The Royal Navy say their British ships led the way in “game-changing” NATO autonomous exercises off the coast of Portugal.

Frigate HMS Lancaster and minehunter HMS Hurworth tested the use of uncrewed tech – from drones to underwater survey vessels, which could be used by NATO on the front line of operations in the future.

“For the month-long trials, more than 11 warships, 120 autonomous vehicles and 1,500 military and civilian personnel from 15 NATO countries took over the waters near the Troia Peninsula, Portugal. This is the first time the Royal Navy has sent ships to the exercise, with previous participation involving crewless boats and drones. It’s enhanced presence in the exercise, hosted by the Portuguese Navy, comes as this year marks the 650th anniversary of the Treaty of Tagilde between England and Portugal – the oldest alliance in the world.

HMS Lancaster played a key role by serving as the command hub for the multitude of autonomous systems, feeding information to the other ships in the task force to allow them to make crucial decisions during the numerous scenarios. This allowed the task group to see and utilise the range of drones, underwater vehicles and vessels.”

Jim Beaton, the Royal Navy and UK lead for the exercise, said:

“REPMUS 22 has been a game-changer, first through the trial of an autonomous asset ready combat system in HMS Lancaster, from where we were able to distribute an autonomous system operating picture to a NATO task group. This is a huge advancement, and we have taken that forward to support two NATO Standing Naval Forces. Dynamic Messenger saw us take autonomy to sea in a NATO context. Additionally, we have been able to bring some of the navy’s newest operators to the exercise, getting their feedback on the system and starting to push that experience back into the fleet.”

What was tested?

First up was REPMUS – a testing ground designed to allow large-scale experiments for NATO navies and their industry partners. During this period the ships and crewless technology were put to the test through a range of scenarios above, on and below the water.

“Exercise Dynamic Messenger followed, where the tried and tested uncrewed systems were integrated into operations both at sea and ashore. This was the first exercise under NATO command to use autonomous underwater systems, testing readiness across a variety of challenges including submarine threats and sea mines.

HMS Lancaster carried out trials with Puma, an Uncrewed Air Vehicle primarily used for surveillance. The battery-powered, hand-launched UAV is designed to cope with challenging environments across the globe, and is predominantly used for intelligence gathering.”

Tom Dunlop
Tom Dunlop
Tom has spent the last 13 years working in the defence industry, specifically military and commercial shipbuilding. His work has taken him around Europe and the Far East, he is currently based in Scotland.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

110 COMMENTS

    • Hey it’s alive, Ajax is alive (with apologies to Brian Blessed). Looks like it might need a mud shield for the driver mind, or is he just wiping the sweat off his stressed forehead.

      • So can someone explain to me: did Ares suffer the same vibration issues as Ajax or are we only just getting around to testing Ares for the problem?

        • Ares was “delivered” before Ajax. It’s a less complicated vehicle. Without the turret it is also much lighter. So in theory, it be less noisy and troublesome. The majority of the reports refer to Ajax, not the rest of the family. But I wouldn’t be surprised to see the rest of them suffering as well.

          • I’m thinking that this public testing of Ares is an encouraging sign; that Ajax is getting there and they are making doubly sure that Ares is not suffering the same problem.

      • I think the poster who shared it on Twitter was also referencing earlier footage when it sounded a whole lot worse.

        • Soucy have said their tracks are good up to 45t. They were first trialled on M113s. Which is not that much heavier than CVR(T). The first proper operational test was with the Norwegian CV90s in Afghan. The reports were that it drastically reduced crew fatigue, you could have a conversation in the back without shouting or needing headsets. It gave a much smoother ride and also helped with fuel consumption.

          One CV90 did have its band track destroyed by a controlled IED. This was repaired by the crew, who had the option of a splice repair or replacing the whole track, as they carried a spare. They replaced the whole track. It would have been interesting to see how this was done, as I take it, they were not under fire when doing so.

    • Damn that thing is noisy, i have nothing to compare it to though, perhaps all military vehicles are that noisy. Thanks for sharing, i hope the project will eventually yield good results.

      • Perfect for a recon vehicle😂😂😂 it is seriously loud in the video. It may well be the frequency of those noises that are causing the issues with crew.
        I will wait for a professional opinion as videos can be difficult to gauge sound.

          • I used to drive a CVRT and I’d say the noise levels seem to be pretty much the same, maybe a pitch higher though. Have to say I’d love one of those on my driveway, that would scare those f××kwit drivers round here shitless.

          • World’s strongest bloke Eddie Hall has bought one (Scorpion if memory serves). He has a YouTube channel showing how much it cost to fill up with petrol (still has Jag engine).

          • Yes, they sound much better especially when sat next to a 432. Our Regt only had 1 (Samaritan) and burnt off anything else the Regiment had. There were only a couple of guys trained to drive a CVRT so often we’d get ducked to drive the M.O. around on exercise. Because it was a manual gearbox when you were changing down the box you would have to slow right down when changing from 4th to 3rd and be doing less than 8000 revs or you were in danger of blowing the gearbox. Also if going too fast the vehicle slows violently and the nose pitches down sharply making it very uncomfortable for the commander or anyone in the back. As I remember the petrol tank held 300ltrs so pretty expensive to fill up.

        • Monkey spanker, stand next to any AFV when they start up their engines without ear plugs and you’ll be numb in the ears for the next half hour. When they start their engines the ground moves. First time I heard those things start I was with a German Gepard unit, the complete MT area started their engines all at once, headache and rally marks was the order of the day.

