concept can be demonstrated.

In this context, 'Modularity' means that (let's say) airframe ZZ999 can be used to fly a primary training mission on Monday morning, fitted with wings type 'A' and engine type 'X'. By Wednesday lunchtime, the jet has been re-configured with wings type 'B' and engine type 'Z', ready to fly an advanced combat sortie. Then on Friday, ZZ999 is on surveillance duties over the Baltic, with 'C' wings and 'Y' type engine fitted.

It's a great concept, which could improve operational flexibility, cut costs, and increase airframe utilisation. However, the devil's in the details, and I imagine that the current exercise in which the RAF is investing is largely a paper exercise to study matters like rapid attachment technology for structures and systems, certification procedures, and fleet fatigue management issues.

A flying prototype within three years is a great ambition, but the odd £200,000 here and there isn't going to move them very far in that direction.

Maybe I'm reading it differently/incorrectly, nut I'm not sure the proposal is to re-role/re-build aircraft once in service, so once ZZ999 is a Primary Trainer, or Fast Jet Trainer, or light attach aircraft it stays that way. The savings and efficiencies are in design/development/manufacturing where a single basic common/core type can be developed for numerous and disparate roles throughout the training/light attack/reconnaissance spectrum.


As always I'm happy to be corrected.

[Tooks]

There's an awful lot of 'missing the point' going on here. The novel concept which is potentially being developed here (and in which the RAF are investing a quite small amount of money) is that of operational modularity. The actual design shown is just a vehicle on which the concept can be demonstrated.

In this context, 'Modularity' means that (let's say) airframe ZZ999 can be used to fly a primary training mission on Monday morning, fitted with wings type 'A' and engine type 'X'. By Wednesday lunchtime, the jet has been re-configured with wings type 'B' and engine type 'Z', ready to fly an advanced combat sortie. Then on Friday, ZZ999 is on surveillance duties over the Baltic, with 'C' wings and 'Y' type engine fitted.

It's a great concept, which could improve operational flexibility, cut costs, and increase airframe utilisation. However, the devil's in the details, and I imagine that the current exercise in which the RAF is investing is largely a paper exercise to study matters like rapid attachment technology for structures and systems, certification procedures, and fleet fatigue management issues.

A flying prototype within three years is a great ambition, but the odd £200,000 here and there isn't going to move them very far in that direction.

Maybe I'm reading it differently/incorrectly, nut I'm not sure the proposal is to re-role/re-build aircraft once in service, so once ZZ999 is a Primary Trainer, or Fast Jet Trainer, or light attach aircraft it stays that way. The savings and efficiencies are in design/development/manufacturing where a single basic common/core type can be developed for numerous and disparate roles throughout the training/light attack/reconnaissance spectrum.


As always I'm happy to be corrected.

This is more like what my take on it is as well.

I can’t see how having to drag an aircraft back into a hangar, disassemble large parts of it, reassemble it into a different configuration with the resultant testing etc brings any economies.

Manufacturing cost is but a small part of most aircraft through life costs, the expensive bit is spares and ‘people time’ whether that’s the spanner turners or the Airworthiness regime around all military aircraft.

[Crusty]

Nah, if all you want is a large speed range and maneuverability handling changes this can all be achieved via software applied to a single-fixed design airframe that has a large speed range and engine/s powerful enough to cover the high performance regime and be de-rated

[Seahornet1]

{Original post deleted for conciseness...}

Maybe I'm reading it differently/incorrectly, nut I'm not sure the proposal is to re-role/re-build aircraft once in service, so once ZZ999 is a Primary Trainer, or Fast Jet Trainer, or light attach aircraft it stays that way. The savings and efficiencies are in design/development/manufacturing where a single basic common/core type can be developed for numerous and disparate roles throughout the training/light attack/reconnaissance spectrum.


As always I'm happy to be corrected.

This is more like what my take on it is as well.

I can’t see how having to drag an aircraft back into a hangar, disassemble large parts of it, reassemble it into a different configuration with the resultant testing etc brings any economies.

Manufacturing cost is but a small part of most aircraft through life costs, the expensive bit is spares and ‘people time’ whether that’s the spanner turners or the Airworthiness regime around all military aircraft.

Maybe you guys have missed this bit...?

...the modular design means it can be adapted as circumstances change. Aeralis expects the change between versions to happen within a normal 24 to 48-hour maintenance cycle...

The concept is clearly that maintenance crews will be able to reconfigure the aircraft to meet operational needs. Agreed, my 'ZZ999' example was a gross exaggeration, and wouldn't make any economic sense, but the idea that individual airframes can easily be reconfigured and re-roled to meet changing operational needs is at the core of this proposal. I'm sure that many of the fleet would be expected to retain a single configuration throughout their service life, but being able to adjust the balance of the fleet (to meet long term, or even short term operational needs) without buying more airframes could have economic benefits.

As to whether the concept makes any economic sense in real life, I'm certainly not convinced either. And the answer to that question is almost certainly one of the key things that the RAF are expecting to get in return for their small investment.

[Agent K]

Nah, if all you want is a large speed range and maneuverability handling changes this can all be achieved via software applied to a single-fixed design airframe that has a large speed range and engine/s powerful enough to cover the high performance regime and be de-rated

Not sure I agree with that, I know from my wind tunnel days that you cannot optimise performance over a disparate speed and performance range, software can't generate lift! I suspect, if that was the case, then Aeralis, and indeed the worlds manufacturers would have thought about it already!