Saab has announced a strategic collaboration with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems to develop a new uncrewed airborne early warning (AEW) capability based on the MQ-9B platform.
The partnership brings together Saab’s decades of experience in airborne early warning and control (AEW&C) technologies with General Atomics’ expertise in long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicles. The new solution will see Saab’s radar and sensor technology integrated with the MQ-9B SkyGuardian to provide a medium-altitude AEW platform capable of delivering wide-area situational awareness.
According to Saab, the system will “leverage core competencies of both companies” to offer “persistent surveillance and situational awareness by providing continuous monitoring of designated areas.” The solution can be deployed independently or as part of manned-unmanned teaming operations, with potential applications across land, sea, and air domains.
“This unmanned medium-altitude AEW solution… has excellent potential to complement our existing AEW&C portfolio and provide customers with yet another cutting-edge capability,” said Carl-Johan Bergholm, head of Saab’s business area Surveillance.
The move reflects a growing trend in global defence to shift from legacy manned systems to more flexible, cost-efficient, and survivable autonomous platforms. It also aligns with wider interest from several NATO countries, including the United Kingdom, in exploring the utility of large RPAS in AEW roles.
The UK Ministry of Defence has confirmed that the MQ-9B is currently being assessed as a possible future AEW platform for the Royal Navy, particularly as a long-term successor to the Crowsnest system currently deployed on Merlin helicopters.
In a recent response to a parliamentary question, Defence Minister Maria Eagle said: “The Ministry of Defence is actively assessing the potential of uncrewed remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) to support airborne early warning (AEW) roles across the air environment… future developments may enable their use in AEW missions.”
She added that “the General Atomics MQ-9 can be modified to operate from the Queen Elizabeth Class carriers,” and that it is being considered for “Carrier Strike Airborne Early Warning following the planned withdrawal of the Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system when it reaches the end of its service life.”
This follows the success of the Mojave unmanned aircraft trial from HMS Prince of Wales in 2023, which demonstrated the feasibility of launching and recovering large uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) from the Royal Navy’s flagship carrier. The MQ-9B is now being seen as a candidate for extending that capability into AEW operations.
The MQ-9B SkyGuardian is General Atomics’ latest evolution of the Predator series, capable of flying for over 40 hours in all weather conditions, integrating into civil airspace, and supporting joint civil and military ISR missions. It features the Lynx Multi-mode Radar, advanced EO/IR sensors, automatic takeoff and landing, and a 24-metre wingspan.
The UK is already acquiring a variant of the MQ-9B as the Protector RG Mk1, entering service as a core part of its next-generation ISTAR capability.
A great partnership. I am sure that if UK MOD are serious about parting with some money for this capability rather than just talking, this will go straight to the top of the list.
Off topic but Radakin was saying they wanted a drone similar in size and capability to a cruise missile.
Wouldn’t that effectively be a cruise missile mind, or does ‘capability’ anctually exclude certain elements of capability that a cruise missile possesses like speed perhaps. How much of that capability then does it lose before ‘similar capability’ isn’t similar at all. One of these days this guy will open his mouth and something, clear, logical and meaningful will escape… he better be careful.
Fantastic, I’ll look forward to seeing it on a carrier by 2040, if I live that long.
“Time and tide waits for no man”.
I agree that it’s hard to be patient when we’ve seen year-after-year of cuts and never-ending capability gaps.
Unfortunately, developing new military technologies takes an excruciating long time, especially when you’re not under immediate threat of attack; as the Ukrainians are showing us in spades – they’re innovating like nobodies business under the immediate threat of attack.
I saw an image today of a Ukrainian long-range drone glider being towed behind another powered drone (to enable the long range strikes deep into Russian territory). Things are moving very quickly and today’s cutting edge is tomorrow’s failed experiment.
Personally, I think building a robust, flexible and innovative manufacturing base (so we can be prepared for any slugfest against Russia/China) must be a top priority. Done right, it will be a key enabler for our Armed Forces.