      • See Mike, there is the crux of the matter! Many many posters on here and politicians in fact have absolutely no idea on how noisy a tracked vehicle is and accept Youtube as evidence. Stand next to a CR2 at full chat, then tell me about noise and vibe.
        Cheers

      • I once was recieving a brief in an armoured unit. The officer briefing us started talking, then a CRARRV started up about 15m behind him, and the world just turned to noise. Couldn’t hear a word he said until the CRARRV moved off.
        All armoured vehicles are loud, CVRT was loud, 432 is loud, Warrior is loud, Ajax is loud, it’s just a fact of life.

        • Why are all armoured military vehicles loud? It isn’t just a fact of life. There’s physics and engineering involved. There’s almost certainly money involved. I’d be willing to bet that some engineers from Bently or Rolls Royce could easily advise on lessening the noise — at a price. Is it a design criterion the army, like the owners of luxury cars, are willing to pay for (out of those 1200 Ajax requirement specifications)?

          Somebody on this site told me that ships are getting quieter, even if they are not specified with floated rafting and the like, as engines become more efficient and design improves. Makes me wonder if we should be asking whether a multi-million pound vehicle should be quite that rough.

          • By the way, it’s nothing to do with weight. I can see a new-looking 12 ton double-decker bus passing twenty yards from my window, half as heavy again as CVRT, and I can barely hear it.

          • Steel tracks are one of the noisier elements of a moving tracked vehicle. Even with rubber pad inserts, which are really there to protect roads. The flexing, constantly moving hinges and resonance of a steel track not only causes noise, but also vibration.

            This is a bit like on a train where you hear and feel the train traveling over the welds in the track. As each wheel passes over the hinge joint it causes a jolt which is transferred through the suspension to the hull. Which is then felt by the crew.

            This can be reduced significantly by using rubber band tracks. The treads in the track still cause some noise and vibration. But this is seriously reduced compared to steel articulated tracks. Look up Soucy band tracks. These have been used on Norwegian CV90s on Operations in Afghan. They proved to be far better than expected. They are being used on the new and updated Dutch CV90s.

            As far as engine noise is concerned. Yes, you can also reduce the exhaust noise by using more baffling and silencers. But that comes at a cost to the engine’s output power. As you’re putting in restrictions that increases the back pressure. However, you can include a turbine based KERS that not only generates electrical power from the exhaust flow but also reduces the generated exhaust noise.

          • It does have something to do with weight, but not in the way you’re thinking. DaveyB already covered a lot of what I have to say, but to add on to his points:

            Buses are designed for comfort on tarmaced roads. Noise reduction is a very high priority, not only for the sake of the riders but for the people who live around the, by default, densely populated routes. Armoured vehicles are designed for a balance of mobility, protection, and firepower. No double decker bus is going to be doing 50mph through knee deep mud, or be required to pull another 12ton vehicle along behind it off road either.

            When the balance becomes “Well we could add a few more mph/miles of range/rounds of ammo/inches of armour, or we could try and silence the engine” on a vehicle that will clatter like hell when you drive it, and if it ever engages a target will shatter windows, or try to muffle the engine noise, the choice always will go to the former. The crew will have to wear ear defence anyway, and use internal comms to communicate, so… this goes in terms of performance, weight and cost, as you kind of alluded to.

            Challenger 3 is going to be so expensive that the Army is only getting about 150 of them. Even if you could muffle it’s engine to any sort of appreciable degree, what would be the financial trade off? Not buying Trophy APS? (And ships aren’t a great comparison, because ASW work is almost entirely reliant on hearing, land warfare, especially armoured warfare generally isn’t.)

            Next, weight, as I said does come into it. All armoured vehicles (as opposed to merely protected vehicles) are loud, but some are much louder than others. A Challenger’s 1000 horsepower engine puts out a lot more noise than a CVRT, but it’s kind of a moot point because it’s becomes the difference between “Very Loud” and “Indescribably loud.” -You’ll want your ear defence on for either of them.

          • I’m sure 19th century admirals would have looked at ship’s accommodation for modern ratings and declared it a total waste (once they got over the whole women thing) and asked why wasn’t the money being spent on more guns. Yet for all we carp on this forum about FFBNW, I’ve never heard anyone propose sailors go back to time-sharing their hammocks to pay for Mk41 silos. If the Government ever stops cutting army numbers and retention becomes a bigger thing, it’s possible delivering tank and recon crews or infantry in the best shape to fight might get a priority bump.

          • Again ships are not a good comparison point. Land warfare and naval warfare are apples and oranges. I’m sure a lot of modern ship designers would love to be able to cut back to shared hammock spaces but then what would happen to retention? Same reason that the British Army is building modern Z type accomodation instead of 20 man shared huts.

            You can’t leave a ship, and you don’t switch a ship off. You can do both with an AFV. A ship also doesn’t really have a maximum size. Want to build a 100,000t ship? The only thing stopping you is the size of your drydock. Want to add 10t on to a vehicle? That always comes with costs. 10t added to a Challenger means a lot of questions around bridges, and a much bigger risk of bogging in. So if you’re going to do it, you need to make sure it’s going to be worth it. Which typically means a benefit on the iron triangle.

    • Hope the tests go well and we can get these into service. Just noticed on Janes that GDLS have won the contract for the Light Tank in the States. Looks like it will be a 40 ton beast with a 105mm/120mm gun. Possibly just possibly if GD can fix the Ajax issue then in return for the UK keeping faith we could get a few hundred at a reduced cost.

