Project AETHER will acquire ‘Stratospheric Uncrewed Air Systems’ that can stay airborne for months and be rapidly manoeuvred anywhere in the world to provide ‘Ultra-Persistent Wide Area Communications with Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance’ capabilities.
The value of the project is around £100m.
According to the tender notice description:
“Project AETHER (Identification of systems that can perform Ultra-Persistent Wide Area Communications with Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) The Contracting Authority has a developing requirement to demonstrate Ultra-Persistent Wide Area Communications with Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance using Stratospheric Uncrewed Air Systems that can be rapidly manoeuvred to an area of interest that is anywhere in the world.
The Contracting Authority requires a capability that can be rapidly manoeuvred to any area of interest in the world to provide ultra-persistent wide-area communications in addition to Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance. The information must be available in near real time and be exploited using a range of existing resources. The capability must be on task for several months at a time with minimal resupply or maintenance effort. The Authority intends to invite all eligible companies who pass the PQQ to tender for the Framework.
Note that while there is no down-selection to any specific numbers of bidders at this stage, only companies who can demonstrate relevance to the subject matter of the lots within the Framework through their previous or existing portfolio of work (of which examples are requested via the PQQ) will pass the PQQ and be considered eligible to receive an Invitation to Tender at the next stage of the competition. Potential bidders may bid to join a single lot or multiple lots.
Please provide evidence in a maximum of 4 sides of A4 per lot. As with any framework, whilst there can be no guarantee of any particular quantity of work being put through it, the Authority intends to conduct further mini-competitions to select successful framework contractors or collaborative teams of framework contractors within individual lots or across a number of Lots in any combination, and expects that the work will be conducted progressively in spirals giving ongoing opportunities to many of the framework participants.
The lots will include, but may not be limited to, the following subject matter themes: • Platform – a rapidly deployable uncrewed platform capable of working at stratospheric altitudes to carry out uninterrupted ISR activities
• Payload – capable of being fitted to a platform to carry out uninterrupted and secure ISR activities and communications over an extended period of time
• Integrator – to oversee the integration of the payload onto a platform to enable the processing, exploitation and dissemination of information
• Customer Advisory Network (may include but not be limited to assurance, operationalisation, third party security testing, testing and evaluation).”
Could this be Zephyr?
Zephyr (pictured above) is a High Altitude Pseudo-Satellite (HAPS) that fills a capability gap between satellites and UAVs.
The platform is the world’s leading, solar-electric, stratospheric UAV. Airbus say it will revolutionise defence, humanitarian and environmental missions all over the world.
“The first unmanned aircraft of its kind to fly in the stratosphere, Zephyr harnesses the sun’s rays, running exclusively on solar power, above the weather and conventional air traffic. It is a HAPS: a High Altitude Pseudo Satellite, able to fly for months at a time, combining the persistence of a satellite with the flexibility of a UAV.”
In Summer 2018 for its maiden flight from Arizona, the Zephyr S remained aloft for 25 days 23h 57min, nearly twice as long as the previous record flight of 14 days set by its predecessor.
Last week, we flew two MOD owned solar-powered Zephyr record breaking aircraft to Australia for concept trials. The @99Sqn C-17 is the first ever aircraft to carry the Zephyr, which recently smashed the world flight endurance record! ?✈️#Zephyr #JFC @DefenceHQ @RoyalAirForce pic.twitter.com/UgTIyFn5wW
— 99 Squadron RAF (@99Sqn) September 1, 2018
In November 2015, former Prime Minister David Cameron laid out plans during the Strategic Defence and Security Review 2015, for the purchase of Zephyr. In the speech, he stated that the UK was to field a “British-designed unmanned aircraft that will fly at the edge of the earth’s atmosphere and allow us to monitor our adversaries for weeks on end, providing critical intelligence for our armed forces”. A purchase of two Zephyr-8’s was reported in February 2016. The Ministry of Defence later confirmed the purchase of a third Zephyr 8 platform last year.