Cheers.
Exactly. It is about building and retaining the capability and capacity to do things – not let everything die off so that we are then caught with collective trousers around our ankles and having to cough up vast sums of £dosh to foreign designers/manufacturers.
Would be nice to think we have a central design and research facility somewhere specialising in drone technology with state of the art 3D printing and open to bringing in outside expertise to share ideas and offering support and training to outsiders too to spread ideas and expertise around all manner of companies that could be useful in building drone technology even when it’s not their priority now. Little point in building vast supplies of drones that will be obsolete before they are used but have the capacity to instantly design and build vast quantise within a very short timeframe when needed while retaining enough stored supply to bridge the gap. Only pre organising that set up and creating the skillsets and facilities to adapt can hope to fulfil that need.
Please, please, please can we just go out and buy these. 8 for the carriers and probably a similar number for UK AEW to supplement the E7.
If we are serious about the MPA version as well the UK should be looking at a fleet of 40 or so MQ9’s able to interchange between MPA,AEW and ISTAR with the ability to swap out wings to operate from Queen Elizabeth class as well.
The system may be proved to be good, but good luck trying to handle 24 mts wingspan on a moving deck even in daylight. At 02.30 winter North Atlantic it will be a heck of a job, even if they can reduce the span.
How much would negative flaps and/or ailerons prevent the wings lifting up on the deck?
The STOL kits have power folding and so hopefully the only risk will be immediately following landing or before launch.
Precisly, this do not make any sense for a carrier, it is too big. Note that you need to take the wings out to be able to go to the hangar.
General Atomics has released multiple images with power folding wings going into Queen Elizabeth as well as America class LHD hangers
That has to be the solution, manhandling wings would serious affect its usefulness while potentially damaging other air operations. It has to be in the air to be of use so that needs to be effected efficiently. Even with powered folding wings it will be a difficult platform to incorporate but probably the best available solution, though combined with a rotary solution might be the best mix for flexibility and constant minimum coverage at all times.
It added “dead” weight and complexity to the bird but if it works.
Couldn’t they be given folding wings like the USN Super Hornets?
They don’t exist yet numbnuts
But the MPA does, which would be a very useful increase in capability.
Adding in STOL and AEW would just be the cherry on top.
Yes they do, in MPA configuration Japan has them in service, others are all coming and they all use the same MQ9 fuselage that we are already acquiring.
ATM this is an idea pitch deck.
It isn’t actually a real thing.
*If* it ever becomes a real thing that can be bought at fixed prices then yes it is worth a think.
But as others have pointed out it’s wing span is far too big ATM. If you reduce it too much you’ve made a totally different type.
If Saab and GA can pull this off, in the MQ-9 Mojave configuration, then it’s a coup for the QE class of carriers. The existing benchmark we are probably looking to at least match, in terms of capability, is the E2D Hawkeye. Service ceiling of the Mojave is stated as 52,000ft in some sources but, loaded with an AEW RADAR, that might perhaps mean a height penalty that puts it nearer to the the E2Ds circa 35,000ft. Compare this to our existing, troubled, incumbent, the AEW Merlin, that reaches circa 15,000ft, this Saab-GA proposal has potential as a descent solution for our carriers. This then begs the question, are GA also looking at our other capability hole in the carriers, a carrier-borne tanker? I’m imagining those two wing tanks that might house the Saab RADAR being swapped out for fuel tanks? Of course, there’s a lot more to the integration of a solution than that, maybe it would be more practical to have separate MQ-9 types for the two roles? Lot of potential opening up here, good to see.
It is obviously good to see solutionising going on.
But there is a long way to go before this is anything like an E2D.
In that respect isn’t something more E2Dlike about the solution. Something based on a commercial frame that can be optionally crewed UKR style? I find it quite hard to believes that it isn’t possible to use modern engineering to toughen the fixed points for the undercarriage enough on a number of mid weight aircraft to make them ski jump compatible?
