The largest uncrewed aircraft ever launched from a Royal Navy aircraft carrier has paved the way for the next generation of UK naval air power.
Codenamed ‘Mojave’, the specially-modified aircraft – operated remotely by a ‘pilot’ at a computer terminal – has taken-off from and safely landed back on board HMS Prince of Wales in a unique trial off the East Coast of the USA.
The drone can carry four Hellfire missiles.
No crewless machine its size – nine metres long, with a wingspan of 17 metres (six metres wider than an F-35B Lightning stealth fighter) and weighing more than 1½ tonnes fully loaded – has ever flown from an aircraft carrier outside the US Navy before.
The trial off the coast of Virginia further unlocks the potential of the UK’s Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, demonstrating how modern uncrewed air systems can operate alongside fifth-generation crewed aircraft like the Lightnings.
“The Mojave trial is a European first – the first time that a Remotely Piloted Air System of this size has operated to and from an aircraft carrier outside of the United States,” said Rear Admiral James Parkin, Royal Navy Director Develop, whose team planned the trial.
“The success of this trial heralds a new dawn in how we conduct maritime aviation and is another exciting step in the evolution of the Royal Navy’s carrier strike group into a mixed crewed and uncrewed fighting force.”
The Royal Navy’s Second Sea Lord, Vice Admiral Martin Connell, said embracing autonomy was “the next logical step to ensuring that the Royal Navy can continue to fight and win in an increasingly-complex operating environment”.
He continued: “With so many international partners interested in the results of these Mojave trials on board HMS Prince of Wales, I am delighted that we are taking the lead in such exciting and important work to unlock the longer-term potential of the aircraft carrier and push it deep into the 21st Century as a highly-potent striking capability.”
The Royal Navy has two decades’ experience in operating pilotless aircraft from its ships, but the Fleet Air Arm’s existing systems – such as the hand-launched Puma, and the new Peregrine miniature helicopter which enters service in January – are designed for short-range surveillance operations on land and at sea.
Mojave – a version of the MQ1C Gray Eagle aircraft adapted for short take-off and landing from runways even shorter than the flight deck of Queen Elizabeth-class carriers – is a much larger and more complex aircraft.
Produced by US company General Atomics, Mojave is capable of performing numerous long endurance missions from medium altitude.
It’s from the same family of aircraft as the Royal Air Force’s new Protector RG Mk1 aircraft, such ‘medium altitude long endurance’ remotely piloted aircraft are capable of conducting long-range surveillance and strike missions over many thousands of square miles.
Months of planning by experts from the Royal Navy, General Atomics and HMS Prince of Wales’ crew went into the trial – one of several involving crewless aircraft and F-35s this autumn to push the boundaries of operations involving the UK’s two carriers.
“My team and I are excited and proud to be the first to launch and land a Mojave from an aircraft carrier,” said Commander Martin Russell, in charge of air operations aboard HMS Prince of Wales.
“During a deployment centred around experimentation and expanding the envelope of the Queen Elizabeth class, this is one of the highlights.
“Integrating the Navy Develop and General Atomics personnel into the Prince of Wales team was key to enabling such a large Remotely Piloted Air System to operate from the deck during this trial, with the capability feeling like a glimpse into the future of these ships.”
HMS Prince of Wales is now conducting intense training and trials activity with the US Marine Corps before returning home to Portsmouth next month.
Could Boeing’s “Ghost Bat” UCAV become the future too, mirroring the RAF’s potential aquesition as loyal wingmen assisting Typhoons?
I remember posting this at the time so clearly a consideration.
JANES 24 FEBRUARY 2023
Official rendering shows Ghost Bat ‘loyal wingman’ landing aboard Queen Elizabeth-class carrierby Gareth Jennings
“An official rendering shown for the first time at an event on 21 February depicts a Boeing MQ-28 Ghost Bat ‘loyal wingman’ landing aboard a UK Royal Navy (RN) Queen Elizabeth (QE)-class aircraft carrier.
Revealed by an official who was presenting under the Chatham House Rule, the computer-generated image shows the unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) being recovered by means of an arrester hook, and gear not currently fitted to the carrier. While Boeing confirmed to Janes that the image is official, it declined to release a high-resolution version of it.
In his presentation, the official referred to UAVs, or autonomous collaborative platforms (ACPs), as a means to provide a medium-term capability geared at increasing the aircraft carriers’ combat mass as they operate alongside and in conjunction with the Lockheed Martin F-35B Lightning Joint Strike Fighter (JSF).
“The ACP in the fixed-wing environment is how we intend to augment our fifth-generation F-35, of which we have a finite amount, in a war fight that will be about precision-strike apparatus and the necessity to protect the core [carriers],” he said.”
Fingers crossed Germany makes the right decision.
“Airbus Defence and Space CEO Michael Schoellhorn, in a translated version of a post on Linkedin, said, “The message from all parties involved was clear” that they must receive “in a timely manner” Tranche 5 and Long Term Evolution (LTE) contracts, to sustain long term production and develop future aircraft capabilities.
“Without these measures, production of the Eurofighter will end in 2030,” he said. “For Germany, this would be tantamount to a loss of core military competencies as well as production capacities in the entire supply chain, or simply put: it would be an exit from German fighter aircraft construction.”
Similar industry outcry over the matter has been voiced openly before, but not with a production shutdown warning. Specifically, Schoellhorn called on lawmakers to “make a fundamental decision” on Tranche 5, by the end of Germany’s current legislative period, closing at the end of the year.”
LINK
Shame ihat own heavy duty drone was cancelled,taranis looked like real deal worth . Googling the videos of it.
Taranis was a tech demonstrator and as such couldn’t have been cancelled.
It was allegedly involved in further tests for full military uses last year, but as is the way with this kind of thing, nothing has been said for over twelve months Dragonfire is another subject we’re hearing noth about despite millions of the taxpayer’s money being thrown into the projects.
No it was a test drone and nothing else
I have repeated that time and again on here and as recently indeed as last week. Its technology lives on in the Tempest programme and beyond and as I said Magma certainly was still being flown a few years back. The Bae autonomous flight system was once mentioned earlier this year as integral to the GhostBat project though I haven’t heard that confirmed so don’t know if that is in fact true.
