The RAF’s first Protector RG Mk1, shipped via a AN-124 transport aircraft, landed at RAF Waddington from Southern California this morning.
Protector RG Mk 1 (MQ-9B) is the successor to Reaper (MQ-9A) and is the next generation of remotely piloted medium-altitude, long endurance (MALE) aircraft.
Protector will be deployed in wide-ranging armed Intelligence, Surveillance, Targeting and Reconnaissance (ISTAR) operations where its ability to fly consistently for up to 40 hours will offer the RAF a vastly improved armed ISTAR capability.
The UK has ordered 16 of them.
To: @RAFWaddington
From: GA-ASI@RoyalAirForce's first Protector RG Mk1 is en route to RAF Waddington from Southern California. pic.twitter.com/40Iu3kBd7B— GA-ASI (@GenAtomics_ASI) September 29, 2023
The aircraft payload comprises of a complex suite of sensors, including a High-Definition Electro-Optical, Infra-Red (IR) camera, which, combined with endurance, provides a sensational persistent reconnaissance capability across the electro-magnetic spectrum. Protector will be able to respond rapidly and offer commanders flexibility, allowing the aircraft to perform a plethora of strategic tasks, ranging from close air support to disaster relief, should it be requested.
The aircraft will use enhanced data links and carry next-generation, low-collateral, precision strike weapons – the UK-made Brimstone missile (MBDA) and Paveway IV Laser Guided Bomb (Raytheon UK).
Protector is expected to enter RAF service in late 2024, with an Initial Operating Capability declared in 2025.
Presuming the trials on PoW are successful, it’d be good to see the purchase of a few Mojave conversion kits too.
Brilliant.
And we will have how many?
Not so brilliant
There was an option for 24 but it’s now going to be 16. Better than 10 Reapers but still a small fleet considering the huge reduction in fast jet numbers over the last 15 years.
Hopefully the Sea Guardian version will be adopted by UK too. Not sure if the UK will go with any of the heavier and bigger Triton UAVs that could be useful too.
A reduction in fast numbers. Yes. But an increase in overall capability. Yes.
Don’t choose between capabilities and numbers: Aarok.
With the budget available. That is the choice we have to make.
A very good point Challenger.
I wonder how survivable they are relative to the drones being deployed in Ukraine. In a peer conflict would they be cannon fodder?
If they are only useful for insurgency work 16 might be plenty after all.
In Ukraine, electronic warfare and SAM are intense, but so is the need for fire support. The front line must be patrolled by squadrons of affordabe Fire support drones, on the friendly side of the frnline, with bombs and missiles like brimstone, plus optical and optronic captives. Losses must be sustainable.
Monitoring skies 24/7 for a drone attack, this
become more important now, especially during war, protecting military hardware, airports, and installations. U just hope no one can hack into them.
Aaeok drones from Turgis & Gaillard are the solution. Predator & else are expensive to very Expensive 20 to 25M&. Aarok is 5 to 10M€. Performance is similare. Tests are ongoing in Ukraine.
Cheap, medium performance, consumable and good armements for Fire support, 10 times the load of a TB2. Frontline Tests & production of this machine will be carried out in Ukraine.
Thirty for the RAF and thirty Mojave’s for the RN, unless of course they don’t do what it say’s on the tin. 😎
See what aircraft was needed to deliver it?
Good start , but why such small numbers again . Have the accountants at the treasury been in on the act again
That is an RAF budgets issue.
What do they cut to buy more units?
There is plenty of money just a huge range of capabilities which speeds it too thin.
The issue for RN is, if they gave them, will they own them? And will they be embarked most of the time. You cannot have warships with part time sensors.
With Crowsnest they own the cabs and the kit so can deploy wherever and on whatever is required.
£242bn equipment budget over 10 years. Only so much can be squeezed out of it. And inflation has hit hard.
10 Reaper upgraded to 16 Protector.
For me, issue is Reaper isn’t being retained for its ME roles alongside the new capability.
I suspect the RAF are concerned they won’t be effective in a contested airspace. The US has had at one shot down.
The RAF are probably balancing up a few drones vs one f35b, as with a tight budget hard decisions have to be made.
Saves expensive flying hours on other frames?