Are ever going to buy any thing or just say we are looking at it, as that is all that has happened for well over a year on every thing,
Just what the Admiral requested for the flight decks of our flattops. 3 to each and 3 ashore for spare and training. 849NAS back in business and the Merlins going off to hunt subs. We could actually be getting there. Too much talking we need the action NOW.
Agree. If it works get it ordered. I think 15+ AEW sets to supplement our hopefully going back upto 5 Wedgetails.
We need this issue sorted ASAP. The Merlin’s as you rightly state are needed for ASW.
Does anyone have any up to date info on Project Ark Royal or is Dead in the Water ?
This looks like an ideal solution but I think that they will need to be very careful about landing and take off weights. Yes they trialed a Mojave off HMS Prince of Wales but that was off the coast of Florida but that was in ideal conditions.
IMHO for this and for other reasons they really need to get a wiggle on and modify the Carriers for STOBAR and then maybe CATOBAR so an angled deck to increase the runway for landing with AAG and then later some form of Catapult.
The advantages are pretty obvious, you can operate heavy UAV such as this AEW one, but it opens up many other options. Probably the most important is you can start to cross deck with US and French Carriers.
The French Rafale & USN F18 have both been tested and certified for STOBAR operations as part of them competing for an order for the Indian Navy.
Then again if they just bit the bullet and fitted full bore EMAL they can operate E2E Hawkeye AEW and MQ25 tankers.
ABC Dave,
With the upmoast respect to all the experts and those in the know on this fine comment section.
How the hell would we know ?.
“It’s not my fault I’m like this, I was dropped on the way out”.
“It’s not my fault I’m like this, I was dropped on the way out”.
Ha ha, love it.
That all depends on ££££ becoming real as opposed to Rachel adding other ring fenced budgets to defence to increase the size of the defence budget!
Can’t see them ever fitting a full angled deck and cats. It would completely invalidate the B purchases, require a hell of a lot of work as I understand and we’d not buy enough aircraft to make it worthwhile anyway so likely end up crossdecking USN/MC F-35C too.
No it wouldn’t, in fact it would make life far easier when using the rolling landing as you have a clear runway ahead if you need to do a bolter just the same as on a CATOBAR. If you land and have overshot the safe breaking mark you just apply the throttle and go round.
Fitting CATS like the US helps with heavy drones as the restraining force is more adaptable.
No that isn’t true, there is a big difference between F35B rolling landing and what you see the F18 doing, with the rolling landing there is enough forward thrust to maintain the glide path only, (the fan is on) the F18 is being powered into the deck hard to make sure that the turbine is spooled up in case a bolter is required (there is no time to spool up between the last trap and the end of the deck),…..this is why the noise as it lands is about the same as when its taking off……completely different concept.
Which if the T31 frigates would you cancel to pay for the EMALs? Or T26 if you’re converting both carriers.
Lucky if you get it for 300 million, probably closer to 500 million, excluding refit costs
Meanwhile in the real world there’s no spare capacity at the yards and going form a generation 5 aircraft to generation 4.5 aircraft is downgrade in capability. It would take 15 years to get to having 2 operational carriers but equipped with obsolescencet aircraft
Agreed and the whole question around the viability of carrier operations up for discussion in the meantime. I think the money can be better spent elsewhere tbh and make the present lay out work as best as it can with as few mods as possible. Geez even submarines are now being questioned as survivable in 20 years or so, whatever next.
The government will be releasing the new national policy framework next week before the NATO summit, my understanding is it will put detail to the aspirations outlined in the SDR but I don’t believe there will be anything on project Ark Royal.
It appears project Ark Royal was just a thought experiment in Future Maritime Aviation Force (according to Gemini and Chat GPT) It’s not be cancelled because it never existed. The thinking behind it has led to the ROI to industry in new AEW capabilities.
Saasb stated “It will provide customers with a wider range of options, such as AEW capability from naval warships, to meet mission needs.” So there’s confirmation it isn’t expected to be only land-based!
