HMS Prince of Wales has launched jet powered drones from her flight deck as the Royal Navy begins exploring the use of crewless technology on the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers.

It is understood that the demonstration with HMS Prince of Wales looked at how the drone and associated support equipment, including launcher, can be integrated within a busy ship and flight deck.

Image Crown Copyright 2021.

The Banshee launched from the ship and recovered to land via parachute.

According to a news release here:

“Fixed-wing drones – called the QinetiQ Banshee Jet 80+ – flew from the carrier’s vast flight deck to assess how they might be used to train personnel in defending against ever-more-capable fast jets and missiles. The jet-powered Banshee, which looks like a mini fighter aircraft, can soar to 25,000ft, skim just above the waves, and flies at speeds up to 400 knots (around 460mph). It is hard to detect on radar, giving it all the likeness of an incoming missile – making it a realistic adversary for sailors to train in countering aerial threats.

These drones could eventually be carried by Royal Navy warships and provide operational training to task groups wherever they might be in the world, allowing them to conduct air defence exercises on demand to test reactions and hone responses. And the Banshee’s carrying capacity means the Royal Navy can use it for testing future sensors, weaponry and radio equipment.”

Image Crown Copyright 2021.

The Royal Navy say that the Banshee flights represent the first step for the Royal Navy in exploring how crewless tech could be operated from the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers in the future.

Image Crown Copyright 2021.

“There is a real need for a low-cost drone such as the Banshee that can replicate a range of the threats in the skies and provide a test bed for future payloads,” said Commander Rob Taylor, lead for Royal Navy Air Test and Evaluation.

“The key to this is that a warship can carry this drone with it on operations, launch it and use it to keep personnel razor-sharp in countering threats from above. The ability to adapt the payload for differing tasks is also crucial to provide value for money and interoperability across the fleet.”

You can read more from the Royal Navy here.

Another close up of the drone shows Fleet Air Arm markings.

The Banshee Jet-80 drone was developed by Qinetiq, on their website they say:

“Developed from the successful Banshee target, this twin-jet engine powered version was developed using knowledge and experience gained whilst operating the single jet engine variant which entered service in 2010.

The current version is fitted with twin 40kg thrust gas turbine engines giving a total of 80kg of static thrust. This offers an increase in the maximum straight and level airspeed of up to 180metres/second. The use of an auxiliary fuel tank ensures that endurance is similar to that of the single engine version with a typical mixed throttle mission time in excess of 45 minutes.

The Banshee Jet 80 Twin-Jet Engine Aerial Targets by QinetiQ
Banshee Jet-80 is rail launched.

When fitted with the patented Hot Nose the target provides a forward and side-looking IR source with output in Bands I, II and III, whilst the jet engines provide a realistic rearward looking IR signature. All other well proven augmentation devices traditionally available to Banshee can be fitted to this latest twin jet engine derivative.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

86 COMMENTS

  1. The aircraft is ship launched but recovers to land by parachute according to the blurb. This must limit the distance the launch vessel can be from the coast? With an endurance of c.45 minutes the RN will be parking the QE’s pretty close to the ranges where I presume the banshee will plop to earth.

      • We used to recover them from the water after they landed there by parachute when it was the Mirachs. I’m wondering if they revived 792 or if it’s operated under a different designation these days.

    • these are target drones, to be used as a missile attack, not to carry any great payload, an issue Quinetiq have always had as soon as the size and weight goes up, catapult force rips wings off, Carbon fibre and composite doesn’t flex and stretches like alloys, USN have that issue with EMALS trying to rip confirmative tanks from Hornets,

  3. Catapult next to the ski jump seems like the right spot for it!

    Kratos Valkyrie MTOW is 2,722KG with huge strike range. MQ-25 Sting Ray holding 15,000LBs of fuel is obviously a lot bigger. Curious if Mosquito and Vixen be similar to these two.

      • The aft bridge’s flyco windows look like they give a perfectly clear view of that area.

        Regardless, you can carry 8x Spear 3 and 2x Meteor internally in an F35. If Vixen/Mosquito could have the same internal payload with double the combat radius and 1/5th the cost I don’t see how the MOD is not “all in”.

  4. Hi folks hope all is well.
    Good to see the use of technology, and of course will give an extra asset and reduce the risk of personnel if events get hot. Obviously this is just the start, and as ever this project will evolve.
    Funny it may be me, when I first saw the picture, it reminded me of the V2s used by the Germans from the launch pad.
    Cheers,
    George

    • Not wrong there, Nigel they have just unveiled that twin jet engine Drone that about the size of bus god knows what it’s Radar cross section is but from the front shoot of the fuselage looks like Kelly Johnson SR 71

      • And their new engine for the J20A it appears. And with plans to build up to 500 of them, It should be a very interesting decade ahead! They are currently in the process of constructing a forth facility to build them.