      Yes I know back to my old arguement for a heavy division, but a combination of heavy MBT, a light fast tank and IFVs with 40mm (I would prefer the 35mm Orlikon Skyranger,) armoured infantry, mobile artillery (M270/AS-90), AAC and a HQ would form a powerful independent fighting unit of the British Army. Their main area of operations could be mainland Europe as a strategic reserve for NATO. The overall size would be larger than a standard Division but smaller than a Corp as the size would be 25,000 troops.

      If the UK could commit such a force and get the US to agree to two such large divisions it could create a NATO reserve Corp. This unit is not to hold the line but to punch a hole or exploit a hole. Such a unit would also give Russia something to think about.

      I also noticed that the Ukraine is meant to be getting the RCH155 in a couple of years time. I did not even know the RCH155 was in production.

        • DM, I agree that is seems to be beyond our asperations, but with a wounded unpredictable bear and a dragon that is starting to wake, It is time to invest and build for what might come around the corner. I am sorry to say but even if the Ukraine wins their conflict the bear will not forget that NATO helped with equipemnt, training and intel. The only real way to get peace in Europe is for Russia to join NATO until then we need a hard hitting force for Europe and a mobile flexible force for the rest of the world. One of the reasons that I really wish the RN could get some LHDs and MRSS vessels. The LHDs would be used for transport of the British Army battlegroups, one battle group per LHD and the MRSS for RMs. The ideal would be two LHDs per CVF

          So lets look at a standard British Army Armoured Battlegroup:
          HQ with LtCol
          14 MBTs
          28 Warriors
          90 APCs
          4 Scimitars
          Artillery and Mortar sections
          Low Level Air Defence section
          Long Range Anti Tank Section
          Engineer detachment.
          About 800 men.

          if we change these for Light Tanks and Ajax IFV we have four battlegroups over the beach capability to reinforce Norway or a Falkalnds type situation. With another four battlegroups based on Boxer we have light mobile forces for counter insergancy work. With the Boxers we would need to increase the range of modules that we are currently planning for. So these eight battlegroups would be changed on board the LHDs dependeing on the task at the time.

          So the way I see the issue is this either we have a lot of manpower or more enabler equipment. My definition of enabler equipment is for example transport aircraft, LHDs,MRSS, railway transport for Boxer modules, railway transport for resupply and the RFA etc. When thinking about railway transport some of the older type engines are much more effective than modern electric. A diesel or steam will get you everywhere in all types of weather an electric not really. Equipment in my opinion is costly upfront but gives flexibility.

          Every time I look at what we have in the armed forces, the amount of money we spend and the return we have for the money spent, I keep thinking we could do so much more with a little bit more. If only we would come up with an idea on what we want our armed forces to do and then stick to it. Just look at what I have done with the Army a heavy formation of 25,000 troops that could act as an independent formation or mixed with say two American formations to form a Corp, 8 battlegroups four of light tracked armour and four of medium mobility Boxer groups that can be transported by sea anywhere in the world, a further 6400 troops, a 5000 strong airborne assault brigade and the brigade of Gurkha’s. A total of 41,400 troops fully equipped ready for world wide deployment and have the enablers to be deployed at the word go. I forgot about the AAC as they would increase in size as they would need to support the LHD troops as the LHD battlegroups would be operating far from home an possibly alone for some time.

          That is how I would build the core of the British Army and the tasking I would give them, the rest of the Army I have not thought about but I could I think get away with 85,000 men plus 30,000 reserves. I do think however that I would base the rest of the Army on Boxer, Supacat,TheMIS and the Rangers. Yet again British politicians so I can only wish.

  2. Too slow, we should be all over this and stop endless trials already. The future is MQ-9BSTOL, Transwing, V-280 Valor and T-650. Shame BAE are so timid and won’t commit and actually build something, or better still acquire a UAV manufacturer.

    • I’ve said it before. They will be trialling yet more stuff years from now, with nothing having entered service or committed to actually build something.
      To “inform decisions” that are then kicked further down the road.

      • Yes I learned more in the year working after Uni in my chosen profession than the 3 years there. That’s no criticism it was great experience and preparation but fact is it cannot truly replicate vital factors discovered in real life experience so as in this case, you need to start at some point using something in that environment, learn from it and go to the next stage, it’s not wasted time and money, whereas preparing endlessly prior to that hoping for the ‘perfect solution’ and then committing to large orders very often is.

      • And yet they are committed to operational drones on HMS Lancaster in the Gulf by next year. I really hoped as it was taking part in REPMUS, we’d get the new rotary drones earlier, be they Camcopter or AW Hero. It was disappointing to read they were still working with Pumas.

        • Exactly. Puma….🙄 Can we get away from these hand thrown toy aeroplanes and get something…meatier?!

    • Hopefully T-650 is and will be brought into service at least in small numbers asap. Next year will be crucial here. It’s a fantastic and flexible platform that would gain a great deal from use in active service at least in a frontline testing regime to push its potential and learn how best to develop it further. Will that happen, who knows. But one thing is certain either it, or similar concept will be a game changer on the battlefield in ways that few would have envisaged just 6 months ago even if it might be 5 years before the next gen fully exploits those capabilities and potential. And there lies the problem, traditionally in the uk, unless we get that latter deemed perfection now we just tend to wait or endlessly test in unrepresentative conditions which means we end up buying off the shelf from others with more vision and commitment who learn on the job or we play time consuming expensive catchup. Usually means our own efforts are cancelled more often than not and expertise lost.