Have wondered what happened to the 3 we purchased. I’m amazed they have yet to spin it giving them a squadron number plate.
Presume only GOCO.
Lots of tests. But bearing in mind it’s mostly for SF it might be more hush hush than some other areas. The technology has matured, so they can buy better systems now.
Yes, I’ve not been able to find who exactly operate them and where they sit in the order of things.
Strategic Command for sure ATM. But not sure under which banner. Space Command might get them, maybe?
Think you will find that Space command have their fingers in that pie! Believe they are are at the forefront of all this High altitude Comms/ISTAR stuff.
Roger that.
I wonder if the tech really has improved.
The core of the system is the airframe, which I would assume is tech matured decades ago. Then there is the batteries and sensors, but both of them I assume can be upgraded. The only other high tech part is the solar panels but I’m not aware of any development in that field in recent years.
I would guess if they are looking for other options then it doesn’t quiet work as stated. Aka watchkeeper/Ajax/etc etc
PHASA-35 is larger – 35m wingspan, weighs twice as much as Zephyr-8 at 150kg, larger 15kg payload.
Airbus and BAe have done a lot of work on payloads as well. Including SAR, EO, Passive RF etc..
Not come across that before. Seems like it might be the way forward. The real question is just how viable are these. Any country with air defence or fighters are going to be easily able to deal with them, leaving them to insurgency warfare. Admittedly that is the most realistic type of war we would get involved with.
Not at 65,000 ft. No fighters up there and very few missiles – also made of non-radar reflective materials so hard to find. More like a sattelite than an aircraft. Good for maritime surveillance, for imagery and comms to support SF and for Sentinel type tasks. Solar powered so can stay aloft for up to 12 months.
The famous U2 was flying at 70k ft and was way way faster, and yet got shot down and that was 1960s tech. I assume a fighter could launch its missile from its max height and the missile fly higher, but not my area of expertise.
Difficult to find on radar- like trying to find a jellyfish on sonar. Also not designed for 1960s style flyovers of Russia.
It would be interesting to know what the radar cross section really is, considering they have massive flat metal wings, which should bounce radar waves back nicely and be easy to locate.
1960s Soviet tech is now in the hands of a large number of nations, a lot of which are potential future enemies such as Syria/north Korea/iran and thats before you consider much more capable counties.
They are not made of metal – carbon fibre and some very fancy composite fabrics. They only weight 150kg – the same as me – and yet have the wingspan of a 737.
The U2 will have also been flat out giving off a great heat signature for something to lock onto.
Yes these have a massive wing span as in overall length but the wings are very thin and no doubt wont just be painted stainless steel to give off a nice reflection.
It occurs to me that I’d read the Soviets had tried on other occasions to shoot down previous flights along the route that Powers took. So they knew they were coming.
With Zephyr they won’t know where it may be if it follows no regular flight path?
With its ability to just loiter around I dont think any set flight path would ever exist for these bits of kit. Send it up and then see what its needed for in which area and let it do its role.
Likes of the U2 needs to land for fuel and will have been easily tracked.
Ive heard that a mate of a mate of the bloke who cuts Boris hair has offered to supply the MOD with a Balsa wood airfix model complete with rubber band. Its a bargain at £200 Million a pop.
Had one of those as a kid long time ago memories.
With or without Rubber band Farouk ?
Fitted for but not with…..
Band winding training Officers or all ranks Bands if over twisted , could damage the Airframe, especially if we go for the Balsa option
So BAE, or AIRFIX
1 was lost in a crash in Australia. The testing programme has since moved back to Arizona.
Thanks, that I missed.
According to Airbus, the Zephyrs are in Arizona taking part in the HAPS (High Altitude Platform Station) programme – in conjunction with NTT Docomo Inc. of Japan
I think its now a straight fight between BAe and Airbus. Airbus bought Zephyr and BAe have developed their own system with Prismatic, another UK start-up, called PHASA-35. The UK has a global lead on this technology and US special forces are also interested and have tested PHASA-35.
https://www.baesystems.com/en/product/phasa-35
https://www.airbus.com/en/products-services/defence/uas/uas-solutions/zephyr
Cranfield University have a lot to be proud of as these start-ups grew out of their aeronautics research work.