Furthermore GA announced “General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc. (GA-ASI) is partnering with Saab to develop Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) capability for its line of MQ-9B Remotely Piloted Aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian® and SeaGuardian® models, the United Kingdom’s Protector, and the new MQ-9B STOL (Short Takeoff and Landing) model currently in development. GA-ASI plans to fly AEW on MQ-9B in 2026.”
So that’s some really good news.
I don’t know how long we’ll have to wait for MQ-9B STOL, but I hope the RAF take this capability up sooner rather than later. If the Protectors can back up the P-8s and the E-7s, they should help flesh out the numbers in two underfunded capabilities.
Interesting question, would these be RAF, FAA, or a similar arrangement as the Lightning Force?
Latter makes the most sense.
Are going to need 8 buy 4 then only finally get 2 much like most of things MOD does? if we need 8 buy 10 have a spare. Be interesting which cheap option is picked or will it make our own at massive cost that does not work well and then have spend more fixing it but still will crap a bit like Nimrod AEW.
Then system will mostly likely be podded with an additional power gen unit to ensure they have the energy to do the job. The Radars are about already just need measuring up to make the fit and of course the secure link to the carrier to ensure the picture is seen by those that need too.
STOL already proven from our carriers so Id suggest an uprated main engine and your away. Could be done in a relatively short time if the desire and will is there. We did in the Falklands is some recall! And would not cost as much as the hash up on Merlin which provides little over the Seakings hat did the role before.
Pair it with a couple of Mojave carrying 4-6 Meteor’s and you have long endurance CAP over CSG
Interesting idea. I like that concept. Use the MQ9s as a missile bus operating in cooperative engagement with an AEW drone.
“Landing on” with that payload might set off a few warning sirens in the H&S bunker.
“you don’t want to do that”.
Seems a very credible solution. Most of the hardware already exists – it just needs integration, although admittedly that is arguably the difficult and time-consuming bit! A big challenge though will be safely integrating the MQ-9B in to QEC flight deck ops, particularly in poor weather and at night. It’s currently a STOL UAV. Given about 20kts WOD and good conditions, it can probably take off or land in just 150m – but you need a clear flight deck which is fine for trials but impractical in high intensity ops. Realistically the airframe and flight systems will need to be stressed, tested and certificated for ski-jump launches aka the F-35B, whilst for landings an angled deck will need to be marked out, landing aids and lighting installed, and perhaps even arrestor gear and an emergency barrier fitted.
This is pointless! I see no value in fitting a radar to the MQ-9B unless it operates in the S-band, where it is expected to do AEW roles. Being used for maritime surveillance yes, AEW no. Somebody is trying to promote this as a viable solution, whilst not actually thinking it through!
The main criticism is the airframe is too small to either carry a longer wavelength (lower frequency) radar other than an X-band or have the electrical generating capability to power one. On a platform such as this you will likely be using an X-band (8 to 12GHZ) radar. As the antenna size is more compact and easily fitted to the airframe. The power requirements aren’t too excessive, so the MQ-9 should be able to power it and remotely do the signal processing over a data-link. However, X-band radars and those of higher frequencies significantly suffer from atmospheric attenuation, where the air acts like a giant resistor. People will talk about the inverse square law for transmitter range versus power, which is true but not the whole story. As dust and water vapour, along with the molecules that make up the atmosphere all interact with radio waves at different frequencies, which has an affect on transmission distances. Which is where radars operating at lower frequency have the advantage, as they need less power to transmit at distance.
You can seriously amplify an X-band radar to give you extended detection range over 200 miles, as per the THAAD’s AN/TPY-2 radar. But you will need significantly more electrical power along with an extreme cooling solution. There is not enough space on such a small platform as the MQ-9B to enable this. You could have a number of these platforms flying together as a network. But it would still be less effective than operating a lone E2D Hawkeye. The reason is simple, detection range from the platform.
