In a historic moment, an autonomous drone, developed by Southampton-based firm W Autonomous Systems (WAS), successfully landed on HMS Prince of Wales off the Cornish coast.
This marks the first-ever landing on a UK aircraft carrier by a fixed-wing autonomous drone.
The drone initiated its flight from the Lizard Peninsula, delivering supplies to the aircraft carrier and then safely returned. This progress is viewed as a significant step towards the harmonious operation of crewless aircraft alongside F-35 Lightning jets, naval Merlin, and Wildcat helicopters.
The twin boom aircraft is capable of carrying a payload of 100kg up to 1,000 kilometres (620 miles). Crucially it can land on uneven ground and needs a runway just 150 metres long – a little over half the length of the flight decks on the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers – to land or take off.
The overarching aim is to deploy drones with a UK Carrier Strike Group in upcoming years, allowing the transfer of stores and supplies, including mail and spare parts, between ships without the need to launch traditional helicopters.
This method, apart from being more cost-effective, also mitigates potential risks to aircrew, especially during adverse weather conditions. Moreover, it ensures that the sophisticated Merlins and Wildcats remain available for critical operational tasks, such as identifying hostile submarines or surface vessels posing threats to the carrier strike group.
Captain Richard Hewitt, Commanding Officer of HMS Prince of Wales, commented on the achievement: “HMS Prince of Wales is a fifth-generation aircraft carrier and operating autonomous drones like this will become the norm across future Royal Navy Carrier Strike Groups in our 50-year lifespan.”
The current drone trials surpass previous experiments conducted on HMS Prince of Wales, which involved smaller quadcopters and Banshee targets.
The trials off Cornwall were the first stage of an autumn programme pushing the boundaries of naval aviation for Britain’s biggest warship.
HMS Prince of Wales will be operating off the Eastern Seaboard of the USA until Christmas as she conducts experiments with F-35 Lightning stealth fighters, MV-Osprey tilt-rotors, and the Mojave drone.
Do in the USA we are looking to operate drones providing AEW, ASW,AAR, strike and ISTAR missions, but in the UK it’s just mail delivery. A little ambition would be nice.
The RN should be doubling down on drones. They allow us to leverage the most out of our larger carriers without having to have expensive landing arresting systems.
I sympathise with your frustration on the slow pace of naval drone adoption, but I don’t know where that lack-of-ambition gripe is coming from.
The RN are also looking to operate drones for the same things as the Americans, just not this particular drone. Peregrine will be operational for surface ISR from next year, and the Proteus demonstrator is scheduled for 2025, which will ultimately have some ASW capability, similar to the American MQ-8Cs.
It can’t have escaped your attention that PWLS will be testing Mojave at Westlant 23. That’s probably a precursor to running STOL MQ-9B, for which AEW pods are being developed. I don’t know if that’s the route RN will take for AEW, but the already announced that Crowsnest replacement is expected to be a drone.
Well said Jon 👏
Every chance of seeing the u.k Taranis drone operations from all the NATO nations flat tops platforms
I thought Taranis died a decade ago, with anything useful given to Dassault for a song. Has someone breathed life into the project? That would be good news.
Well you can guarantee the research and technology lives on in the Tempest programme. Also Magma remember only entered flight trials in late 2017 so there is still evidence of similar tech and research being demonstrated in prototype form in recent times.
Oh yes. I really liked the idea of Magma’s fluid controlled wing surfaces. I hope that makes it to Tempest.
Wasn’t Mojave developed with platforms like our carriers in mind, certainly some hints a while back when it was announced. We certainly have jumped on putting the platform to test plus a call generally for drone concepts for the carriers. Yes this test is a little basic but as little else STOL is available to test presently it’s at least a start and a good test for guidance systems that can have wider repercussions. Not seen any pics or vid of them re launching it, anyone seen one?
Don’t know for sure but hasn’t the problems with PofW also been a bit of a delay fo4 these early tests? QE wasn’t exactly available to fill in.