We are still some way from deciding what a drone like Taranis is best used for considering how Complex and expensive it is, so producing it beyond prototypes simply for the sake of it makes no sense as yet. Bae is still working on its core technologies.
As for Dragon Fire a report on it claiming it successfully fulfilled its latest test regime surfaced some 4 or 5 months ago and it is moving on to its next stage of testing.
Very interssting, I wonder what has been happening in the background away from prying eyes? It crossed my mind when a tender was put out to industry for EMALS a while back.
“Nearly three years after it first flew, key aspects of the all-British Taranis UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) demonstrator remain classified. But further insights into the flight test program were revealed recently by three senior participants from BAE Systems, which is leading the effort. They spoke to the Royal Aeronautical Society’s Flight Test Group in London.
“Taranis has pushed the boundaries of technology, especially in autonomy, flight control, low observability and secure communications,” said Paddy Bourne, chief engineer.
Although BAE Systems (Outdoor Exhibit 11) gained some prior experience in tail-less flight from the Corax, Kestrel and Raven small-scale experimental vehicles, the flight test progression of the Taranis campaign had to be very carefully designed on a safety-first basis, he explained.
In the first phase, the UCAV flew with a traditional flight test data boom and protruding blade antennas. But recordings from the low-observable flush-surface flight data system were recorded for comparison, and conformal antennas were gradually introduced. These low-observable features were fully introduced for phase two.
Bourne noted that actuation specialist Claverham Ltd was an important partner on the flight control system, while Cobham and QinetiQ contributed to the communications system. GE Aviation and the Triumph Group were involved with the flight systems. GE Fanuc and QinetiQ made inputs to the UCAV’s autonomy. Rolls-Royce was responsible for the modified Adour powerplant, and its exhaust system.
Flight test manager Jon Wiggall noted that although full certification was not required, a “fatality” (not literally, since it is unmanned) rate of one-in-a-million flight hours was specified. This was met by such features as a triplex flight control system, plus duplex hydraulics and electrical power generation.
“We elected to fly over a sterile area, so we only had to prove that we could stay within it,” he added. That area was the very large Woomera Test Range in Australia, which also offered an integral runway and a benign electromagnetic environment.
The core flight test processes were the same as for a manned aircraft—expand the flight envelope from the middle towards the edges, by going slower and faster, higher and lower, Wiggall said. A Frequency and Bias Input (FBI) system that BAE Systems had used for Eurofighter Typhoon flight tests was used to program test maneuvers.
But with no pilot on board, the progression between test points such as climb and descent angles and turn radii, had to be very carefully pre-planned. Unique additional considerations came into play—such as the possibility of the line-of-sight communications to the ground control station being ‘blanked’ by maneuvering. Another was the need to pre-arrange how to re-fly test points.
Taranis has three flight modes—automatic, autonomous and manual. Automatic is the equivalent of autopilot in a manned aircraft, with 3D following of waypoints, each of which has associated metadata for adjusting (for instance) speed, altitude and turn radius.
The distance between waypoints determined the rate of adjustment. Wiggall showed a diagram of the second test flight, which had 47 waypoints. The waypoints also controlled angle-of-attack, g-force, and retraction or extension of the landing gear.
The autonomous mode is entered and exited from specified waypoints, and is where the UCAV “thinks for itself” according to Wiggall. His diagram showed a box of airspace within which the Taranis could self-navigate, with its sensor searching for targets such as vehicles or aircraft shelters.
Upon finding a match according to pre-specified criteria, an image of the target is transmitted to the ground station for validation by the mission commander. If—and only if—that person approves, the UCAV then sets up an attack profile; provides battle damage assessment; and re-attacks if required and authorized.
Wiggall said that while the UCAV was searching in autonomous mode, the flight test team would insert “pop-up” threats such as a surface-to-air missile system, to determine whether it would self-navigate to avoid them.
Manual mode is a reversionary backup, designed to bring the UCAV home if something goes wrong. Wiggall said that it was never needed during the Taranis test flights, but was turned on for 90 seconds so that the test pilots could check whether it behaved as per the simulations.
“The first test flights were almost an anti-climax, because they were so like our simulations,” said Neil Dawson, chief test pilot. Each mission plan was rehearsed using hardware-in-the-loop—linking the ground station to the aircraft at Woomera. “We spent hours learning how to land, with the aircraft on jacks so that the undercarriage could be operated,” Dawson said.
The ground station was “crowded,’ he noted. In addition to the mission commander and the pilot, there was an aircraft systems operator, a sensor operator, a flight test engineer, a range safety officer and five “subject matter experts” for the propulsion, FCS, air data system; fuel system and hydraulics.
Dawson said that a chase aircraft was used on some test flights. Its pilot looked for leaks and venting from the UCAV. “We did have a microphone on the aircraft, so that we could detect engine or other vibrations in the ground station,” he added.
The trio that spoke at the RAeS were not authorized by the UK Ministry of Defence to discuss the third phase of Taranis flight tests, which was successfully completed in August 2015. He also said that a fourth phase may be conducted.
Just over £200 million ($290 million) has been spent by British industry and government on the Taranis program. Another £40 million is likely. Meanwhile, a separate outlay of £120 million by the British and French governments is now going toward a feasibility study for a Future Combat Air System (FCAS).
This Anglo-French effort is now in its second year, and involves BAE Systems, Dassault Aviation, Rolls-Royce, Finmeccanica (e.g. the former Selex in the UK) and Thales. The British and French defense ministries are also involved.
Bourne said the FCAS study includes safety trades; airspace integration; levels of redundancy; diagnostics; communications; propulsion; armament; the regulatory regime; mission systems and ground control—“some of the things that can be very different in an unmanned system.” The study includes ethical as well as technical issues. “Man-in-the-loop is an important aspect,” Bourne added.
Last March, the British and French governments promised to fund the next phase of FCAS. This work would start next year, and aim to produce “operationally representative demonstrators” by 2025. There would be a technical review in 2020. Each nation will contribute about $1 billion.