        “J-20A twin-engined, fifth-generation, multirole fighter aircraft powered by indigenously developed engines.”

        https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air-platforms/latest/airshow-china-2021-chinese-air-force-displays-j-20a-powered-by-domestic-engines

        • Really Indigenous developed Engines
          NiGel shouldn’t you have placed an Rather large Question mark after that statement, If they have then that’s a first since the creation of Black Powder which they did invent alas their R+D group was its first casualties

          • Not really Tommo, as it was a quote from Janes!

            That said, clearly, they’re making progress in introducing locally produced engines that can supercruise.

            No doubt why the west is looking at the next generation of engines to stay ahead.

          • Thanks Nigel for that quick response It just seemed odd, although Jane’s is the go to publication for Al that’s new in the military world of defence ,I just wondered whether the hand of industrial and technological espionage had first put them on the road too developing a 100 per cent Indigenous built engine ,or they just got very lucky with their R+D I prefer the first option myself but then again The chap in my local takeaway doesn’t know either or does he .?

          • You can bet your bottom dollar they have been trying to steal as much tech as possible and will continue to do so!

            More on the subject can be found here.

            “The Pentagon is already seeing the consequences of such data theft as China presses on with the development of advanced weapons systems that seem to directly draw on American technology. Examples of advanced Chinese weapons that incorporate American know-how include the Chengdu J-20 and Shenyang J-31 stealth fighters and electromagnetic catapult launch systems”

            https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/how-china-stole-top-secret-information-f-22-and-f-35-94201

          • It’s a shame that China doesn’t recognise intellectual copyright theft if they did then There’d be broke Nigel

          • If they did, there would be a lot of chicoms with holes in the back of their heads.

            No bad thing imho.

          • China has a very long way to go to match Western jet engine technology and capability. Somthing the Russians still lag well behind. They have nothing to match the quality of the EJ200 or F135. Which makes me wonder about most of the other technical advances China claims.

          • Let’s just pray the Blades melt on a continuing bases and if your correct in your assumptions Robert then hopefully their keep replacing those Blades Like for Like lol

          • I forgot to mention this, not that he has much of a clue about the planes actual capabilities compared to some on UKDJ!

            PUBLISHEDMAY 3, 2019

            General Charles Brown, the head of Pacific Air Forces, said the stealthy J-20 fighter could “possibly” be operational this year, a move he said would signal “greater threat, greater capability” for China in the Pacific.

            He went on to emphasize that U.S. efforts to counter those developments include rising deployments of next-generation F-35 jets and continuing overflights of strategic areas such as the South China Sea.

        • I would put a very large question mark against the 5th gen claim. An F15C probably wouldn’t have much trouble against one of these.

  9. Does this really prove anything useful? The RN launched Hurricanes from much smaller CAM ships in WW2 and they had to ditch in the sea unless near to land.
    The launch and recovery of aircraft size drones will be a much more complex and expensive task.
    Since the operation of such drones will depend on software control, just as the F35 does, would it not make sense to design a STOVL drone to operate in the same way as F35? Wouldn’t vertical landing be both a simpler and safer option than trying to operate cats and traps alongside a ski ramp?

      • Hi Paul, these drones don’t have any undercarriage to land back on deck maybe future models will have. I wonder if the Taranis might be given a go off the carriers?

        • Questin, a couple of us proposed that the UAVs could have inbuilt Automatic airbag flotation Device meaning that less damage too the UAVs if the only way they can be recovered is by controlled water landing as they have no undercarriage .Traps would have to be Nets , and mats As they neither have hooks or undercarriage

    • I suppose it depends on the requirements of the drone. If the drone is to be used as a cheap throwaway target, then recovering it really doesn’t matter. If the ship has a plastic and metal 3D printer, it could produce them on board. However, if it’s something like the Banshee, then it would be better to recover them, as they’re not cheap. In the past drones operating off ships have been captured in nets. But that runs the risk of them being damaged during capture and also limits the overall size of the drone.

      Apart from that, you could look at using an arrester hook/wire arrangement, but that will be complicated. As not only will the drone need a forward facing camera, but also the radio landing aids to make sure it aligns to the deck and therefore touch down in the sweet spot to catch the wire. It has to smart enough so its able to cope with the deck pitching and heaving. But its no undoable, as the MQ-25 Stingray and other drones have shown that they can land on a carrier deck, it will be expensive though.