Last point is that the US has been practicing with high end jet drones on their carriers for a decade but as yet have only basic plans to exploit a model initially for refuelling so they are being cautious too. Northrop Grumman’s team won awards for their AI stealth strike drone prototypes way back yet still didn’t get a Navy order for anything of that nature and even dropped out of recent Navy proposals. So UK or US a cautious approach (if at different degrees admitted) is presently understandable, as technology is changing and progressing constantly and like the thirties what’s State of the art in 1937 was obsolete 3 years later, but now it’s complicated by development costs are horrendous.
Even more significant perhaps is that Ukraine has very much demonstrated that our strategic and operational expectations have turned out very differently to what was likely expected, cheap and cheerful fundamentally more important overall than expensive and sophisticated. So for once being cautious about what we commit to is probably at this point understandable. They have to square a lot of circles with high end requirements needed yet survivability too so what’s the best compromise? No one solution that’s for sure.
There’s enough about the drone issue. I’m frankly fed up of it. The MOD is throwing millions of pounds at harebrained unproven kit like littoral strike ships and direct energy weapons a lot of that wasted money could have bought another T31 we don’t want motherships, we want warships… real ones
Good answer Jon, eloquently put.
@Jon
Quite agree.
There are a lot of tests announced.
Not a lot of point in splashing sparse cash until some hard outputs are known and proved.
Thing with QEC is that they are so big, it gives so much flexibility and the potential on unattested landing for slow moving drones like this one.
Morning Jim, first of all there is a major diffrence between US carriers and UK carriers, arrestor gear. UK carriers don’t have them so diffrent landing procedures need to be looked at.
The second issue is this, the RN with HMS Prince of Wales will be testing more advanced drones such as Mojave a development of the MQ-9 Reaper and MQ-1C Grey Eagle when she is State side this deployment. As far as I understand only one Mojave has as yet been built which the RN will take control of it for a seven month period to test the feasibility of use aboard the carrier.
I hope we can make this work as I would like to see these onboard RN carriers in the SeaGuardian configuration, fold down wings, AESA radar, sonorbuoy delivery package, etc.
However, the future of drones with the Royal Navy might be with Turkey and not the US. The reason that I say this is that the US is designing carrier drones for CATOBAR operations whilst Turkey is designing for their assault ship. The Bayraktar Kizilelma comes to mind. The B version would be useful to the RN as a loyal wing man or first strike group. Also they do seem to be cost effective.
Although the Mojave and Kizilelma B solves two of the issues if they work for the Royal Navy there is one issue that still remains, fuel. At the moment the RN would need to use a F35B to refuel a second F35B. That with a limited air group is a waste of resource. What we need is a MQ-25 type that can deliver about 8,000kg of fuel, 150 miles out, that can land and take off from an Assault ship.
Somehow, I can see the time when the RN carriers go in for a major refit and come out with two e-mals and arrestor gear, as the cost saving on aircraft/drones will out wieght the investment into the carriers.
I’d skip straight to the twin-engined Kizilelma C, trialling the new Rolls Royce Orpheus engines, but I’m pretty sure arrestors will be needed for them to operate on carriers.
Arrestors are another field we could cooperate with Turkey on. I’ve heard people say the Mactaggart Scott arresters are over complicated, but it has to be better to improve those and look to exports than just buying in from the US yet again.
Long term I could see the Elizabeth carriers becoming STOBAR, to allow for fixed wing drones that are capable of carrying out AEW, refuelling, and maybe also ASW, as well as ship-shore replenishment.
I think the design is too far down the line to allow full conversion to CATOBAR, but I think just having arrestors would be a real step-change in capability for our return to fixed wing carriers.
I’m not very familiar with the Turkish drones- I know they have the TB-2 and another, larger platform. Is that the one you’re talking about? Getting some level of UK industrial input, even if just the engines, wouldn’t be a bad thing.