BAE Systems Showing UCAV Scenarios Here
In the BAE Systems exhibition building here at Farnborough, the company is showing scenarios in which a UCAV (unmanned combat aerial vehicle) identifies and drops weapons on a target. Three screens display a tactical situation, a map-based overview, and the status of the UCAV (fuel state, weapons, etc.).
In a recent preview of the display, Drew Steele, operational requirements executive, future systems, BAE Systems, said that the aim was to show how manned and unmanned air platforms might work together. The UCAV takes off, and soon demonstrates how its “sense and avoid” system enables it to avoid conflicting traffic.
It then sends a burst transmission of status data to the ground station, before hooking up with a manned tanker for a fully autonomous air-air-refueling (AAR).
After that, the UCAV goes into silent mode and detects some surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites. It compares their location with prior data that it has received from an E-3 AWACS over Link 16. It renews contact with the ground station so that the mission commander seated there, can review the target and grant permission to engage.
Some Typhoon manned combat jets are also airborne, armed with heavier and more versatile weapons. The UCAV strike on the SAMs should clear the way for them to enter the hostile area to engage other targets.
Steele emphasized that the various scenarios are open to discussion and debate. Might the tanker control the AAR of the UCAV? Might the Typhoon formation commander take control of the UCAV? There’s plenty still to decide, as the Anglo-French FCAS work continues. And it will likely be another 15 years, before the scenarios on view here, are actually played out for real.”
ou clearly missed all the HooHah about Dragon fire 3 months ago – best do some googling before posting
I posted this further down which seems to imply that it is still a consideration at the very least.
June 8, 2023 5:23 PM
According to Col Kelly, one strand of FMAF – known as Project Ark Royal – is exploring options for the phased introduction of aircraft launch and recovery equipment to enable the operation of high-performance uncrewed strike and support systems, and potentially fixed-wing crewed aircraft.
“We are looking to move from STOVL to STOL [short takeoff and landing], then to STOBAR [short takeoff but arrested recovery] and then to CATOBAR [catapult-assisted takeoff but arrested recovery]. We are looking at a demonstrable progression that spreads out the financial cost and incrementally improves capability,” Kelly said.
The first step would be to increase the available length for the unassisted launch of uncrewed air systems.”
LINK
The problem with operating heavier, faster UCAVs is that they will need a launch and recovery system – EMALS- to be installed on the carriers. Mohave doesn’t.
For the RN, the most important need is for a replacement AEW system, with Crowsnest out of service likely by 2030. Seaspray weighs @ 87kg but whether Mohave has sufficient power to operate it, or something equivalent, I’m unsure. The altitude and endurance of Mohave would be a major improvement.
I thought they were looking at EMALS on the Carriers – for drones at least.
Or was that just another trial there was had no real intention of implemnenting due to costs?
No idea. Can’t find any mention of the outcome of the RFI anywhere.
It probably went somethng along the lines of:
“How much…??!!”
Followed by the buzz of the neasrest paper shredder
It’s called Project Ark Royal, Navy Lookout had a article on it. Basically the RN is inestigating a mini EMALS for drones, with potential to upgrade to something heavier in the 30s or 40s (which got a lot of CATOBAR fans very exited on twitter and YouTube because “omg the rn is admitting a mistake and going catobar and buying f35c” was the obvious takeaway.)
I think it’s called “project Ark Royal”?
Whoops, Dern’s said the same below.
Today…. he’s above… Lol 😁
Updated: June 8, 2023 5:23 PM
U.K. Considering Adding Catapults, Arresting Gear to Aircraft Carriers
According to Col Kelly, one strand of FMAF – known as Project Ark Royal – is exploring options for the phased introduction of aircraft launch and recovery equipment to enable the operation of high-performance uncrewed strike and support systems, and potentially fixed-wing crewed aircraft.
“We are looking to move from STOVL to STOL [short takeoff and landing], then to STOBAR [short takeoff but arrested recovery] and then to CATOBAR [catapult-assisted takeoff but arrested recovery].
We are looking at a demonstrable progression that spreads out the financial cost and incrementally improves capability,” Kelly said.
The first step would be to increase the available length for the unassisted launch of uncrewed air systems.
“This November we will [launch] a Mojave [STOL] aircraft off the angle of the flight deck off the U.S. east coast,” said Col Kelly. “This aircraft can take off in 300 feet of runway, so enough for the trial, [but] we have already undertaken design work to add sponsons and make a full run of 700 feet available.”
LINK
It’s an ongoing program called project Ark Royal, these drone tests are the first stage. They will also be considering an EMALS launch system with a single catapult running up the side of the ramp and an arrested recover system. This is looking at drones up to 25,000 pounds so something like Boeing MQ25 or Ghost-bat are possible.
Well they could always incorporate a new energy source onto the drone, maybe a module that incorporates the radar and a small sized generator. Endurance would probably be impacted but probably significantly better than crowsnest.
I wonder if RR new electric/hybrid motor system that recently ran for the first time with reportedly drone use and improving range in mind, is envisaged for a platform like this.
MQ9 already has seaspray 7500E radar incorporated and General Atomics are already stating it has an AEW capability. Leonardo also states seaspray is capable of arial tracks. It’s a pretty advanced AESA radar so I’m sure their is a bunch of stuff it can do. Working in tandem with F35 it’s probably a pretty effective AEW/AWACS capability compared to crowsnest with MQ9 providing altitude and persistence and F35 filling in the rest with its sensor fusion and data link.
AEW: Has anyone designed a drone for this rôle? Like a robo-gannet. Also, for really long loiter time, what about navigable balloons, or hybrid craft which can self-inflate when they have reached their mission location? With a good stealth cover, they could remain on stake-out for weeks or even months. It would be cheaper than a satellite.
I wonder if we can expect to see these added to the Mojave in the future?
You start to get a picture of how they might just be used.
“The smart weapon systems will be equipped with MBDA’s Orchestrike, a collaborative combat system designed to allow communication between multiple missiles and unmanned aircraft so they can act as a swarm.
“The Smart Glider and Cruiser are air-to-ground missiles and are dedicated for future combat with its swarming capabilities with AI-embedded capabilities for smart trajectory to deceive the air defense system and cloud combat to communicate with the control center and yet at the same time communicate with other effectors,”
LINK
These drones aren’t particularly stealthy or fast. They are easy prey for an intercepting fighter to shot down. As an enduring surveillance and overwatch platform though they are useful.