      I’m trying to remember who it was that quoted: “it was safer to stop and land rather than land and try to stop!” Back in the early 90’s, I was at Manadon engineering college at Plymouth. There I met a RN Engineering Officer who had just finished building a 1/16 scale model of a Pegasus. It was having its first test run and by god was it loud. But it worked and could have been used to power a scale model of a Harrier. So, in theory its possible to build a smaller drone version of a Harrier, to do VSTOL operations. But they will be speed limited as per the Harrier, as the four poster design is not efficient for exhaust flow or including an afterburner. Though RR did a prototype 3 poster son of Pegasus, that was going to use an afterburner, so perhaps its not totally wishful thinking.

      • Very informative thanks. The problems of operating aircraft size drones from a carrier designed for STOVL seem enormous to me.
        The F35 b virtually lands itself so a STOVL drone might seem a real possibility. I take the point about the engine power needed.
        The USN is concentrating on tanker drones, understandable given the distances involved in Pacific deployments. The priority for the RN is to augment the F35 numbers. I expect it will prove cheaper to buy some more F35s than to develop the drone and install EMALS and cats and traps on the QEs.
        Cheers

        • Look up Lockheeds “VARIOUS” UCAV concept. It seemed a bit space age at the time, but in fact its based on existing systems including the lift concept used in the F35B. This really is the type of thing we coukd use on the QE class without worrying about cats and traps.

    • Hi, with a catapult launch if they could design it around a new mini Pegasus engine to allow it to hover for recovery, They could resurrect sky-crane ( which was tested on the original harrier ) for the recovery part.

      It would allow any warship that can operate the catapult and crane a small fast-ish jet to operate.

    • Or maybe, maybe it would be a lot easier if the Carrier would have been designed for cats and straps after all no ?

      Just saying…

  10. Surely we could experiment a little with a predator drone. It has a stall speed of 54 knots so if POW is going 30 knts into a 20 mph head wind it could basically come to a hover and drop on to the deck with a rolling stop. Yes I know the wind doesn’t always blow but surely with such a slow stall speed it won’t take alot to stop it even if it’s just a simple trap. A proven technology that could be cheaply modified and tested. Also the landing gear may need a little strengthening. I’m only saying this as we have little coffers to play with and using and old airframe to good use.

  11. “According to the Italian Navy statement released recently to EDR On-Line, the Italian frigate conducted live firings with the Davide configured Super Rapido gun against a Banshee Jet 80 subsonic aerial target at low altitude. The gun/guided ammunition suite is optimized to counter fast and maneuvering threats with aiming kinematics at the defended naval platform. The need to use a drone flight trajectory parallel or diverting from the defended platform, imposed by the range safety regulations as occurred in that live firing represents a more demanding and stressing scenario for the guided munitions and the guidance system. The firing action was successful according to the Italian Navy: the rounds, guided by the radio-frequency beam constantly aimed at the present position of the threat, exploded nearby the target, disabling it. The pre-fragmented splinters of the warhead of each projectile have, in fact, caused extensive structural damages, such as to cause the functional destruction of the radio-controlled drone.”

    From the site of EDR magazine.

    • This is quite a big thing for guided kinetic rounds, fired from a relatively slow moving ship or static gun system. As the article says the 76mm DART was fired at the Banshee drone target, that was passing the ship in parallel, not towards it (due to range safety)! This is important as the round is playing chase, especially as it uses radar beam riding to track the target, rather that flying towards a predicted interception point along the target’s likely path. This means if the target starts manoeuvring the DART is always chasing it, rather than correcting the predicted interception point. It does mean however, that it uses up more energy matching the target’s movements, which if it turns and tries to run away, may mean the DART round fails to intercept as its run out of energy.

      The DART round is essentially a sabot, which has a muzzle velocity of 1200m/s, so can reach 5000m in around 5 seconds (depending on atmospherics) and according to Leonardo can perform 40 manoeuvres in this time. The problem I have with the system is that it totally relies on command line of sight (CLOS) guidance. Which means the radar on the front of the gun shield must follow the target until its destroyed/hit. Therefore, the gun can only engage one target at a time or a number of targets within the radar’s narrow field of view. Admittedly these are baby steps and in time I’m sure this will be expanded upon. The first thing they should consider, if the want to keep the system self contained, is to put the radar on the roof. This will then give the radar freedom to scan independent of the gun’s direction. Secondly, replace the Ka band monopulse doppler radar with an AESA version. This means the incredibly fast sweep rate of the AESA can do multiple tracks while still scanning for targets.