As with every other platform, you need hours to be better than proficient. It’s all well and good saving hours on airframes, meanwhile your pilots seem bored and making TikToks (we have had several investigations into breaches by pilots doing this).
Totally agree that practise makes perfect etc
Otherwise you end up trained, Russian style….
drones have done well in Ukraine which is heavily contested airspace. To be honest drones are actually quite hard to engage…they are naturally low IR, hard to see with the mark1 eyeball, they are actually quite difficult to engage with a lot of anti air missiles…that’s why the RAF was so chuffed a typhoon evidenced it could knock one down with a ASRAAM.
The drones in service in Ukraine are generally much smaller, (as not used for high endurance like this platform) it’s a very different type of platform, akin to comparing a cesna to an F22… im not saying anything bad about either, they are just very different types of drones…
Aarok will be. Drones are not always Partot type drones, like quadcoptees. Heavy quadcoptees are doing a good job, but patrol, Fire support and intelligence gathering requires as well heavy plateforme that are cheap.
Yes, although, cheap is a relative term, and survivability is a huge concern with ALL types of drone, as is cross spectrum capabilities and multi use tactics, the drones currently being utilised in Ukraine are generally smaller, cheaper, and low/basic function, these are performing incredibly well in that theatre, far beyond what anyone expected, that is not really applicable to UK current use of drones, as our drones need endurance far in excess of Ukranian norms due to our geographical needs, it is also worth noting that these new drones will likely require extensive use of US satellite systems if used abroad, which as Ukraine found out, can be restricted at any time… for any reason… from that perspective we may live to regret this purchase, instead of encouraging our own innovations..
There is something to be thought about on connectivity issues. Satellite may no longer be the thing it has been in the last 50 years. Space is contested by US and Chinese Space Ship. I believe a network based on very few nodes may not be the bullet proof concept it has been in the past. What do you want to have in terms on fonctions on each node is another key concern. Do you want core functions or routing functions in your nodes? I feel less and less sure of the current structure.
In all fairness, I think the Crabs were mostly chuffed because it was their first air-air kill since 1948.
I suppose they had been left behind by the navy in that regard..
Do you mean MQ9B? US forces are still using 9A
Surely while the production line for anything we buy MOTS or COTS is making them, then there is always the possibility that we will purchase more before the production line ends.
That possibility also exists for bespoke so long as we order more before the factory shuts down or closes that line and makes something else.
Surely it makes sense to order in small batches, so you can test the batches ( if the first ones are junk – don’t order anymore of them ) and also take advantages of any upgraded later models.
I get the problem is we don’t seem to order the second/subsequent batches – but ordering small batches seems infinitely more sensible way of getting MOTS or COTS kit – you get the latest version every time you buy the next batch.
Buying 16 of these or 3x E7 or 9x P8 , etc, doesn’t mean that’s all we will end up with before they are out of production.
Perhaps I should change my username to Uninformed Optimistic Civvy Lurker !
Sensible answer, technology evolving all the time.
To be honest with drones, they are developing so quickly your probably looking to replace by the time the production line shuts down…trouble is the protector project budget was 1.2 Billion, which is not really something you can replace quickly.
An exquisite capability, but unfortunately too few.
OT: Crowsnest enters service.
£1.35 billion for 16 drones is quite pricey. I hope they are worth it. What is it that drives up the cost to fighter aircraft costs?
Some cheaper drones will most likely be needed.
Im assuming (and hoping) that that price includes a sustainment and ground crew equiptment, spares etc deal aswell
The contract for the last 13 drones was £195m, or £15m each direct manufacturer cost. (Shepherd estimate $38m flyaway costs.) So yes, it’s all the incidentals. Also projects are more likely to be reported against through life and sustainment costs these days. However the half billion increase over expected costs have also been blamed on things like upgraded sensors, unfavourable exchange rates and “an agreed delay” of two years.
Last figures I heard were £1.76 bn for whole life project costs.
They are very large, around the same size as an A-10 Warthog.
Surely we already have a range of drones ie including some cheaper ones.
Hi George ‘Comprises A and B’ or ‘consists of A and B’, but never ‘comprises of A and B’ (nor ‘is comprised of’, which people often use). Please kick me, and all best.