The RN needs a more capable loyal wingman platform then this but I think the Mojave does have a role, especially as a one way suicide mission against a heavily defended target where low altitude terrain following approach might be required.
It depends on the mission. Realistically we are unlikely to be involved in a war that needs carriers in the lifetime of the QEs, but we are likely to be in wars where sending in the carriers provides good PR. Carriers launching drones to attack terrorists/rogue factions of failed nations gives good PR for the navy, at a lot less cost than using f35s.
So you think the carrier’s are just for PR? Maybe take a look at what carrier’s have been used for over the last 30 odd years.
I’m looking! Why not extend that to 60 years. Outside the Falklands they have not been needed. Used yes, but needed no, as in all them wars land based jets have been used also, at which point the carriers weren’t needed.
Are you for real
Were used regularly in the Middle East conflicts. A lot of their tasks would have been difficult to achieve with land based platforms due to strategic, geographic and political considerations though not impossible in an ideal combination of those factors which rarely occurs in that region.
They are very much needed. Have you any idea how many sorties US Navy carrier aircraft performed over Iraq or Afghanistan. Thousands. That’s how many. Lots of thousands.
And considering they had friendly air bases available, how many of the thousands were actually needed? Using a capacity because you have it and shows strength is very different from needing it.
Steve, i like your optimism, but it may very very well be the opposite. Who knows how things in the Gulf, Indo Pacific and anywhere else that might go? We’ll have our drones and drones will be used back against us too. Like to see some more defensive armament on these carriers to complement the Phalanx/ECM and that will have a deeper engagement range., maybe 2-5km+.
Most major nations that we could possibly go to war with have nukes, which means it won’t happen. Most wars we have been in during our history has been about economics and making people rich, going against a nuclear nation won’t achieve that.
That’s very simplistic and by ‘history’ you one presumes mean recent history or it doesn’t make sense. Equally you may certainly have conflicts with nuclear powers without a nuclear event, otherwise Ukraine wouldn’t still exist or indeed India, Pakistan or China, Vietnam with conflicts between various of those countries in modern times.
Russia, China, trying for territorial creep, spreading influence, having nukes is not stopping them and not stopping us in the West doing the same either! Just takes one crazy idiot to press a button! Having a nuclear deterrence is in the back cupboard for last resort. Having strong conventional abilities also acts as a detterence of sorts but you’ve got to keep up with your potential adversaries.
I can’t see Phalanx on the carrier currently, sadly.
The carriers look really underdone in defensive armaments. What would it cost to get a couple of RAM type launchers modified for Starstreak/LMM – ER, even AIM132s, linked in with the Phalanx’s on the Carriers? Or adapt the SEA Ancilia launchers to do the same?
Or just get a move on in fitting the MSI 30mm DS30M they were both meant to have. If we can’t afford all four mounts the QEC are fitted for then just two each , port forward and starboard aft would be a win for me.
Or use a T45. The perfect tool for fleet defence. A carrier task group with two T45, two T23’s, later T26 is the most advanced integrated air defence system available. Then add In F35 capability. Stealth, AMRAAM/ASRAAM capability. And it would take one very capable and determined enemy to get through that lot. An enemy that doesn’t currently have the capability to match. Or come close.
Have to respectfully disagree with you here Robert. Key assets like the carriers should have their own defensive abilities to the max and not be largely dependent on AAWs, T23s and subs. Decoy launchers missing, RWS missing, anti torpedo defences missing, no Dragonfire, okay likely it has very good ECM, neighbouring T45s, and 3 Phalanx’s. Seems very naked still. Could easily be better. Just look at the armaments of other carrier countries for comparison.
Survivability of drones has been exposed by the war in the Ukraine it looks like they are easily shot down so thats a problem to solve
Rubbish
Why rubbish, larger drones in Ukraine have indeed proved vulnerable. The true picture will need to be evaluated over time. An American report a few years back claimed that even stealthy attack drones might not be able to deliver their mission if expected to go deeper into sophisticated enemy airspace than say an F-35 is expected to do. The jury is still out and the US is still couscous on commuting to such drones, the best solutions still a matter of debate.
Any AWACS platform is easy bait for a fighter. The idea is not letting a fighter get near it.
Brilliant i think we need 2 dozen of them, persistent aew as well as comms nodes and a cap of sorts for asymmetric threats
I bet the production rate of building them will be faster than the F 35.
You would hope so for a unmanned single prop engine drone compared to a 5th gen supersonic VSTOL all aspect stealth strike fighter.
Actually the F35 production line is massive in comparison but much less of a queue for MQ9. The US is trying to stop its orders.
Get a folding wing version and the QE . might carry a hundred aircraft.
Have you seen this, it was recently tested in testing weather conditions off of the East coast of the US on a carrier with ‘UK and other allied onlookers in attendance’. Surprised it wasn’t tried out on PofW though still early days for this concept. The design concept however seems so obvious once you see it in action. Can’t wait to see what roles bigger versions might have beyond logistics.
link
I would imagine that sounding like this equipped with the right sensors and radars could be very useful as an AWACS platform. No crew fatigue to worry about, less fuel required, so longer endurance.
Also a massive service ceiling giving the radar a wide horizon.
What can it carry aside from Hellfire?
If it can carry standoff weapons I see a useful role as dispersed missile trucks for the F-35 to direct weapons from.
Looks like it could potentially carry Sea Venom or SPEAR
Looks like it could potentially carry Sea Venom, SPEAR and maybe meteor.
You have to bear in mind the more the Mojave carries, the less duration it will have. General Atomics say that it can carry 12 Hellfires. If can the multi-mode seeker weigh 49kg each, which is a total of 588kg. Well below its max payload. However, this reduces the aircraft’s duration to only 3 hours.
Mojave_Data_Sheet_120721.pdf (ga-asi.com)
It has a payload of about 1600kg, which is lower than the base model. The standard Protector RG1 has 9 hardpoints under the fuselage and wings, Mojave uses 7, one under the fuselage and 3 under each wing. It will still give you a number of load-out options. Protector is earmarked for Brimstone and Paveway, plus I believe APKWS.