That looks like another “sold the capability”, when we should be selling the product.
See Cobham plc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobham_(company)#Operations
See also Oneweb and Inmarsat.
Airbus has a huge footprint in the UK, in both aviation and space-based systems. They are still made here. Also small start-ups are good at developing prototypes but they need to team with big boys to gain the investment and production expertise to mature the technologies. It’s not a cue for whinging.
It is a cue for pointing out missed opportunities.
Which is whinging as this is not a missed opportunity for anyone. Zephyr is a private company, not owned by MOD – they can sell it to who they like, so long as it remains a free country. They are still UK-based and any export revenue will accrue to the UK.
I don’t think demeaning people you are talking to (‘whingers’) helps anyone. I think you are being naive, and perhaps in a pre-Brexit frame of mind. If the control goes, then all the rest can easily go. Cobham, where UK has had a lead in in flight refueling for decades (since the 1950s?) was sold to a USA organisation in 2018 with all kinds of trumpeted assurances at Cabinet Level. 30 months later, there were no manufacturing operations left in the UK. Many thousands of jobs, and all the future prospects. Gone. It’s a dog eat dog world, and our… Read more »
It’s banter, don’t get touchy. Always a lot of people glum on here and willing to find problems where none exist. It’s naive to think that every business in the UK should be UK owned – that is not how a free market economy works. Unless we go for central planning Soviet style or revert to pre-industrial times, then it’s not an option – thank God. Brexit is not a war on Europe. Airbus is also incorporated in the UK and those businesses contribute to the UK economy. You can buy Airbus shares – I have a few. In Bristol,… Read more »
And yet the US the absolute poster boy for ‘Anglo Saxon’ economics only allows foreign ownership of its crucial and strategic defence industries if at all if those entities are run as separate US structures and in the case of Bae the overall British management of the parent company knows little more than the profitability of its US arm in day to day matters. Don’t think the US is in the 17th C or indeed France, Germany and Japan who all operate somewhat different attitudes to selling the Crown Jewels. In this Country we celebrate crucial businesses sold abroad as… Read more »
Same in the UK. There is something known as ListX, which ensures that any entity doing classified business with MOD – be it UK or foreign owned- is a separate UK registered structure hermetically sealed from its parent. Why do you think LM, GD, Boeing, Airbus, Leonardo, Elbit and so on all have UK entities to manage their business with MOD?
Not really, James (F). Just stop insulting people in your posts. Unfortunately, there are still plenty of bits in the EU that see Brexit as a competition. France Govt obsesses still that UK must be seen to be worse off; UVDL left the UK out of her list of ‘allies’ (or perhaps ‘friends’) in her State of the EU speech; EuCo still has to deal with City ‘equivalence’,; France went out of its way to undermine highlighted China issues which NZ has; EU is equivocating on Ukraine, and so on. And there’s quite a long list of crass decisions (perhaps… Read more »
Are you whinging about being called a whinger? There must be a name for that – double whinging?
Matt, Cobham still has numerous manufacturing operations in the UK and has not had thousands of redundancies.
I totally agree! Look at Galileo and what the EU is doing? Airbus in particular pretty much was threatening the UK if brexit was pulled off to move from the UK so did many other parent companies that purchased British companies. Putting strategic British companies up for sell can bite back later! The UK is too open and that can lead to future threats . British investors should invest in British companies to keep them British mostly
But Galileo is not a private sector company or initiative, it’s an inter-governmental project belonging to the EU. There is a profound difference between the public and private sector, unless you are a communist. There is government ownership in Airbus – from France, Germany and Spain – as there is some UK ownership in things like Oneweb. But the vast majority of defence contractors are private companies. We are not part of Galileo becuase we left the EU, it has nothing to do with the ownership of Airbus who are one of many contractors on the project.