“All THE best” 😉
I see that according to the Telegraph, Commodore Shapps is going to sail the Royal Navy into the Black Sea.
And Generalissimo Shapps will shift Operation Interflex to Ukrainian territory.
What could possibly go wrong? Especially with a Def Sec who suffers from ingrowing verbal diarrhoea.
(Missing Ben Wallace, his boring stolidity and his ability to not reveal everything just when the Russians want to know about it.)
No links – last time I posted a link, the site had 4 fits in a row.
Thing with BW was that he was a good judge of what not to say. My kind of guy.
He would rather be boring than reveal something.
Whilst actually having ferocious pace of doing something.
Ben Wallace was pro UK forces unlike most politicians he was not interested in self promotion. He will be sadly missed.
I get the link issue. I put one in couple of days ago and it just got approved.
Does it say how many troops will go? I don’t know whether to believe Shapps. How is he getting the royal navy past turkey? What ships are spare to go?
Would need mine ships at least 3, a couple of type 23, 1-2 type 45. Presume they can use a friendly nato country port in the Black Sea.
I would of thought all news would be all over this
I think I’d need to say look it up via Google.
There are some decent ideas mentioned; my issue is that Shapps is a cynic who just cannot be trusted. And as Def Sec I could see him doing a PR stunt for self-promotional reasons, then covering his backside when it cost lives.
For example, whilst going for Tory leader, he was willing to create division on the roads (number plates for cyclists) to pander to the Daily Mail, whilst in possession of a departmental report telling him that the proposal had no value and was not cost effective.
That attitude and rhetoric normalises contempt for people riding bikes, as per Daily Mail norm.
For example yesterday I read a report of an incident where a young man in a Fiesta 3-point turned in front of a cyclist without looking; cyclist shouted out to warn and question. Young man took a golf club out of his car and swung at the cyclist’s head with it – best described as Attempted GBH or Serious Assault (which do not exist); it could potentially have been charged as Common Assault or Attempted Murder, but afaik there is nothing in between.
All on video of course or it would be entirely ignored.
Scrote received no charges – just an Anger Management Courses.
Shapps feeding that culture for personal promotion is despicable.
You won’t like it, but I’m almost with him on cyclists. I regularly have a near-death experience on the zebra crossing coming from Lambeth Bridge. As you cross it’s cyclists who ignore the rules of the road and continue as you try to cross.
The only way around I can see would be the old “appoint a Ukrainian captain on a reflagged UK ship” wheeze, as used by the German Imperial Navy and the Turks in WW1.
Or supplying the ships to Ukraine we are building for them.
Or finding a way to ignore the Convention (eg binding UN Resolution, but Russia would Veto).
We just got two counter-mine ships past Turkey, by selling a couple of Sandowns to Romania. Maybe if we sell a destroyer or two to Georgia all will be as advertised.
Or maybe he should sort the ‘use pronouns when introducing oneself ‘- diversity guidance The Navy is now following….that’s far more important surely….pathetic waste of money.
What do we need these for ? They are just big boys toys , and not operational till 2025 why?? Seems like a big waste of money
John, what other highly capable weapon systems do you think are unnecessary and are a waste of money?
I don’t believe there is a need for us to spend so much money on very expensive items like the two aircraft carriers they would appear to be very vulnerable to getting sunk if they came under a concentrated attack by a determined large force , however the only ones capable at the moment are thousands of miles away and probably aren’t interested and don’t see them as a threat. And as for us threatening China or Russia ,I don’t think that will ever happen.Trident?yes ,so far it’s been a deterrent but as it’s a doomsday weapon it would never be used anyway. It just seems like an endless process of building costly warships ,aircraft,submarines ,missiles , all of which realistically will never be used in any future conventional war involving us. The current conflict in Ukraine shows that wars are no different to how they were in the previous world wars , minefields and basic trench warfare tactics , long range bombardments causing chaos, western supply arms don’t appear to be doing much to help however simple cheap drones look like a success for both sides. With the west running out of stocks of artillery shells and other items it highlights the deficiencies of their own weapons supplies and replenishment , how is the getting rectified ? With winter coming how is this war going to end ??