At the usual extortionate prices
Yes and in many ways our version of the carrier is superior for operating MALE platforms. Mojave can operate from POW with basically zero modifications and no need to develop complicated software for arrested landings or strengthen the aircraft for catapult takeoff.
My issue is that as outlined above the RN is looking at UK drones primarily to deliver mail.
The sailing to the US to land a US drone that can do everything from AEW to AsuW.
Would be nice to see us investing into our own drones more. I know sea vixen etc are on the cards but little more than concepts.
If we had pushed forward with Mantis we could have had so much more. Instead stuck with operating US platforms and dodgy Israeli drones that can’t fly in the rain.
Millions of pounds for apostal service? Now I know that the world has gone mad.
JIM I’d say that your last paragraph is pretty well a certainty, Project Ark Royal is leading us to exactly that situation.
I will be that over the next 6 to 10 years we see the QE’s fitted with sponsons for a full on Angled deck with 3 US AAG and 2 US EMAL catapults.
That pretty well means we can land and launch anything the French and USN can plus our F35B using the Ski jump.
We can all see the future of Drones and AI, they can provide ASW, AEW, refuelling and ISTAR and these ship have a 50 year lifespan so who knows what is next.
My main concern isn’t our actual ability to re image the Carriers from STOV to STOBAR or even full CATOBAR, it’s what aircraft do we put on them ?
The decision to not develop a Carrier version of Tempest is quite perplexing.
I have no idea why that has come to pass, unless it is the old RAF attitude rearing it’s ugly head again.
This won’t happen. It’s far to involved to convert the carriers in the way you mention. A carrier version of any aircraft is essentially a new aircraft. The budget isn’t there to develop it for what would always be a limited number required. Tempest will replace the RAFs other aircraft. F35bs will remain for carrier /expeditionary use
The military drone has the possibility to change the war at sea in the biggest way since the torpedo
The budget would be there if soo much wasn’t being wasted on other fantasy projects
Installing emals would involve a major reconfiguration of everything several.decks below the flight deck. That’s part of the reason the design wasn’t converted back in Cameron day. Too expensive and a massive delay
Yet project Ark Royal is looking at just that, it’s only looking to install a single catapult though.
The main reason for going back to B from C under Cameron government is the vast amount of training and work up time required to operate manned CATOBAR aircraft like F35C or F18. The main benefit is in the larger AEW aircraft but the US and everyone else is planning on replacing manned AEW platforms so would have been little benefit for a lot of cost.
I agree a major carrier reconfiguration is not required better to fit the new drones around the current system.
It would have been a disastrous decision as it turned out considering the far greater than expected development problems and delays with EMALS. We truly would not have had any planes on our carriers probably even now. If the carriers were to enter service in a few years probably a better solution, timing is everything. But yes the space below the flight deck is built in as the original design had that option as it did an angled flight deck, but yes costs would still be enormous wel beyond technical aspects.
I’ve not been impressed with the QE class design right from the off no defensive systems no CATOBAR, pledging to buy vastly expensive aircraft to operate on them. Bearing in mind that the F 35 wasn’t yet in service. A cheaper, yet world leading aircraft lik Rafael or a navallised gripen ould have offset a big part of the eventual cost of the project in its entirety.
Something that we can do with the first serious refits of them. Maybe remove the ski ramp and put a couple of six inch gun’s on the front.
And in the world of delays, we are the leaders
The ability to operate rolling landings show that if the pilots are good enough and the aircraft to be able to do it, you don’t necessarily need fancy arrestor systems, you land, put on the brakes, park, and go and find a drink somewhere. Sounds easy I know, but the British pilot is the bestand has shown it many times over, just like the sailors have, and will always will do more, and better than anyone else.anywhere.
Proof of concept. Landing fixed wing aircraft on a carrier is not trivial. There is separate work underway concerning an EM catapult launch system for larger drones.