Perfect for CAP and carrying Meteor perhaps? Think Big! FAA fights where others fear to tread.
Its payload is severely limited by length of runway. Mojave off a long runway can lift 16 Hellfires and still have enough fuel for a mission. According to the article, this can only carry four. I had hoped it would be more. Realistically, it’s ISR only.
The question will be, what does that mean for the payload of a STOL Protector off the same runway?
I have a link pending audit as response to another comment. But its a pdf from General Atomics (GA) with the aircraft’s specifications. It shows that the Mojave will have 7 hardpoints (3 per wing and 1 under fuselage), compared to the Protector’s 9. The weapons payload drastically affects the aircraft’s flight duration. GA quote with a payload of 12 Hellfires, its flight time is reduced to 3 hours. Which is significantly less than Protector. But that is the penalty you pay for using a STOL specific wing!
Looking at the Navy Lookout video. The Mojave took off using about 1/3 of the available flight deck. As it was airborne before reaching the rear island. If they keep the same painted angled deck arrangement for future use. Then the aircraft will have at least 2/3 of the available flight deck for taking off. I doubt the flight control software would cope with using the ramp, in its current configuration. The longer flight deck length should allow it to lift a heavier payload. Whether this length is enough to allow it to lift the full 1600kg? We will have to wait and see.
To take off with 12 hellfires you need 1000 ft of runway to get a couple of hours of mission.
There was an article in the War Zone entitled “General Atomics’ Rough Field-Capable Mojave Drone Breaks Cover”. In it they published a chart of runway length vs mission time. With around 800ft of runway the QE would have to use wind over deck to generate extra lift to get 12 hellfires off the deck. So 600kg would be marginal, not 1600kg.
I think carriers normally use wind over the deck for all launches. Getting 25plus knots extra boost is important for almost any launch.
The final version is basically our guardian UAV with a wing kit so it can already carry Paveway IV and Brimstone.
I thought Mojave was just Protector, converted using a kit supplied by General Atomics. As such, I assumed that any ops from the carriers would come from the fleet were are already procuring. Is that all codswalop, as the article seems to imply it is a related but distinct aircraft?
Yes, that’s correct, The Mojave is a MQ-9B Sky Guardian (Protector in RAF speak) with a different wing and sturdier landing gear. The Standard MQ-9B uses a high aspect ratio wing (as per a glider), which gives it the really good fuel economy due to the lower drag at high altitudes.
The Mojave’s wing is a purposely designed for short take off and landing (STOL). It is significantly thicker, but also uses a shorter wingspan. This wing incorporates double slotted fowler flaps, leading edge slats and the ailerons can also droop to generate more lift, which reduces the stall speed significantly. When landing the wheel brakes are used, but so is the variable pitch propeller to stop the aircraft.
Due to the thicker and shorter wing, it won’t be able to fly as high and will have a shorter duration than the base MQ-9.
No. Mohave is a different model from the MQ 9 STOL development. The latter would allow the standard Sky Guardian/ Protector to be converted to STOL operation using a removable wing kit.
The Mohave has a 25 hour endurance, capacity for 16 Hellfires. With that max payload, take of distance rises to 1000 ft.
Mojave is a smaller UAV (MTOW 7000lb), a little over half the size of Protector (MTOW 12,500 lb). It doesn’t have an MQ number as the Americans aren’t buying it. Protector is the UK name for MQ-9B, also known as Sky Guardian or Sea Guardian depending on the fit out. The Protector’s STOL kit is still under development.
They are both very much in the same Reaper family.
Jon, the Mojave is a MQ-9. It keeps the centre fuselage, v-tail and engine, but changes the wings and fits heavier duty undercarriage. As it’s meant to operate from rough fields and roads. The smaller wing saves a lot of weight.
Sorry, Davey, but it isn’t. Mojave is an upscaled MQ-1C Grey Eagle. It sits between the MQ-1C and the MQ-9B in size. General Atomics are perfectly clear and Wikipedia hasn’t had it totally wrong for the last few years while nobody noticed.
The first flight of Mojave was in 2021. The MQ-9B STOL was first announced in 2022 as moving into development. It hasn’t flown yet. Here’s a quote on MQ-9B STOL from GA:
Hi Jon, that’s interesting as I was told that the Mojave, uses the main fuselage of the MQ-9, but adds the STOL wings and beefier undercarriage.
If GA say its a smaller airframe and they’re the manufacturer, who am I o disagree. Though I will be having words with one of my colleagues.
It’ll be interesting to see if the fully “navalised” version gets folding wings.
The RN are supposedly looking to go for the larger MQ-9B STOL, which is indeed depicted with folding wings, but the conversion kit isn’t available yet. To be honest, I’m a little surprised at that. The development was announced in May 2022, eighteen months ago, and as it’s “just” a wing and tail kit, I thought I’d have heard about trial flights before now, but it’s still all CGI. Mojave may be acting as proxy for tests.
Navy Lookout did an article not long after the announcement, and as I recall neither of us were bowled over. You thought it wouldn’t have the chops for AEW. I thought it would be too expensive. But this is the route being currently travelled.
So these Mojave drones may just be a substitute for a bigger guy then?
Yep. The same Protectors the RAF have bought, with a wing and tail kit to make them STOL. According to the blurb you can unbolt the full sized wings and tail and put the new ones on reasonably quickly.
There’s nothing to say the RN won’t fall in love with Mojave and decide to buy that instead, but it makes a lot more sense for training and spare part commonality if they go for a STOL version of Protector.
ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b-stol
Turkish LPHD Andalou with its flight deck packed with Jet and piston powered UAvs
https://twitter.com/WarshipsIFR/status/1649697102463631361
The Turkish navy have been trialling a series of UAvs including a jet powered UAV from their LPHD. If a flight deck as long and as wide as that can work with a jet powered UAV then the QEC flight deck definitely can.
https://www.euronews.com/2023/04/11/turkish-navy-launches-uav-and-helicopter-carrier-tcg-anadolu
Warships IFR did a good write up on this issue a few months back but I cant find the link to share.