What do you think the reaction would be if some country decides to sabotage our offshore wind farm subsea cables or oil/gas lines ?? Nordstream gas showed how vulnerable these are and very easy to destroy , we don’t have anything in place that could prevent this so all the billions being spent to defend the nation just seems a waste when the country could easily be shut down if someone were willing to do it.
Just some of my thoughts
Our aircraft carriers are very good VfM – we bought 2 carriers for about what the NHS spends in 10 days. They are about a quarter the price of a US carrier.
Why do we need them? They have 4 roles: Carrier strike; C2; HADR; and support to amphibious operations. We are a global and maritime power – we need them – simple as…
I have never before heard an argument that you should not buy defence equipment in case it is lost in action. Surely we would never buy any military or naval kit if that was our guiding principle.
Vulnerability – a carrier is about the best protected platform in our armed forces.
Trident is used every day of every year – CASD – it has worked – noone has nuked us or launched an existential conventional attack on our nation.
‘building costly warships ,aircraft,submarines ,missiles , all of which realistically will never be used in any future conventional war involving us’. Where have you been John in the last 50 years – our armed forces have often been engaged in kinetic operations, but not the Navy so much.
Not all wars are or will be the same as the one in Ukraine – the Gulf wars and the operations in Afghanistan were very different.
The war in Ukraine will end when Putin leaves office.
This is my opinion , same as you have yours. If you believe that the UK are still some sort of military power capable of world wide activities well I tend to disagree. As for the past 50 years yes we have had 2 major activities , the Falklands and in the Middle East. The Falklands wasn’t a great success against a so called military junta, we lost a lot of good people and almost half the naval task force for not much gain. Lots of information is available as to how the whole operation was badly organised and managed by various military commanders which doesn’t bode well for any possible future engagements elsewhere.
The Middle East conflicts in Iraq , Libya ,Afghanistan were led by America with the UK in a support role .Seems like things got back to normal after the west pulled out of these locations so again a not too successful mission.Let’s be honest in reality we would never have ventured into any of these conflicts in a lead role, we could never have the ability to carry this out . Yes there are small ogoing actions around the world where I’m sure there is UK military involvement but nothing on any scale.
I would love to see what the military strategists have in mind to counter an invasion similar to Ukraine , what really do we have in place to defend our island nation ?? And would it work.
John, we clearly disagree. In the last 50 years the UK has engaged in at least 13 combat/kinetic operations in the Middle East, the South Atlantic, the Persan Gulf, the Balkans, West Africa, North Africa, the Iranian Plateau (Afghanistan) – and there was the major operation in Northern ireland, op Banner. Over that time, we have deployed forces globally on more occasions than most other nations and that may include the USA.
We have also deployed forces on non-combat operations, such as HADR and peacekeeping, in many places around the world.
I see no reason to doubt our ability to deploy forces in any part of the world in the future – our forces are adept at and configured for expeditionary operations – we have strategic airlift and sea lift and are used to chartering additional assets when required, we have the use of many overseas bases many of them British-run, we have forces globally deployed all the time, UK-based forces that are used to global deployment and other high quality logistic enablers, that many nations, including the French, struggle to match.
We have rapid deployable forces such as the High Readiness Force, successor to JRRF. We have the Anglo-French Combined Joint Expeditionary Force (CJEF), which restored a rapid deployment capability. We have the UK Joint Expeditionary Force, which can be deployed as an all-British force, or preferably in combination with other European allies. The JEF has trained regulalry over many years – https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-led-high-readiness-force-trains-in-inaugural-exercise
We have a bluewater naval fleet, one of only three in the world. We can deploy a CSG at short notice and have deployed our two carriers in international waters distant from the UK a number of times, equipped with 5th gen fighters. Few other nations have more than one new carrier with modern fighters. CSG21 included allied assets – we are adept at commanding multi national operations and exercises.
Our Paras and RM commandoes are world renowned and have huge combat experience and are quicjkly deployable. We have other assets at high readiness including an armoured unit.
I am staggered at your characterisation of Op Corporate which few would recognise or agree with. It was an incredible feat of arms, which many thought impossible – USN senior officers wargamed the scenario as the force was steaming south and concluded that we would lose. We were not prepared for this situation yet a strong Task Force sailed within 2 days. Half the naval task force were not lost – why do you say that? We lost 4 naval ships out of 43; 1 RFA ship out of 22; 1 merchant ship out of 62.