I wouldn’t base the intentions of the RN on anything written here. I’m sure full use of this technology will be made in time within the limits of the carriers mission profiles. I mean its not like we’re into world domination like the yanks are
Great stuff, now let’s get to the front of the queue for the ability to operate combat capabilities UAV Is the future of warfare and the UK MYST be ahead of the curve of its development.
Easily said with a budget twice the size of anyone else and the most kit and people already. The u.k small in size maybe, but far far more innovative than most other nations who want to be up there at the top table in military matters the U.K has made the commitment to grow, and, unlike the others are doing it.
Just a 100kg payload so not quite an Osprey or Merlin alternative, but admittedly at just a few % of the cost. Note that QNLZ and Diamond sail today (Friday) from Portsmouth at the start of CSG23, and are expected to briefly meet up with PWLS for a photo op, before they go their separate ways.
It looks quite endearingly amateurish but it’s definitely progress. The RN aviation efforts need to divorce themselves from “Joint” Force Lightning as much as possible and UAS is the only possible route for this.
Well its got my stamp of approval
I’ll get me coat
Me too Farouk, but George-not enough photos 🙂
Find out what is happening with the Taranis weapons trials.
Will do Andy
Just add a “crash barrier”, to separate the landing area and parking area.
Then, there will be no issues left to operate MALES. Just
https://forums.kitmaker.net/uploads/default/optimized/3X/f/7/f7e74ef10b6e0889f3c846cc03e4a37b3957c157_2_1380x916.jpeg
An outstanding suggestion! Of course, the MoD will install nothing of the sort. After all, the Atlantic Ocean is known to be as calm as a duckpond, particularly in the middle of the winter
If something like this doesn’t already exist then there is a problem because at some point you are going to want to bring back and f35B than has lost the ability to transit to the the hover or even hybrid flight from battle damage.
You really don’t want to have the pilot eject or have him land at a hostile airfield so you have to have a barrier assisted recovery method in place.
Would somebody in the know please confirm that and if not then please supply the name of the person who said no leave it out because we land vertically.
If an F35B has sustained damage to the point it can’t hover. Then the damage is probably bad enough that it isn’t going to come back to carrier and put the whole flight deck/Vessel at risk. Or if the jet is handling safely, then a SRVL recovery might be possible. In 30 years of Harrier operations. Not once could an aircraft not transition to the hover and land safely. It would be extremely rare that it wouldn’t be possible to divert to a friendly airfield if recovery to the carrier wasn’t possible. Now if you have an undercarriage fault. They do have procedures in place to execute a safe recovery. The US Navy don’t use the pictured recovery system for anything other than undercarriage failures. And even then as an absolute last resort. Its to big of a risk to the warship and flight deck safety.
👍 good ol’ Shar.👌👍
👍😃
Massive increase in the rolling landing technique won’t need an arrestor land, park, go to bed, easy?
Anybody else noticed that the navy hasn’t got any disabled parking spaces on the decks?
😄
The article says the ultimate goal is transfers between ships, but this is misleading. The two sets of heavy lift drone trials have been rotary intra-theatre (between ships) and winged inter-theatre (shore to ship). This falls firmly into the latter camp.
The WAS platform is a twin-engine light alloy twin boom aircraft capable of carrying a payload of 100kg up to 1000km. Take off and landing is advertised as needing 150m. Cruise speed 135 km/h (84 mph).
This is the same Windracers Ultra that has been tested before. W Autonomous Systems (WAS) looks like it’s just a rebrand, but still part of the Windracers group of companies. Others recently tested include Stork STM from Animal Dynamics, which doesn’t have the range of WAS, but only needs 50m runway. It will be interesting to see if the Navy continue to test multiple platforms or if WAS is the final selection.
Last I heard the front-runner drone for ship to ship (martime intra-theatre lift) was the Malloy T-600, with Malloy creating a new T-650 model in conjuntion with BAES. That was announced two years ago and was certainly under discussion at DSEI 2021. I hope we’ll see some progress at next week’s DSEI.