When I look at this it actually gives me some hope for the future of our Carriers and increasing their capabilities.
The announcements regarding the future of Carrier born UAV and how it can be incrementally adopted and these trials are encouraging.
OK it isn’t an extra 40+ F35B but it’s a typical U.K bit of out of the box and joined up thinking and it is affordable.
The next logical step is to start and design the incremental reconfiguring of the QE’s for heavier UAV so that heavier UAVs can be launched and safely recovered fully loaded. And that has to mean limited Cats and Traps just like in the FMAF proposal and probably an angled deck.
We don’t need a full on CATOBAR, carrier like the US, France (China) and to be perfectly honest we couldn’t afford to run 2 anway.
But the ability to launch and recover a 20,000kg load would fit the bill nicely.
18 F35B and 10 Seaguardians, 4 MQ-25B Stingray Tankers plus Helicopters on a QE is a pretty useful box of whoopee.
https://www.navylookout.com/the-royal-navy-has-ambitious-plans-for-its-future-maritime-aviation-force/
So next step once that is underway and bear in mind loyal wingman is still a long way off, would IMHO be to purchase the GA Sea-guardian as an additional capability for SAR, MP, ASW and limited strike. And also sufficient MQ-25B to increase the range of the F35B via Aerial refueling would because real force multiplier.
https://www.ga-asi.com/remotely-piloted-aircraft/mq-9b-seaguardian
Folding wings, arrestor hook and 30 hour loiter time on station and a range of 1200 miles. It may not look sexy but it packs a lot of capability in, that we don’t have and is an effective force multiplier. Whats not to like ?
Where is the footage!?
Navallookout has a video.
Thanks, I saw it on UKDJ Twitter feed.
Great stuff.
Very useful especially for the lower intensity work.
Loaded up with Brimstone, they would be ideal for tackling fast attack craft & missile boat swarms at distance. Especially in the gulf areas.
Easier to launch and recover than fast jets. Cheaper also.
Can’t see it happening though.
Why ever not? The main worry is that these get fixated on as an “alternative” to f35, and numbers get cut accordingly. Agree with your point re fast boat swarms though
A couple of notes. 1) General Atomics quotes length 9m, wingspan 16m (not 17m, as in the article), weight a little over 3,000 kg.
2) Although it was manned, the WW2 Mosquito performed carrier deck operations. On 25th March 1944, Eric “Winkle” Brown the chief naval test pilot at RAE Farnborough at the time, did deck-landing and take off trials aboard HMS Indefatigable. The mosquito had length 13.5m, wingspan 16.5m and weight roughly 8,000 kg.
Incredible how unmanned technology is advancing so far so fast if drones of this kind could soon be strong enough and payload capable of say, carrying a storm shadow, then the strike power of a carrier group could be increased ten fold especially in carrier type ships operated by the Spanish and Italian navy.im waiting for when these technologies can be oper for air to air. Combat. They’ll be cheaper than a F 38 that’s for sure. The QE class fighting aircraft numbers could be increased a great deal higher the F35 numbers 🔢 today maybe the combat number of fighters might be significantly higher than the current one
The Turkish navy already has 3-4 UAvs that could perform strike operations, they are being trialled on their new LPHD.
Reports their LPHD could deploy upwards of 30 UAvs, 10 high performance fighter type and 20 lower end surveillance and light attack.
A ship the size of the QE could easily match those numbers and still have 24 F35Bs+ 14 Merlins onboard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSPMNxtoQ_U
Turkish Navy UAV carrier concept
Folding wing versions of sea deployed could enhance the power of a u.k CCSG especially if they are cruise missile capable
So if we compare the cost/size and capabilty of these to the F35B how does this compare?
Im not saying are they as good obviously they are not – Im just thinking how many would provide a useful capabilty on the carriers vs. how much space they would take up and therefore remove from the available space for F35B”s..when/if we get more of those.
Will the procurement of a sufficent number of these to provide a credible ‘force’ detract too much from the availlabilty/capability of the F35Bs – if that makes sense.
What sort of numbers of these (and or other drones) would need to be available to augment rather than detract from the capabilty of F35Bs (and Helicopters) ?
Or is that a complex distribution dependant on the task ?
I hope that they’re harder to shoot down.
As purely a theoretical example to augment the F35s. You would also need a drone used as a tanker, an AEW platform and obviously the loyal wingman. The RAF have been showing images of a pair of loyal wing controlled from a single F35/Typhoon/Tempest. Which would give a base number of normal F35 wing of 24 aircraft an additional 48 loyal wing man aircraft. To be honest to match the F35s performance, these aircraft won’t be that much smaller. So will there be sufficient space for all these aircraft plus Merlins and the additional support aircraft? However, if we say that the number of loyal wing man should at least match the number of F35s, that gives us a total of 48 F35 and loyal wingman aircraft, which is a lot easier to manage.
For the support aircraft. The tanker aircraft needs to carry sufficient fuel to maintain a pair of CAP aircraft. But you would also need additional tanker aircraft to cover the 24/7 period and maintenance downtime, Along with supporting strike missions etc. I would say that at least 4 aircraft at a minimum are required.
Additionally this would be the same for an AEW aircraft. If you are looking to match the capabilities of the E2D Hawkeye. Then you’d need to carry at least 4 pretty large aircraft, that not only carry the larger radar but also power it. Where you would provide constant patrol coverage, by rotating the aircraft through a cyclic period. So as a minimum for an unmanned aircraft, it must have a patrol duration of at least 8 hours. Thereby requiring 3 aircraft for thee rotation and include a spare for maintenance cover or supporting a strike package etc.
So we would have an air fleet of 24 F35s, 24 Loyal Wingman, 4 tankers and 4 AEW. Plus the additional 6 to 8 Merlins, i.e. a total of 62 to 64 aircraft. I have not included an ISR platform like the Mojave. But you would likely want at least 4 of these unless they could also be used in a ASW capacity, Where an additional 4 would be useful. Pushing up the number of aircraft carried to 66 or 68. Which I think the carrier should be able to manage.
Cheers for the reply DaveyB something to cogitate over.