I wonder how many decades a Fr De Sp government influenced company will retain its UK footprint for. It remains that if capabilities are allowed to go, they are gone. And that in a post-Brexit world we need to retain this strategic autonomy thing. It comes back to the current Govt not havng adjusted their philosophy, which comes down to BJ laziness. I see that Germany has prevented export of anti-sniper systems to the Ukraine through a NATO route from Lithuania, whilst continuing Nordstream-2 with Mr Putin. Perhaps we need to use ListX a little more, and think ahead a… Read more »
Airbus has a huge amount of capacity in the UK. If we don’t buy their products there is a greater chance of them moving it somewhere else. That said the UK aerospace industry is strong, so Airbus probably does not want to move. Adjust what philosophy? We are a democratic nation with a free market economy. We must preserve that, it has brought us a free and prosperous society.. Leaving the EU is not a pretext for enmity towards Europe. Europe and EU members remain our closest allies in NATO and also share out democratic and free market values. Getting… Read more »
Interesting project which could spur on the development of home-grown more efficient/lighter battery technology for the civilian market as well.
Quite possibly yes, however with the ‘civilian’ market paying for the development costs, with over hyped, over priced ‘gadgets’.
I wonder whatever happened to that huge ‘airship’ that was developed in Britain? It was said it could stay airborne for weeks at a time, and carry so much of a payload. I am sure that it could be modified/adapted even scaled down to perform the same role, for much longer.
Are you thinking of this: https://www.hybridairvehicles.com/our-aircraft/airlander-10/
Yep thats the one.
It would be a sitting duck too big and flying far too low. Total opposite to these proposed vehicles.
Too big … thats why I said it could be adapted and scaled down!
Why would it be flying too low?
A sitting duck? Larger platform, better able to defend itself, and more room for technology.
The ‘kite’ looking thing currently on show, would be ‘downed’ very easily.
Its main commercial application is in increasing 5G coverage in remote areas.
Some relevant recent news – Zephyr demonstrates internet connectivity – essentially the system is able to provide WiFi for a group of SF, Rangers, 16X or Commandos when operating behind enemy lines or in remote areas. They can use this to feed data to and from the combat cloud and for comms. https://www.aerospacetestinginternational.com/news/drones-air-taxis/airbus-zephyr-stratospheric-drone-demos-internet-connectivity-during-test-flight.html
The real bonus with this system is the ability to change its AOR v quickly while still providing it’s capabilities.
Fascinating. This could play quite well with low earth orbit satellite constellations such as Oneweb or Starlink where the LEO constellation provides a high bandwidth low latency global backhaul. At Zephyr/PHASA-35 altitudes an upward facing AESA antenna would have a perfect view of a good number of available satellites at any given time giving high resilience and for Starlink at least the access equipment and antenna are reasonably compact and light. I would hope that the same is true for the equipment needed to access the Oneweb network.
All UK innovation in defence is a good thing but I just wonder how vulnerable these UAVs are. If the Russians can shoot down satellites they can certainly shoot down these with ease?
Shouldn’t we also be worried about this UK technology being pinched and or copied by others? We do seem to broadcast a lot of what we’re doing and where we’re going a lot. Still it’s great to see all theses ideas, industry and tech coming out of the UK.
Completely wrong there. A Mig31 cant fly that high they can just about fly at half the height that these would be operating at. We don’t know what there radar cross section is but it will be minimized as much as possible and that’s whats going to make it hard to hit it will be good at operating without people noticing.
Canadians might already be regretting not buying AW 101 Merlin: 1- The scope and cost of changes needed to remedy a software issue that was a cause of a naval helicopter crash off Greece resulting in six deaths won’t be known until next spring.(…) Two reviews by the Canadian Armed Forces have found the autopilot took control of the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter, plunging it into the Ionian Sea as the pilot was turning to return to HMCS Fredericton on April 29, 2020. 2-HALIFAX — Cracks recently detected in most of the Canadian military’s Cyclone helicopters could be linked to the… Read more »
Why did they switch? Was merlin too expensive?