      • Agree, especially now that DJI has been put on the US sanctions list, we have a great opportunity to break into the drone sector and create some actors of scale in Europe.

      • I see BAe have teamed up with Malloy to market the T-650. With the breadth of skills and knowledge within BAe, it does make you wonder why they haven’t built anything comparable. It’s almost like they are adverse to building concepts and then trialing them in the real world!

        Didn’t they show images of the T-650 fitted with a Stingray. I wonder if they’ve done any drop tests yet. Would be a force multiplier when teamed up with a Merlin and T23.

        • Indeed though it’s the triple Brimstone fitting that really interests me. I wonder if a similar Martlet fit out might be useful at sea for some of the roles that the Wildcat would be expected to undertake ie getting eyes, assessing threat and being able to nullify it, especially in adding breath to that capability that a Frigate could seriously exploit maybe prove vital in some hostile environments. Exactly the sort of questions that need to be answered in realistic scenarios I guess.

          • I don’t see why not. Designating the target would probably be done from the ship or by the Wildcat. It definitely would add a force multiplication factor to proceedings. The obvious situation being in the Gulf, where the Wildcat is flying recce or checking out a ship, without Martlet fitted, then using the drone as a weapons carrier when needed.

            Another scenario is where the Wildcat needs to carry a boarding team. You can use the drone as an additional offensive/defensive layer for overwatch or close air support.

            The other option is if it can carry a pair of Stingray. It can carry Sea Venom. So that’s at least three weapons options to back up the Wildcat/Merlin.

        • I think AeroEnviroment would make a good fit with BAE Inc. but unfortunately BAE senior management seem to be more interested in counting dividends than looking to the future.

    • “The future is MQ-9BSTOL, Transwing, V-280 Valor and T-650.”

      All are for future = not fielded yet, nothing to shame UK not having any of them. Also, how can you say they really are the future?

      • MQ-9B STOL emerged this year. Promising, but still looking for customer.
      • Transwing, very new, isn’t it?
      • V-280 Valor? Why not Defiant? Who knows?
      • T-650 yet to come

      We know ScanEagle did the work to some extent, but it never became a world standard (Too high loss rate). Camcopter is famous and is “tested” in many agencies. But, if you carefully look at the actual contracts, it is ALWAYS only in very small numbers. So it is still being “promising something” to be test, but not “providing any answer” with production in number.

      And, these situation clearly shows how rapidly the technology is growing, and how existing assets are “not satisfactory”. Before talking about such future, Puma EUAVs, (normal) MQ-9Bs, and something like Coyote-UAS must be tried and put into service, even with limited number. With something simpler and cheaper (not needing large man-power), operational know-how is something UK needs. Dreamy expensive beast is NOT needed. Be practical and accept UAVs task is relatively limited, but, at some tasks, they are really much-much better on than manned assets.

      • You have hit the nail on the head. Expensive is not needed. If there was ever an example needed I present watchkeeper. Over priced and out of date rapidly.
        In my view the developments need to be in power management, and plug in systems/payloads.
        That way the actual flying bit can be modified, replaced rapidly as better drones emerge.
        So all the drones have the same connectors, management systems, pylons etc. that way industry can easily make attachments that can be taken on and off as required.

      • I think the glacial pass of testing and testing and testing is a thing of the past. If you look at the Isreali defence contractors, they develop at pace because this is an ingrained mindset. We are stuck in a Cold War mindset. The Valor beats the Defiant on every relevant metric, but it’s “new” so the old guard are against it. As Steve Jobs said, if you listen to customers what they want is a better Nokia (bad paraphrase). Just as the Valor is the obvious choice the same applies to the MQ-9B STOL, the MQ-9B is a proven design with years of service, we don’t need another 5 years of testing, we need the MOD to grow a pair and order them, get ahead of the curve for a change.

          • It’s smaller and less complicated than Osprey, that’s for sure. When do you take the plunge and try something new? Third generation? Fourth?

            If the US Army select it, I’d say there’s a very good case for trialling a marinized version of Valor, with the possiblity of assembling 50 of them in the UK for both the Navy and the Army. I think other countries such as Italy and Japan would also be interested, especially Italy if they are being assembled under licence by Leonardo in Yeoville. It’s optionally manned, so it can do the 24/7 AEW and tanking roles for the Navy. We’ll have to wait and see what Vixen is, but marinized Mojave won’t be able to do either. Not enough power for one, not enough payload for the other.

          • Italian AF general already said he do not want the Valor complications and prefer the Sikorski proposal.

            “If I need to spend a lot on maintenance of the hinges on a tiltrotor, I have a problem with lower availability. Can I afford that? No. The other option looks set to be more efficient,” he said.

            In Defensenews

          • Guy sounds like an idiot (paid for) anyone with aviation experience will know that a prop aircraft is miles less complicated than a helicopter.

          • Sorry to butt in. But a tilt-rotor is significantly more complicated that a helicopter. When in the helicopter mode, the tilt-rotor still makes use of a swash plate that changes the disc angle. The range of movement is not as much as the helicopter’s. But think of the mechanics needed to lock and unlock the swash plate when transitioning to and from forward flight.

            However, the tilt-rotor is significantly more efficient in forward flight than a helicopter. Hence the Valor’s longer ranger and much higher cruise speed.

            The Defiant has some key advantages for Army use. It is much nimbler and better suited to nap of the earth flying. Due to its coaxial layout it has a much smaller disc footprint. Therefore it can land in smaller areas.