I suppose it’s a case of how much these sorts of totals cost , and could we then get enough to fully kit out both carriers – at a push or for when the bomb (literally) goes up?
Good stuff, glad it actually happened!
I think the best application for this, given the size and performance characteristics, is on surface search and ASW- as far as I know the Sea Guardian is also essentially the same airframe. That can carry surface search radar and E/O sensors, sonobuoys and (I think) torpedoes in the Stingray class. At a guess it would be able to function as a data node.
Even with the less efficient wing, I presume that the Mojave/Sea Guardian could stay up 20+ hours, which is obviously a lot better in terms of endurance on station than Merlin, and so could carry out a helpful support role- with Merlin potentially becoming more of a “quarterback” of these and rotary wing UAVs?
As a strike platform it’s no good, except against small craft that wouldn’t have air defence. That’s not unhelpful, but it is a limiting factor.
This is an epoc making advance and could mean a complete rethink of a lot of stuff. Clear decks for one.
Just a pet idea of mine, and those in the business will be able to tell me if I’m raving mad:
Could a T31 etc. hull be capable of conversion to a small carrier for the carriage of this sort of drone? I’m envisaging that it would fulfill what the Invincible a were designed to do, as anti-sub stooges in the North Atlantic but also fulfill their own separate strike role. Understand there would be limitations over takeoffs but could ramp and/or catapult counteract this? The landing on PoW looked very short, and the takeoff not much more.
Take a quick peak at the “UXV Combatant” concept ship by BAE from a while ago. With how far along EMALS and UAV/UCAV technologies have progressed since then, I could absolutely see an updated version, possibly based on the T26 hull (not sure if T31 would have the space to accommodate such an adaptation), as being a truly lethal and effective ship.
Of course our own government would never fund such a thing either way, but I do think it would be doable.
That seems to be a sort of “zumwalt with a flight deck and well deck” idea. I was thinking more along the lines of “through deck frigate” with Sea Ceptor, 57mm. Based on type 26 for the T32 requirement?
In the escort carrier tradition, with 4-6x Mojave and 1-2x Proteus. 2 lifts, small ramp. Either T26 or T31 with huge active stabilisers
I like the idea of an escort carrier, or even a through-deck MRSS. However, you don’t want to use a frigate base for that. If you are going to build to naval rather than commercial standards, you might as well build a Mistral and have done.
Thank you for the MRSS idea. I’m sure BMT would be happy to produce some CGI of the small end of Ellida turned into a through-deck escort carrier
Again though very early stages for the concept, a design of this type might fit very well in a vessel of the type you are thinking of to maximise performance with space.
Transwing
LINK
Thanks, the link didn’t work but I looked up Transwing. That looks brilliant, how did you find them? The mechanism is so elegant and simple, you’ve made my day. Yes, those would be perfect. Quadcopter turns into conventional fixed-wing smoothly and easily. Can easily imagine one with a couple of Brimstone buzzing off a flight deck.
I always keep an eye NewAtlas they have a wealth of new developments in every sphere of science, technology and engineering. Yes long way to go in their scaling up but the video is impressive I feel. Once you see the idea you think why hasn’t it been done before, it’s a near perfect solution advantages of an aircraft with minimum footprint while landing and take off and without having to have folding wings. I presume the art of making it transform so naturally in flight would be the prime complexity in terms or aerodynamics and potential changes in centre of gravity but I am amazed at the apparent stability shown in what were reportedly deliberately ‘testing’ sea conditions for the test. This could have great potential for smaller ships if it proves scalable. (Hopefully link is active below).
LINK
And the test in which they landed on a QR code 😁.
They would be very useful for extending the ASW umbrella of the frigates, especially in a containerised version for T26 mission bay or River container spots. Smaller footprint than helicopters and almost the range of fixed wing.
Err no I very much doubt it.
By the time the QE Class go to the scrap yard 80% of all aircraft take-offs will probably be a drone or unmanned F35s. Considering most aircraft could have 70% AI operability, one shivers at just how advanced these systems might be.
I think the QE’S WILL END UP WITH DRONES ALING THE LINES OF THE TURKISH KIZILELMA DRONES, but fitted with air to air capabilities these already have a folding wing version.
These Drones are quoted as costing £30 million each, I think I’d rather spend that money on more F35b and the Capability that brings.
Theyve only built 10-15 of the Kizilelma class drones so far, once the numbers take off and there are hundreds of them I can see unit cost dropping to circa £5 million each- what isnt known is their air to air or strike capabilities vs an F35B. Would 15 of these drones be equivalent to an F35B, in terms of effect on target and mission/ sortie rates.
Hi… How much is an F35b?
+£110 million a piece. Eye wateringly expensive
Hi fella. Think that may well be an old estimate of costs. Currently the average unit costs for Lot 15-17 aircraft is assessed as $75million. That’s the airframe and mission kit minus the engine.
A rough breakdown is;
F35A -$70million.
B- $80 mi!!ion.
C – $90million.
That is obviously down to different numbers ordered, and doesn’t take into account any increase which will be applied with TR3 & BLK 4 upgrades as and when.
F35b are not cheap,Drones are good for uncontested Airspace,they will have their uses but in contested Airspace Survivability will be a major issue.
I think we should also be trialling the Bayraktar TB3. If we want a long endurance ISR and MQ-9B STOL is too pricey, perhaps smaller, cheaper and more pleantiful might be the way to go.
Hi Jon…. Is there a reason for us not buying O.T.S from Turkey… they seem to have a lot of U.A.V experience
Many Thanx Ian
Wasting cash we don’t have on something we don’t need? It’s way too soon to charge in with a sizeable purchase from anyone, even when pressed to consider “the fight tonight”. We don’t know how best to fulfil what we need, nor what we can get out of these types of drones, so trialling is necessary. There’s an argument to say get something up in the air so you learn for the next iteration, but the lessons learnable are more limited with COTS/MOTS where you don’t control the programme.
Mojave is a land-based prototype being tested on a carrier for the first time. TB3 is smaller, a carrier variant of a land-based UAV, and it will be every bit as limited, probably more. Understanding their carrier performance is necessary before figuring out what role they can be adapted to perform. Neither will be loyal wingman fighters, that’s for sure. Neither will have the payload/power for even medium range AEW. So I reckon they will have a limited combat capability and when flown from a stand-off carrier will only be used for long endurance low-SWaP ISR and perhaps LOS coms relay.