A lot of politics. The incoming Liberal government thought it was too expensive and cancelled Merlin, then they ran a new competition – Merlin could not succeed with making the gov look silly, and NH90 was too small, so they went for an S-92 derivative – it has been a turkey from day one.
That’s what happens when you try to re-Invent the wheel with a bespoke solution…
Why on earth didn’t the Canadians just adopt a version of the SeaHawk? I bet they wish they had now….
Seahawk is too small capacity. That is the biggest problem of UH-60 design, a waste of space.
The US Navy seems to do alright with theirs Alex?
Had the Canadians made do with standard US Navy spec Seahawks, they could probably have bought the same number of airframes for a quarter of the price of the Cyclone project.
They wanted a big platform to replace Sea King, like the British. As a result they did not look at Seahawk. Even NH90 was deemed too small. So they only had one choice, AH101 Merlin. But because the Liberal Party made it an election issue, they could not choose it again – so a cobbled up solution was to turn the commercial S-92 into a Merlin. Did no go well.
Indeed it didn’t, all these years later and they are still encountering serious issues.
This tiny bespoke fleet must have cost the Canadians an absolute fortune.
They probably dodged a bullet with the NH90 NFH anyway, the Maritime Helicopter that goes rusty faster than an a 1970’s Alfa Romeo!
Outstanding Eurocopter 👍
If i am reminding it right they had to pay Agusta Westland more than 100M$ for cancellation.
I think you’re right Alex, didn’t they originally order 49 search and rescue and anti submarine variants.
It’s a shame there wasn’t a large buy of anti submarine variants, we could have collaborated on the mid life upgrade of both types and shared the costs.
The biggest issue with this is that no doubt our adversaries have already devised a method with which to track and destroy them.
Yeah same situation as the complete flop, the U2 spy plane…
🤦♂️
The U2 is a completely different kettle of fish, but is still restricted in where it can actually fly safely. The SR72 sounds very interesting, nothing is going to get near that…..
I don’t see this being used over hostile territory where capable adversaries exist.
U2 lasted under 4 years before one was shot down. Still in service, however.
They are made of non-radar reflective materials, they operate at 65,000 feet and unlike Geostationary or Low Earth Orbit sattelites, they move around and are not in predictable locations, they can remain on station persistently for 12 months without needing to be recovered for maintenance, they are a fraction of the price of sattelites to build and launch. What is not to like?
When something seems too good to be true, its invariably because it is
They are real, and they have been tested for a number of years. But you probably are an expert and know better, right?
Yes we should have stuck with the horse, Colonel Blimp.
Hi folkshope all is well.
Slightly off topic but related to interference. I heard on Talkradio the other day and hat New Zealand has pulled out of the Five Eyes, I’ve tried to find more details on this but not much. Does as anyone know about this?
Cheers
George
Would be interesting to know how they intend to do so considering everything is hand in glove with regards UKUSA, more commonly called “5 eyes” It would affect all 5.
The US would probably cover their area.
Sorry should read intelligence,
Bloody predictive text!
The New Zealanders are walking a very dangerous line, deciding to apparently appease China instead of standing with Australia, the US and UK.
The relationship between the old ANZAC powers has been strained for years, NZ effectively disarming itself and allowing Australia to protect it.
Now they are almost claiming neutrality, they must be testing that Antipodean relationship to the limits…
A report on BBC News channel’s “Click” I only saw part of was describing new or proposed swarms of programmable mini-drones, dropped by the 1,000s by aircraft, that could use some sort of facial/profile recognition & kill everyone with a small explosive charge. A bit like a nuclear strike with no big blast or radiation.
Chilling. Needs international regulation before these WMDs get used.
Countermeasures could be simply a wide brimmed hat?!