      The other option, is what BAe have done with their Ordinance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft (ORKA). This is a 57mm round that is not a sabot, but a full size round. Instead of using CLOS guidance, the ORKA has an imagining infrared (IIR) sensor in the nose, but can also home in on a designated laser reflection. The target data is downloaded to the round before its fired, so it can then recognized the target as it approaches. Like the DART the ORKA is fully manoeuvrable and will follow the target. BAe have not said, if the round is a tail chaser or flies towards a predicted intercept point. However, this means the ORKA can engage many more targets than a 76 gun using the DART round. It also means the ORKA is a “fire and forget” round.

      • That is not how it works Daveyb.

        The search is made by the ship main radar and processed.
        Then the main radar hands the data to RTN 25X directors (there are 2 for the 2 guns.)
        The radar/command guidance in the turret is the device that communicates with the guided rounds so obviously has to be CLOS.

        It do not do any search and it is not supposed to do.

          • Hi Alex, cheers. However, that is only part of the story. The system uses two independent radars, one to illuminate the target and another to measure the delta between the target and the DART round, which forms part of the Strales kit.

            As quoted by Leonardo: “Leonardo has included the STRALES™ Kit that uses a guidance radar housed in front of the turret under an overhead flip cover to guide and actually fly Fin Stabilized Discarding Sabot (FSDS) DART rounds toward airborne, missile, or surface target interception.” This radar is a Ka band guidance radar antenna used to generate the ammunition guidance beam installed on the gun mount.

            However, they have also stated that: “to allow customers to use the latest baseline Super Rapido MF gun with the DART ammunition and without the need to install the Strales guidance kit on the mount, the Italian group offers the latest generation dual band (X/Ka) radar/EO NA-30S Mk2 FCS capable to guide the DART ammunition.

            Looking at the Italian Navy’s Marceglia Bergamini, it has the two target tracking radars on the bridge roof and hangar. These are the Selex (Leonardo) ORION RTN-25X, which are continuous wave radar operating somewhere in the X/Ku band, that transmits a fairly wide beam. Which means it can illuminate a lot of targets within its field of view. But, the rear 76 also has the Strales kit fitted. This is where it gets complicated. The tracking radar fitted to the turret produces a relatively narrow multi-beam spread that also illuminates the target. So why have two radars doing the same job?

            Technically, you only really need one radar to track the target, as you already know the fixed distance between the gun mount and the radar (lever arm calculation), so the angular error can be compensated for mathematically. The problem is the DART round! It does not use semi-active radar homing, but command line of sight (CLOS), which means it needs a “data-link” to tell it fly left, up etc. Once it get close enough to the target, a RF proximity fuse will detonate the warhead or a contact fuse will do the same if it hits. The Strales radar is effectively the data-link. A set of receivers in the tail of the round measures the received signal strength and then commands the flying controls to steer the round towards the strongest point of the signal. However, this means the target must also be illuminated by the Strales radar, thus limiting the number of targets it can engage simultaneously.

            To my mind this is an arse about face way of controlling the round. BAe with their ORKA have shown another solution, which is fire and forget, but may have some range degradation in really crap weather. The more favoured option for all weather use, would be to incorporate a semi-active radar receiver or RF inferometer, in the nose. Thereby using the reflections off the continuous wave radar to home in on. Today, these electronics are a lot more robust, so should be able to cope with the very high G acceleration.

          • With guns the behaviour has been to stop after confirmed kill.
            The NA25X probably is free to start to track another target after handed over to the Strales mount.
            Command guidance is not different to Semi-Active in that matter.

            Edit: in theory you probably could put several CLOS antenna system on the ship independent of the gun mount.

            The Orka do not appear to be considered an anti missile round, the nick name is Ordnance for Rapid Kill of Attack Craft.

            “ORKA is a “One Shot One Kill” round fitted with an imaging semi-active seeker: It can be guided through laser designation or it can hit its target autonomously by downloading image of the target prior to firing. ”

            From Navyrecognition website.

            Like you said not all weather.

      • Thanks Davey,for your indepth, and informative post which Alex had posted, As with all AA shoots on any range safety is paramount especially when New munition comes into play, as with which the Davido rapido Gun was using ,76mm Dart rds .Could I suggest correct me if I’m wrong That this Shoot against the Banshee would not have been a run of the mill AA SHOOT but more of Telemetry data gathering pen and time base recorxing SHOOT, As you also stated that a target running parallel to the ship is not something that would normal happen .Gun Radar and the Mk 1,eyeball always look for the shot of in front and above the target so the target enters the field of shrapnel ,the Banshee presented a full profile for the gun and radar not exactly real world manoeuvring for an attacking Aircraft/ Drone .But if this exercise had proofed successful .Next step too counter these munitions I ,J ,K band chaff dispensers on Drones As I wouldn’t think these munitions come cheap . Thanks Davey

        • On missile/CIWS shoots against say a low level height keeper rushton towed target the flight profile is calculated to provide the weapon systems threat evaluation software a valid threatening target profile. Usually the target is seen as heading towards the ship but is flown to pass not far ahead or astern.
          The system will still engage it because its in the threat envelope.