          • Sorry to disagree DB, but the Defiant is a complex beast and “experts” in the helicopter business have stated this, including Bell who looked at this option, a double bladed helicopter with pusher prop. The purported advantages are wishful thinking I’m afraid. The Valor is a 3rd gen tilt design with much simplified layout. The non-tilting engine is a major simplification to a design which has been flying for 20 years. So no, logic does not suggest that a 3 prop design is “simpler” than a fixed wing tilt shaft design.

          • Right, I never said that the Defiant was not complex. Compared to a standard helicopter it is in a different league.
             
            Let’s be honest the Defiant uses brute force
            to overcome the traditional disadvantages of a helicopter. These are blade
            stall and unbalanced leading blade lift.
             
            As a traditional helicopter flies faster, even though the rotor rpm stays the same, the local airspeed over and around
            the tips, increases faster than that over the main body of the helicopter. The first problem it will come to is an unbalanced lift component. Where the leading blade generates more lift, than the retreating blade. This causes one side
            of the aircraft to roll in the direction of the greater lift component. In a modern helicopter, this is countered by the flight control software, putting a opposite roll component on the swash plate to counteract the lift. However, as the aircraft flies faster and faster. The swash plate runs out of movement and the aircraft will start rolling again.
             
            A way of countering this is to use a coaxial rotor head layout. As you will now have two opposing blades leading and retreating. Where they mutually cancel out each other.
             
            The other issue of flying faster is blade stall. This is where the local airspeed over the blade tips reaches the transonic and sometimes the supersonic zones. The rotor blades profile is not shaped for supersonic flight. If it was, it would provide hardly any lift at slow subsonic speeds. The tip’s profile is usually much thinner than mid blade. Which is done to mitigate and defer some of the problems. The BERP tip helps a lot. As its designed to provide lift in the transonic zone.
             
            As a blade tip goes into the transonic zone, its profile will determine how it works. The laminar flow over the tip will get
            broken up and start bubbling. As it goes faster these bubbles get bigger, join together and start travelling down the blade towards the rotor head. This looses lift, but more importantly generates drag. As the blade sweeps, it will rapidly loose and gain lift, which will set up a resonance and will cause it to
            flap. If the wave’s resonant frequency matches the blade’s, it will catastrophically fail.
             
            To get past this problem, you can slow the rotor rpm down, which reduces the tip’s local airspeed. But as the blade is
            rotating slower, it won’t generate as much lift. This can be compensated for by including a fixed wing ala Fairey Rotordyne or Airbus x3. However, Sikorsky have gone down a different route.
             
            They have removed the forward lift component from the main rotors which generates thrust and replaced it by using a pusher propeller. This does not remove the blade stall problem. They have just made the blades stiffer, so they don’t flap as much. Which means they can handle faster speeds. Hence the brute force definition.
             
            The main rotor gearbox has an auxiliary drive for the pusher propeller. The drive is controlled by a clutch that is in turn controlled by the flight control software. This removes the drive below say 70 knots, whereby the Defiant flies like a standard co-axial helicopter (Ask someone how a co-axial helicopter yaws, that will bake your noodle!). After 70 knots, drive is sent to the propeller and the swash plate forward
            leaning angle is reduced to a point where thrust is completely provided by the propeller. However, the propeller is used below 70 knots, when it’s used for braking. By applying drive and changing the propeller’s blade pitch angle, reverse thrust can be generated. Which means the aircraft does not need to flare out to slow down, it can do it flying level. Which means the pilot can constantly see where they are trying to land.
             
            The downsides of having much stiffer rotor blades, is that they don’t soak up bumps from air pockets or when attaching/removing underslung loads. This can make the ride very choppy. But this can be mitigated by using active damping between the thrust decking and the main rotor gearbox ala Merlin. The aircraft will still hit an airspeed
            limit much earlier than the Valor, purely due to the blade stall problem. If they added a fixed wing and slowed the rotor rpm down, this would delay the blade stall issue and push up the aircraft’s max speed.
             
            So yes, the Defiant is a complex beast. But is the Valor any less so? From what I can gather it has two options for flight
            control when in helicopter mode. It can be like its sire, the V22, where the prop-rotor is attached to a swash plate. That then tilts the disc as the pilot/flight control system demands. Or it uses a combination of differential thrust and vertical prop-rotor angling.
             
            The V22 could angle its nacelles back to 97.5 degrees. It could also use differential thrust between the two prop-rotors
            to control roll in the hover. By making one nacelle lean forwards and the other back it could control yaw. The swash plate helped control pitch, as well as the other movements to a lesser degree, which helps to keep the aircraft level. The
            flight control software could blend these components together to maintain controlled flight in the hover. The assumption is the Valor uses a similar control set up to the Osprey.
             
            The complexity comes when transitioning from and to forward flight. At some point the swash plate will be locked in a null position. This locking mechanism must be robust and guaranteed. Otherwise, it would have disastrous consequences if the swash plate was locked out of the null position. Could the flight control software compensate for it?
             
            In some respects, the way the aircraft handles and its flight control laws will be similar to a Chinook below 80 knots. Where it uses differential cyclic and collective pitch to control its attitude. Though unlike a Chinook it doesn’t suffer from a negative stick plot. As it will transition to forward flight by tilting the prop-rotors to zero degrees. This is where the complexity is more ahead of the Defiant’s. It’s the flight control laws written into the software that is more complex. The example I can give is to show how many V22s crashed during the early introduction into service. A lot of it was attributed to pilot error, such as flying too close to
            another V22 in the hover. But a lot were caused by the software not responding correctly to a situation.
             