To put this in context, imagine the MQ-9B has a 200 mile detection range against a fighter sized target (this is highly unlikely in a real world scenario, it would be closer to 150 miles or less if using an X-band radar). You could team up three platforms as a network, which increases the total area covered, but the detection range from the platform still remains at 200 miles. This is a problem when facing long range air to air missiles, such as the PL17 or R27M, with ranges of around 250 miles. Due to the way radar works, where the signal is transmitted and the receiver waits for the return. Atmospheric attenuation degrades the signal strength over distance. Therefore an object/target will always detect the transmission first before the receiver sees it. Something like a Chinese J20, will be able to detect the MQ-9B’s radar a long time before it is detected. So much so, that the J20 can launch a PL17 at the MQ-9B and turn away whilst remaining undetected. Even a non-stealthy fighter such as a J-16 (licenced Chinese Su35 equivalent), using the PL17 would still be able to detect the MQ-9’s radar and be able to fire the missile and turn away before being detected. Using the slightly shorter range PL15 missile, the aircraft’s large radar cross section may be detectable at 150 miles, but it still gives the aircraft time to fire and evade.
People will say it doesn’t matter, as the ship’s long range volume search radar, should be able to detect the threat aircraft, before it can get into launch range. This is possible, but what is one of the main roles for a maritime AEW platform? The answer is detecting sea skimming threats. Therefore, taking out your AEW platform/s leaves a “task group” reliant on the ships near sea level radars. Thereby the task group’s radar horizon will be really close. Which gives an attacker the advantage of significantly reducing the time ships can respond to sea skimming threats.
This is the primary reason why maritime AEW aircraft like the E2D Hawkeye, uses a lower wavelength UHF band radar. As the radar gives over 370 miles (600km) for its published detection range (it’s likely to be more!). But crucially over 200 miles against smaller fighter sized targets with radar cross sections less than 1m2, such as a J20 (according to Lockheed Martin). As the Hawkeye’s cruising altitude is 25,000ft, it has a radar horizon of around 220 miles (360km). The other reason the Hawkeye uses a UHF based radar, is that UHF and S-band radars can use the resonance affect to detect targets that are normally very stealthy. Where straight edges of certain lengths on a target act in resonance with the radar’s frequency and become antenna to rebroadcast the signal.
In essence a MQ-9B with a STOL wing operating from a carrier, will give a slightly better radar detection performance than the legacy Merlin fitted with Crowsnest due to a newer radar. Its main advantage is duration on patrol, where it’s likely to be able to stay aloft over 10 hours, something a Merlin can never do. Sadly it’s not what a carrier task group needs, what it critically needs is long range detection, i.e. over 200 miles for fighter sized targets with a small radar cross section. As that gives the AEW platform a form of protection against very long range air to air missiles. But also allows time for a fighter controller to direct the CAP which would be patrol towards the likely threat, to intercept or at least interfere with the launching of these long range air to air missiles. Which if launched, allows the AEW platform to switch off its radar and bug out at high speed to get outside the missile’s radar search cone and/or start employing its countermeasures. It also prevents the launch aircraft from reacquiring the AEW platform as it has to evade the CAP, thereby preventing it using its data-link to give mid-course updates. Therefore, a radar that has a longer detection range, gives the platform more options on how to respond when threatened. But also changes the way a enemy needs to counter it.
Hi DB, yet another really important comment.
But that this radar is being developed in collaboration with SAAB tells us a little more about its capabilities. Particularly, having looked at the most recent CGI the pods bear a striking resemblance to the Erieye radar, which has recently been updated with GaN TRMs, uses the S-band and has a range of 450km.
Now, you will know better than anybody how the limitations of MQ9 and the size of the pods would reduce that, but the problems with X-band in particular might not be so bad.
Per the manufacturer, the Lynx Multi-mode Radar has a range of up to 80 km. The Hawkeye’s radar can spot a cruise missile at 250 km. Good luck.