          Such shoots have gone wrong though.
          A T42 did a Phalanx shoot and hit the tow wire diverting the towed targets flight path. It hit the ship around the intakes for the GTs. Nobody was injured but there was a lot of smoke from the flares on the target which made the incident appear worse than it actually was.

          With a drone a similar risk will always be present. If you damage control surfaces the thing can go anywhere!

          • Thanks Cunbuster For ,that ,what I meant was really not about concerning the Bandhee but on the Muntions involved where as our mk 8 4.5 AAP , or SUP are fused high or low by Gun controller in the ops rm to the Gun and Round .These muntions that the Italian Navy used against the Banshee although of a different Calibre are a different kettle of Fish too ours ,and as I suggested in my Last post that the Shoot had been more of one that Involved the collection of Telemetry data for how the Rds acted once they had left the Muzzle Gunbuster

  12. Strap bombs on and make these swarm suicide drones to hit ships ect before F35s. How many could we Lauch from a carrier quickly?

    • I was almost thinking the same thing, but using the small cruise missile already dangling off the bottom of one (the supersonic target). It’s a good looking little aircraft and if only it could be recovered properly rather than crashing into the sea. A sort of mini Vulcan!
      Also agree with Mark, in that it should surely be possible to use some of these large drones on the carriers. Not perhaps for actual peer strike missions. But surveillance and so on, or even engaging smaller/land targets…carrying Martlet or Sea Venom missiles assuming they could be integrated on them.
      The one thing that bugs me about them is…are they just big targets (with no defensive capability ) if used against any serious warship?
      AA

  14. If I’m correct the original Banshee was designed/manufactured by Meggitt in the 1980s. Can anyone advise when Qinetiq took over the development and production?

  15. I’m not sure of the significance of the publicity. Hopefully it is not the extent of the unmanned vehicle tests conducted by the carrier.

  16. That seems like quite a ‘chunky’ launch ramp!!! Where was that stored on POW? Taking up space in empty hangar? A lot has been.made in the press about those being a lot more than it is…..and bearing in mind the fact it has to be recovered ashore by parachute, you have to ask why this was done at all?

    • Apart from using the drones as a training target when the ship is deployed and a long way from land. One possibility is to see how they might interact with a F35. The other is in developing the Navy’s Project Vampire, i.e. lightweight, fixed wing carrier borne crewless autonomous systems used for reconnaissance, surveillance and attack. The Banshee can be fitted with a high resolution camera and provides operator feedback through a data-link. include a warhead and you effectively have created a Harop like loitering munition.

  17. Perhaps what is telling, was the location of the catapult system. It was strapped down to the deck where the waist cat would have been on the CATOBAR model. Is this the likely place that the possible lightweight EMALS will be fitted?

  18. Hmmmmmm wonder what the range is? put a couple of pylons under the wings carrying 2 spear 3’s and a 150kg lump of explosive in it with a spear 3 seeker and hey presto a hunter killer suicide drone. The spear 3s take out the air defenses and then the banshee takes out the ship all controlled buy an F35b lurking at a safe distance away. Can see how the POW/QE will have a real bite to them in the coming years. We won’t need lots of F35b if one can control a swarm of drones like this.

  19. Not sure how these drones can provide the same level of training to our ships as hawks flown by human beings. Getting rid of them as aggressoe squadrons was stupid and ultimately saved the government the square root of f**k all in cash

  20. I’d have thought Valkyrie drones would be ideal for the QE and PoW carriers.

    Very long ranged (ideal if a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal), stealthy, relatively cheap ($2 to $3 million a pop depending on how many are bought), don’t require cats & traps, easy to upgrade, easy & quick to replace if shot down and can be bought in large numbers far cheaper than F-35Bs. Also far longer ranged than F-35Bs.

    The only problem as far as I can tell is that the Valkyrie can’t currently carry much ordnance (just 2 SDBs AIUI), but that could easily be fixed by fitting smaller, lighter weapons. I mean how much explosive do you need to take out a radar that’s part of a ground-based SAM system? Take out the radar and the SAM system is useless. Or else fit Valkyries with CHAMP-style microwave weapons to burn out the electronics in radars, missiles and command vehicles. A Valkyrie could potentially render several SAM sites ineffective if using microwave weapons. Probably ships too.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here