            Both aircraft have their pros and cons. The Valor can go further and much faster. The Defiant can land in tighter spots and is better suited at nap of the earth flying. maintenance wise, who knows? Both make a great deal of use out of composites, which are a pain in the arse to repair. Both aircraft use triplex flight controls, though not sure if this is
            fully digital actuators or electronically controlled hydraulic actuators. Do they still have push rod flight controls? One has a huge single gearbox fed by two engines. The other has two separate gearboxes that can rotate, each mounted to an engine, with a long coupling drive shaft between them. Neither of the proposed aircraft are as simple to maintain as the Blackhawk. Though both competitors claim otherwise.

          • A very fulsome analysis. I think the takeaway is that both are complex compared to existing solutions, but one has had more opportunity for testing and evolution. The Blackhawk is an old design and I’m sure both solutions will be orders of magnitude better. I note that the decision has been delayed again. I suppose one solution would be to split the initial order 50/50 and see who wins out on in-service performance.In view of the size of the overall requirement.

          • You’re welcome, mate. Of the two, I would say the Defiant is slightly more in tune with the US (Green) Army’s needs to replace the Blackhawk. However, the Valor can give the Army something they haven’t had before, which is long range (fast) insertion. As at the moment they have two options, either using C130s for a tactical air drop or using Chinooks.

            With the C130 air drop, you can guarantee at least 5% of those jumping out of the plane will have some form of landing injury. Plus, any heavy equipment will need to be thoroughly prepared prior to the jump. Besides if things get sticky, there’s no quick method of extraction.

            Chinooks have now been going for 60 years. They are a true workhorse and designed to soak up damage (to a degree) as they are easy to repair. With the extended range tanks, they can easily do a 300km insertion. However, they top out at 150 knots cruising speed and are easy to locate due to their unique noise signature. The range can be extended further by using in-flight refuelling.

            We may see the Valor replacing or complimenting the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment’s Blackhawks, before they get into general use. As the 160th always like to test out of the box ideas before anyone else. Being able to get special forces behind enemy lines or doing quick snatch and grab raids is a significant advantage. Though the Defiant’s ability to land in smaller areas would also be a benefit.

            I think the US Marines will like the Valor even more so. It meets their new Pacific directional focus. Where they may need to do island hopping again, as per WW2. Where there are vast distances involved. Bell have showcased a life size model of a marinized Valor. That included folding prop-rotors, a twisting wing and the V-tail facing down. When folded, it has a similar footprint to a Seahawk.

            Rolls Royce have said they will be testing the trial aircraft with the same engine as the V22. So not only is it more powerful, but it also makes logistics and maintenance a lot easier. I would not be surprised to see the Valor equipped with a refuelling boom. With the bigger engine, it means it is very likely the Valor can go faster than the current 305 knots, have better fuel consumption = longer ranger and have a higher load capacity. Which is precisely what the USMC needs to replace the current UH1 Venoms they use, which can’t keep up with the Ospreys.

            Of the two, I prefer the Defiant, as it brings a better range/speed capability to the table. Though in other situations, the Defiant would be better.

          • Typo at the end there I think! But I agree and I think the Valor would make a good addition to our QEs and Marines. Especially at the price that US adoption would mean and the option of UK assembly.

          • Oops my bad. Meant I preferred the Valor. I think it would be great aircraft to replace the Merlin in both the assault and ASW role.

          • If I recall correctly the USAF said they don’t want it either. It’s armies and navies seem to have the requirement.

          • Well actually the Japanese have also bought the V-22. And as I’ve said before, if you bother to look up the metrics, even the defiant team don’t pretend that they can win on any performance metrics. As for complexity, I presume you are of the Nokia generation if you think the Valor is more “complex” than the defiant.

          • Take a look at Valor beside Defiant. If you can’t see which is more complex and has more moving parts, Specsavers may be able to help.

          • Took a look. It look like Valor is much more complicated than Defiant.

            Just imagine how you put your weight load on your rotors. From mechanical engineering point of view, Valor is much more complex than Defiant.

          • Well the thing is Alex, if something is blindingly obvious and someone refuses to see it then options are humour or abuse. The requirements of the program are tough for a helicopter, twin rotors are complex and have issues, everybody in the industry knows this, otherwise the only manufacturer in regular production with this type wouldn’t be Russian (where safety is not a major consideration) Some would argue that the Valor is more complex than a normal helicopter, this is arguable, but that a twin rotor with a pusher prop is more complex than both is not a rational argument. Especially as the Valor has been substantially de-risked with it’s 2nd gen sibling having seen service for around 20 years.

        • “Just as the Valor is the obvious choice the same applies to the MQ-9B STOL”. Still far from convinced.

          Yes, Valor is a promising approach. But, it has “potential” drawback in some aspects. V-22 is famous for NOT good maneuverbility in helicopter mode. When in landing, the most risky moment, V-22 is much more vulnerable than normal helicopters. Also, it is very famous for complex and time consuming maintenance. Very expensive in this point.

          On the other hand, of course the cruise speed is faster. To avoid enemy air-forces attack, it will be important. So, in mid-course, V-22 is much more safer than normal helicopter.

          So, which do you put your priority, on landing/take-off or on cruise.

          V-280 Valor of course made improvements there. Will have better maneuverbility in helicopter mode, and will be more easy for maintenance.