Thanks for all this, Jon.
You’re the man here for all UAV stuff that’s for sure. 👍 And I share Jim’s frustration, as I have said many times. We never seem to stop trialling rather than ordering and using. Clearly a good few years yet.
Navy Lookout has an article on the WAS drone landing including video.
I think for larger heavier drones, an angled deck with extension would be a good idea.
If something does go wrong, you certainly don’t want a drone running amok right down the middle of the flight deck!
Adding a “crash barrier” to separate the run-way and the parking area, is another option. Angled deck is nice to have, but I’m not sure how to handle “lose of control” type of crashes.
Especially for MALE, they “rarely land”, because their endurance is 12-24 hours. So, deploying and un-deploying a “crash barrier” might be not a big problem.
Afternoon Donald,the advantage of the angled deck is that a rouge drone heads of down the angled deck and either bolters to go round again, or heads safely to Davey Jones locker….
The deployment and recovery of a crash barrier is completely automatic these days. If the barrier has been used to stop an aircraft, it will need inspecting for damage before its packed away.
To this day I am still surprised neither of our carriers has a barrier system installed, for a just in case scenario, as it could also be used by aircraft other than the F35B. I guess this is a throwback to the Invincible carriers, as they never had a barrier system when operating Harriers.
I wonder where we are with this.
Royal Navy seeking information on cats and traps to launch drones
“A Request For Information (RFI) issued to the UK Ministry of Defence (MOD) has revealed that the Royal Navy is seeking information on potential electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems that could be used to launch and recover ‘air vehicles’ from ‘a suitable ship’ by as soon as 2023.”
LINK
I would not understimate the importance of this. ( I shall leave what is under development to others) What is important is a change of mind set which is not often easy. Esentially a way to think of things is that the drones themselves are in effect disposable it is the pods they carry which are not. Fixed or rotary wing can not be viewed as disposable.again Pods are not. Design and development of drones are basically known and tested so are cheap ( most are nothing more than powered gliders) but this may change in the future if any body can produce a stable proplusion system to reach the higher speeds.
Landing of drones at the best of times requires a high level of skill even if assisted. if the drone itself is destroyed on landing as long as the pods are recovereable ie protected it is basically a non event as far as the drone itself is concerened (other issues are of importance) as it is easy to build from an Airfix kit from a box which is easy to store especially on board a vessile as space is it is limited.
I would expect developments on board the POW to move at real pace now along with specific naval verisons of drones.Even allowing for thoth MOD and naval glue in the works. People would be suprised just how far advanced the UK is in this field admitadly mainly in the commercal world. it is all down to payload develoment.
Well we have been supplying 3D printed drones to Ukraine I hear.
looks like something somebody built in their shed?!
Not exactly the X-47!
Does anyone know what vessels are escorting the PoW across the Pond?
One Russian sub and a Chinese flotilla😂😂😂
You too funny!
😂
This is very worrying :
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/examining-the-deployment-of-the-u-k-s-troubled-watchkeeper-drones-at-fort-bliss
Interesting article. Mostly nothing that was not already reported. I wonder who in MoD signed off on this system?
The crashes are not such an issue as we did be a good number, but the issues with UK weather and the money spent for a sub standard capability.
Names need to be named and music faced. Which will never happen of course.
Is that sub,as in goesundaboat??🤪😁
Well if we think Grant Shapps is a buffoon for amongst other things talking about RAF aircraft carriers, do we forgive him an iota when the carrier commander talks about his 5th generation aircraft carrier?
I doubt he is as useless as Shapps, but perhaps rein in on the hyperbole.
Meanwhile, the Royal are going to get a kicking for flying on the ‘wings’ of the apache as that drone can carry a man’s weight… want to visit the starship Prince of Wales? Strap ON then Admiral, we’ll have you airborne in a jiffy.
Surely fifth-generation-aircraft carrier. Not fifth generation aircraft-carrier.