Our casualties had been estimated at 1,000 KIA – in the event 255 were killed – a sadness of course but a very low figure for the biggest naval-air operation since WW2.
Not much gain? We beat the enemy who had superior numbers and were in strong dug-in positions on high ground. It should have taken a force of 30,000 to defeat an enemy of 10,000 – we did it with a fraction of that figure. We recovered British territory that had been lost to an enemy. Huge gain. We won the war, islanders were overjoyed, national prestige restored, many lessons learned that have been used to improve the kit, the strategy and the tactics.
It is true to say that few if any major military operations are British-led. That is because the USA invariably leads. They are the bigger power, the world’s policeman. Everyone knows that. What is your point? It seems to be that we cannot do global operations – well we can and most nations can’t. It matters not that we are often in a supporting role to the US or that we participate in alliance operations be they NATO or UN. We are clearly the second most able power in NATO, globally deployable and not a minion – yet we do need our armed forces to be larger, and with capability gaps closed out.
John, turning to your last sentence. We will never experience an invasion similar to Ukraine as we are an island nation and not bordered by a huge aggressive nation that has ‘history’ with us. So is your question realistic? We have faced the prospect of serious invasion only twice since 1805 and Napoleon’s planning was not well advanced. Hitler abandoned plans for invasion as the Luftwaffe could not secure air superiority, let alone air supremacy – and German naval forces were no match for the RN – and German amphibious shipping was improvised and primitive.
So who is going to invade the UK?
Anyway to take your question at face value…
we have the second most effective navy in NATO (and probably the third largest too) to deny sea-space to our mythical invader. That should do it – it would kill an invasion force before it arrives in UK waters.
The RAF may be over-faced if the enemy air force has huge numbers of fighter or bomber aircraft especially stealth aircraft – but I am sure an RAF expert can clarify.
The army is over 100,000 including reservists – even if half were quickly available to meet an existential threat – that would be a potent counter-invasion land force. 50,000 British troops could hold against an invading army up to 150,000 of equal ability. [Add in the RM commandos and RAF Regt too].
It would take an enormous force to pose a credible invasion threat. But our weakest area is of course BMD.
It is a great platform and an upgrade on it’s predecessor, but too few in number.
It’s definitely not my country, however, I still scratch my head at the UK not having it’s own indigenous drone manufacturing system. Look at Turkey, the BaykarTB2 is currently only USD$5m per unit. That’s less than a USD$16m a unit cheaper. I know they are different capabilities, however, what the Ukraine war has shown is when up against an adversary that has a first rate (ish) airforce with good anti-air, they are vulnerable. Whether the Reaper or Baykar, both have seen restrictive use, with the latter being shot down in numbers.
A domestic production of our own variable-sized platforms would allow both carriers to have full wings of autonomous drones providing CAP, refuelling and even remote radar. I am sure the RAF won’t be willing to risk any of the sixteen in strikes, delivering packages in contested space.
The basics are already known in building these units, they will not be reinventing the wheel. Australia has a highly developed platform that the US is purchasing.
Why not the UK?
Good question.
We don’t get government sponsorship of drone programmes in the way Turkey does. The Aussies have had their chequebooks open.
MOD demonstrator programmes are low cost and many years long, where a small drone can be so radically changed in a year that it almost fits a different niche.
When you get something that even the MOD thinks is good, it can rarely be pushed into production because the money isn’t there, everything must be “a capability”, so the through life costs with everything thrown in quadruples the cost. That’s so much money people argue shouldn’t it have a better this or a better that while we are doing it. Even a £25K quadcopter suddenly tops £100K. There’s no chance the evolve on the job.
Why didn’t we move ahead with Taranis? Why didn’t we convert Brough to drone production when we stopped making the Hawk trainer? Perhaps nobody had officially come up with a requirement, so officially there was no point.
Another issue is that software is king, and many people argue that we should be concentrating on getting the algorithms right so our software can go into any drone we care to buy. No need to build the drones they say. They forget that the company which controls the hardware will often sell it with proprietary software take it or lump it. We don’t get to add our software to the F-35, do we?
I think we’ll get something eventually, too late to make overseas sales, as usual.