          Defiant is of course improving is cruise speed, while still trying to keep its maneuverbility.

          Good competition, I think. Not sure which will win.

          By the way, for operation on QNLZ CV, of course tilt-rotor crafts will be a better choice, because “cruising phase” is the most needed. So, it simply comes to costs.

          • DOT, the V22 is a big beast and meant to be a big beast. Not meant to be manoeuvrable, especially using old tech. You do realise that with FBW this is mostly software these days right. The only reason the Valor won’t win is if the old guard insists on a “helicopter”. As I said the Valor wins on all observable metrics.

          • Thanks, If you have some information that Valor’s maneuvability as a helicopter is as good as normal helicopter, please let me know? “Observable metric”, to my knowledge, does not include it.

            An Osprey is three times more expensive than a Chinook, but the latter can carry heavier cargo and more soldiers. Actually, the latter is MUCH more popular worldwide. But, as they differ a lot, comparing these two are not easy.

            On Valor and Defiant, I think the same applies. Please note I am NOT saying Defiant is better. But, all available information says they differ in figure of merit. Valor is superior in speed and range, but NOT always superior in every aspects. All info says so. Clearly, they differ.

            So we need to wait how it goes. Which is better has not been decided. Actually, all information (as I read) says it is just a matter of choice. Depends simply on what kind of tactics are US Army going to adopt.

            In short, not having Valor already fielded is no surprise. No merit of hurrying. Just test both of them extensively, and wait.

          • The Osprey is a 2nd gen aircraft and quite complex, the Valor is a 3rd gen aircraft design to be cheaper to maintain and to be less complex to fly. Now as to metrics, yes it flies faster and further. It has better fuel consumption and cost per flight hour. Yes it can fly higher and better in hot conditions. But other than that, they are pretty much equal.

          • I would not compare the V22 to the Chinook. The V22 was designed to replace the USMC CH46 Sea Knight. This is a smaller version of the Chinook if you will. The V22s design is heavily compromised due to the restriction placed on it operating from the Wasp class LHD. It had to be capable of taxing past the island, with the nacelles in the vertical position. With at least 5ft of clearance between any of the ship’s structure and the prop-rotor tips. This meant the prop-rotor blades are shorter than ideal. Which then means they have a higher nominal rotor rpm. This means they have a very high-speed downwash. But also, they cannot autorotate in an emergency as the disc loading is too high, i.e. they need to spin faster to generate lift.

            The V280 Valor has been designed without these compromises. It has a wider wingspan and conversely longer prop-rotor blades. This means it has a much lower disc loading so should be able to autorotate in an emergency. Secondly Bell and Rolls Royce are going to fit the much more powerful V22 engine to the Valor. This will make it much more responsive to control demands in the hover.

      • IMO the issue with drones for Recce is staying power. Much like helicopters in the attack role, you can put a drone up to correct fire, or do an aerial recce, but eventually the thing will have to come back.

        Foot and armoured recce on the other hand has the advantage that once you set an OP you can keep it there for literally days, continuously, noting everything that comes and goes.

        • That is a good point. So maybe 21 and 23 will go back to their stay behind roles, or a variant of if not actually staying behind a moving front. Perhaps 4/73 and the HAC need augmenting if more money is going on ISTAR, as the DS said.

          On the other hand, perhaps too much duplication?

    • The Transwing technology looks interesting, even cool, but will it scale?

      At the current size it’s no more use than Puma or Sky Mantis, which the Navy currently have, and at least the latter is built in the UK. Transwing would need to be able to deliver OTH radar information back to the ship for longer and for less money than Camcopter to be the future in its class: so a payload of at least 15-20kg, against Camcopter’s 50kg. For USN light VertRep, it would probably need a payload of 25kg+, but the RN is just going for the heavy lifters, like the T-650, max payload 300kg.

    • Just checked out the Victa, pretty much the exact vehicle I envisaged in a few other threads here, having seen what’s happening in the Black Sea, though I was thinking purely autonomous but that offers its own series of problems used at distance so may be more distant a prospect to be useful militarily. Meanwhile a manned solution at least offers some of that potential earlier and a few others too specific to having humans on board.

      • I guess it would be more for special forces insertion. I think I did see somewhere about the Royal Navy looking for autonomous function and this was still suggested as an option because it covers the functions. I don’t see why they can’t partner up with another company to make an autonomous version. I have also just noticed that it looks like Stingray (TV show) without the large prop at the back.

  4. Hi, to shed a little light a few of the OT comments about AJAX below:

    Yes User Validation Trials have started.
    At about 1:50 the ARES is at full chat (42mph) for the benefit of the viewer, lovely!
    “Rubber” band tracks? Well, trialled on WR so may make an appearance??
    Coping with the All-Weather Track at Bovvy? Smooth as a baby’s bum, comments on the “outdated” torsion bar suspension Mr Wait?
    All the “bustles” are to carry the MOD mandated CES and C Supps that will be needed.
    Paul P…. the perceived N & V issues have been addressed and will be tested across the family of platforms.

    So my sources say.

    cheers

    Oh, and by the way, WELL DONE THE RN!

  5. It’s good that we a testing this equipment out but has any one asked the question how would we use it or get it to real locations in real time to be of use. Can they be launched from a T23 or T45 or for that matter a T26 or T31. We did miss a trick in not having a stern ramp in the T31or T26. Yes I know the T26 has a stern ramp for operating either a RIB, USV or towed array. As these ships will be the primary ASW vessels of the RN then its a towed array.