How much money do we want to spend on carrier-based ISR right now when there’s STOL Protector expected soon and a UK rotary demonstrator (Proteus) with good expected carrier-payload (>1ton) due to fly in 2025? Proteus won’t have the flight ceiling, but it might have reasonable endurance and won’t interrupt fight operations with a full length runway requirement. Look at DaveyB’s suggested drone role mix earlier in the comments: to him ISR is almost an afterthought.
There are advantages to going with the GA family that don’t come with Bayraktars. Mature satellite comms is an obvious one; we don’t know how good the TB3 BLOS system is, nor if it requires TURKSAT access with its limited global footprint. Then there’s the MQ-9B’s collision avoidance system that allows it to fly in European civilian airspace (a big deal for the RAF, less so for the RN), our decade of experience with Reaper, and commonality of spare parts with the RAF Protectors. The TB3s are even newer than Mojave having conducted a maiden test flight only last month. What TB3 should come with is a far lower price tag and an unrivalled commitment from Turkey to get it done. TB3s are designed for the Anadolu, a closer match to QE. They are smaller than Mojave and might hit a better sweet spot for ISR (and also they might not).
To me adding ISR will be the least difficult of the carrier UAV capabilities to come, and we are still a long way off understanding how we want to achieve even that. I think getting in on the ground floor of the twin-engine version of Kizilelma, testing out UK engines, could be just what we need to reach a loyal wingman capability, but I wouldn’t order those OTS either.
On the plus side, these things will not cost anywhere near a human piloted version.
Unfortunately, this is the only plus I can personally see with this particular drone.
As a ‘test’ of a large uncrewed aircraft, it’s a great result. The aircraft itself is way too large, and would probably be ‘downed’ by a smaller drone.
As long as it can be operated with 24 x F-35’s and 8 Merlins onboard sounds perfect for continuous surveillance if it can carry decent radar and say 4 meteor and 4 brimestone it can stay aloft all day an provide watch and first response to air or surface threats while the alert jets are launched. it def not useful for full strike/counter air against hostile but as patrol / immediate response over CSg perfect
Its good to see the developmant of drone capability for the RN. Yes Mojave is a step forward. However I would like to see what the MQ-9B STOL could bring to the carriers. The issue with Mojave is the following. with a 500ft takeoff it will have seven hours duration in the ISR mode. They will never be able to take of from the carriers with a full weapons fit, eg 12 Hellfires as that would need a 1000 ft runway. (See Link)https://www.ga-asi.com/products-services
So the only way I can see drones with a useful payload or endurance using our carriers is either if a single e-mal is installed port side at an 8 degree and angle 130ft long finishing above the forward port CIWS with a 25-30 metric ton launch capacity. Or the old fashioned method of a rocket assisted takeoff. It would be intresting to see if we could launch Mojave using the ski jump.
However, once these trials are complete I really would like to see the MQ-9B STOL and what it brings. The RAF will have16-20 MQ-9Bs in the fleet so possibly a further 20 with STOL conversion kits will increase the capability of the RAF and FAA. All the RN and FAA need to resolve is the air to air refueling and for that the carriers needs at least one e-mal and arresing gear. However, again there is the question of can a F35B on the run up to the ski jump cross an e-mal?
If that can be installed when the carriers go in for their first major refit we could then buy 20 MQ-25s. That would give each carrier the capability of 24 F-35Bs, 8 MQ-9Bs STOL and 8 MQ25s for refueling plus say six Merlins, 4 Wildcats and 4 Apaches.
The refueling could be 4 MQ-25s could refuel 23 F35Bs 150 miles out with 1,000 kg of fuel each, the second group of 4 MQ-25s could then refuel the F-35Bs on the return journey again 150 miles out with a further 1,000 kg of fuel. The four MQ-25s meeting the return aircraft after refeuling them would each have a spare 1,000 kg which could be used if one of the aircraft has fuel tank issues.
Yes I know the RAF will not be very happy, but with limited numbers of aircraft we could if need be have both carriers with a very useful airwing. Who know the USMC might also add an extra sqadron to the air group. There would be one more advantage of a single e-mal and advanced arrestor gear landing system cross decking with US and French carriers.
Yes I know money, yet it should be possible. Possibly a combined purchase order with the French for e-mals and arresting gear would reduce the cost. Depending the design of the French carrier we could possibly copy some of the ideas.
Further comments.
From what I have been reading the Mojave according the CEO GA Linden Blue Mojave is a STOL Demonstrator.
I have also noticed that the USMC are looking at using the MQ9B STOL converstion kit on the MQ-9A Reaper. GA does not see any issue with this and thinks it is a good idea for the USMC as the USAF will have over 300 Reapers available to convert. If that is possible does the RAF not have ten Reapers available for converstion.
Oh and just to jog everyone memory the QE class carriers are designed in surge mode to carry 70+ aircraft.
I have written alot about the offensive possibilities of the QE carriers but her defence leaves room for improvement. It is my opinion that she should have four CIWS, four 30mm or better yet 40mm guns and four x Sea Ceptor groups. The Sea Ceptor groups would be quad packed into Mk41 Self defence cells, given 32 missiles in total. Two cells on the four corners of the main flight deck. If that was either to expensive or problimatic then 2-3 BAE Mk41 ExLS groups giving 24-36 Sea Ceptors.
I would like to see if possible 2-4 GAU-8 Avenger mounts for anti swarming attacks, Oh we had it, called Goalkeeper. Whilst the GAU-8 for anti swarming is a pipe dream I do think that four mounts of the GAU-19 backed up by four M134 miniguns would deal with most surface boat attacks.
So that is how I see our carriers by 2030 both offensive and defensive.
A useful complement to George’s item here, is the in-depth look at the Mojave trials on Prince of Wales at the War Zone.
Watching the Mojave take off made me think of the Sopwith Camel for some reason. Must have been remembering my younger airfix model days. Do you reckon it’ll be able to carry torpedos?