    Sowe need to look at the futre and the T32, she needs to have a below flight deck extending below the hanger; an open space with a stern ramp and possibly two bay doors under the hanger port/ starboard to launch everything up to 6m in beam and 18m long. So the space below deck should be 19m wide, 4m min hight (preferable two decks) and 50m long. Call this the multi function deck. With a helicopter hanger capable of two Merlins any combination of a Merlin/RUAVs, Wildcat/ Apache, Wildcat RUAVs etc could be used. Continue the concept for the T32 and with the extra berthing space needed for USV, UUV, RUAVs depending on the ships tasking these spaces could be used for 60-80 RMs and the MF deck could have three CB-90s. Before you say that its to big or to expensive, it cant be done etc I will say AbSalon class.

    These ships would be going into harms way but would not be a primary attack vessel so as much as I would like a 5 inch gun it is not needed. What would be a good gun would be the 76mm however that would mean another type of ammo so the T32 should keep the 57mm as the main gun. As the secondery gun/CIWS gun I would keep the 40mm but have three mounts, one foreward in B postion and two aft one on each aft corner of the hanger. For long range CIWS I would have SeaRAM aft half a deck above the hanger between the two 40mm guns. Yes I know a new system, but not really as SeaRam uses the complete Phalanx mount and radar, we know how that works. Midships the 30mm/25mm port/starboard and 24 SeaCeptor missiles. Forward I would have 16 Mk41s (deck level +1) and 12 SeaCeptors port/starboard (deck level +1.5) of the 40mm in B postion (deck level +2), (bridge deck level +4). If there is space midships then 8 NSM missiles and possily LMM fitted to the 30mm’s if there is the flash back clearance issues.

    She would need extra electrical power generation for communication systems which would be larger that a normal frigate. So, the power plant could be in one of two ways, a MT 30 with two diesels plus a third for the dedicated extra electrical supply, or six diesels all feeding electrical motors. My prefrence is diffrent, one MT30 plus four diesels, three for cruising, one for communications, radar etc, combat situation one MT30 plus two diesels for speed, two for communications radar, pumping stations weapons backup. Two diesels I would have above the waterline independent of below waterline feeds. So looking carefully at the T31 with some reworking and we end up with a AbSalon class. We could look at Brazil for example as they are also looking at reworking the AbSalon with upto 6 Merlins below deck, a stern ramp two landing spots,a 5 inch gun and 48 Mk41s. Capable of landing 120 Royal Marines by air and sea. If we altered this concept we could have four Merlins, two Apache gunships for close support and two/threeCB-90s, or operate 6 anti submarine helicopter, four USV minesweeping units, 40 UUV units plus 20 RUAV units. Not all at once but any combination.Basically a helicopter cruiser or multi role mother ship. If Brazil with their budget and inflation rates can think about it then we can do it without breaking the bank.

    As for the main radar suite, NS 200 and a fixed panel AESA which would mean a single main mast. However, as an ex military engineer inj communications and weapons electronics I hate a single point of failure. If I have designed or built a network with such a failure it means I was crap at my job. I know I did it well I fought designed and built the mobile network in Ukraine, I put back up into back up with multi frequency redundency. Harrogate taught me well. Anyhows a two mast system and a bridge one level higher and you can have the AESA on four panels of the bridge (standard US method) a NS 200 on the main mast (70 feet above) and a second mast with a general purpose 4d rotating system. Each powered by the individual generators but then backed up by cross over panels and three cable networks one below beck midships, two above deck port/starboard.

    Its simple if you can move you can live, if you have weapons you can fight, if you have radars you can see. To fight to see to move you need power. If you can keep the power going you have a ship. The power means you can fight fires, stop flooding. So the T32 going into harms way must have a disperced powere supply as it looks like she might become the futre of the RN.

    I keep thinking, if the government would stop playing stupid games with defence then we could order a new LHD based on designs already built, put Albion or Bulwark into rebuild 18 months later and have a LHD and a very capable mothership in four years.Six years, two 30,000 ton LHDs, two very capablie motherships cost £2 billion, say built or rebuilt in Liverpool/Newcastle.

    Sorry if you think this is a ramble, but sorry I do see the futre T32 either as a advanced AbSalon or a Damen Crossover. As the T43 project seems to have bee npromised to Babcock then I think the MoD should be looking at what Brazil wanted to do with AbSalon

      • Impressive indeed; the more so if one Wildcat with fairly short range missiles can take out a swarm of fast attack craft without being shot down. I thought Martlets had to be ‘single threaded’…one at once.

        • I’m not sure why they have to be single threaded, but even if you are firing at a rate of one every 10 seconds as the craft come into 5-mile range, it’s still pretty impressive.

          Smaller missile-carrying FAC often only have anti ship missiles, and even if they carry MANPADs, the Wildcat would be firing with height and distance advantage. If the opposition are big enough to be carrying real SAMs, you’d be reaching for Sea Venom anyway.

          • Yes, indeed. Wiki quotes Martlet velocity as mach 2, roughly 1500mph and having a SACLOS guidance system; so I think that means the operator would have to keep a target 5 miles aways ‘in his sights’ for 12 seconds. Stinger has a maximum range of about 3 miles I think. At 30mph a FAC would take 240 seconds to close the range from 5 to 3 miles. In 240 seconds you could loose 20 missiles each of which could hit its target in under 12 seconds. A well thought out weapons platform 🙂

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here