The Royal Navy has announced its intention to award a contract to General Atomics to trial ‘Project Mojave’ drones onboard a British aircraft carrier.
The contract, which has a non-qualifying single-source status, is worth up to £1,500,000 (ex VAT) and is projected to span a period of seven months.
Under the ambitious Project Mojave, General Atomics is set to undertake trials and experiments aimed at showcasing the threshold capabilities of a Short Take off and Landing Uncrewed Air Vehicle aircraft.
The contract notice reads:
“The Royal Navy, part of the UK Ministry of Defence, intends to award a Single Source Non-Qualifying Defence Contract valued at up to £1,500,000 (ex VAT) with General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Limited (“the Contractor”) for a period of [7] months for the delivery of work to undertake trials/experiments in order to demonstrate a threshold capability for a Short Take off and Landing Uncrewed Air Vehicle (UAV).”
This trial forms part of the UK’s move to integrate cutting-edge drone technology within its armed forces, potentially revolutionising its military operations.
Drones could ‘allow’ Britain to create a second carrier air wing
As we reported last year, the possibility of this initiative was on the horizon. General Atomics had demonstrated a concept for a carrier-capable MQ-9B drone, a type already being integrated into service with the Royal Air Force.
The manufacturer previously announced plans to develop a short takeoff and landing (STOL) capable MQ-9B aircraft, a model which includes the SkyGuardian and SeaGuardian variants.
The STOL capability, initially tested on a modified Gray Eagle Extended Range platform in 2021, is now being developed on the MQ-9B. This model has already been chosen by the Royal Air Force, the Belgium Ministry of Defence, and the Japanese Coast Guard.
The MQ-9B STOL configuration involves an optional wing and tail kit that can be installed in less than a day, allowing operators to modify the aircraft in a hangar or on a flight line.
General Atomics started MOJAVE off as its own drone type to achieve short take off and landing, and demonstrated some impressive performance with it. Last year it moved one step up, starting development of a removable kit to convert MQ-9B itself within a day of flightline mods. pic.twitter.com/Bok0deqp59
— Gabriele Molinelli (@Gabriel64869839) May 19, 2023
This proof-of-concept trial will utilise existing technology and services provided by General Atomics. By addressing a range of capability problem sets, the initiative is set to determine the future scope of UAV integration and support.
C. Mark Brinkley, spokesman for General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc, tweeted:
“There’s a lot of speculation today about the possibility of our Mojave STOL aircraft launching from a carrier in the near future. From the moment we announced our Mojave concept, operating from ships was always on the table. But let’s not all rush up to the flight deck just yet.
We have already demonstrated Mojave’s short take-off and landing capability in less than 300 feet. That was under optimal conditions on the ground, so add some feet for fuel, weapons and payloads. Regardless, our engineers know that a tactically-relevant Mojave can take off from a runway shorter than the decks of many carriers or amphibious ships used around the world. Moving from a ground-based STOL demo to a ship-based STOL demo has always been a priority for the Mojave project, and we’ve been discussing that with fleets worldwide.
We have also discussed modifying the MQ-9B with a STOL conversion kit that replicates many of the attributes of our Mojave demonstrator, and we’ve shared those ideas publicly at trade shows and on social media. We have conducted feasibility studies for both platforms, and continued our experimentation. We have big plans, but plans take time to execute. Mojave is a remarkable aircraft, and I’m impressed by it every time I see it fly. Our team is working hard on it. But whether it flies from a ship in the near future still remains to be seen. Fingers crossed.”
More on this when we get it.
It ain’t a reaper, its a skyskyguadian or Protector.
gH wrote:
Second line, first paragraph from the above article:
“”trial a variant of the Reaper drone “”
Well that was quick, thanks to a wannabe pedant, the above article has now been edited and changed.
?
Clearly this isn’t the purchase of anything at that tiny ticket value.
But still super news.
Initially I thought a few zeros had got lost in the copy and paste.
The way I look at it is that QEC is the premiere platform for this system so GA are actually doing a cost price pricing deal.
I just hope the price to buy was locked in whilst GA needs RN to validate so badly….
It’s not a purchase as I don’t think it’s been proven for ship use, so this is the ‘proof of concept’. But it’s great news that the RN has jumped in to try it out ahead of other navies.
So really GA should be paying the RN for this trial and proof of concept.
Either that or we have GA locked in for a very very reduced unit price as and when a decision is made to purchase
Let’s hope so. But the MoD RN are kind of over a barrel due to the limited options for suitable airframes to use on our STOVL carriers.
The mishap to R09 must have slowed the process down considerably. If memory serves, Prince of Wales was the designated drone testing platform because having it sailing around without a F35B airwing was kind of embarrassing.
Great news. I told you so, because I’ve been pushing this for years. Pilatus Porter before drones hit the headlines. No doubt this is part of the solution. Well done FAA.
This drone is Not something for the FAA, more of use to the RAF!
Tarnris would of been more of use to the FAA!
Correct me if I am wrong but Tarnis is jut powered and is likely a more difficult proposition for carrier use on the QE class. The Protector appears to be a better fit. The FAA should have their own as it would be logical to have several such UAVs permanently assigned to each carrier as recon/strike assets.
And why exactly isn’t this useful to the FAA? It has two broad roles; ISR and being a cheap bomber. Both of those are HUGELY useful to a modern military, especially for the RN. Anti-piracy, force protection, maritime surveillance, long-range targeting, AEW.
Keeps the Lightning free for air defence and heavier strike missions, and as others have said it would allow both carriers to operate strike wings simultaneously.
To be blunt, a MQ9 will be crap for AEW. The airframe and engine are too small. Which means it will be limited to carrying a X-band radar, probably a fairly low powered single mechanically rotated AESA mounted underneath. Unless the RN intend to fly 3 to four of these aircraft simultaneously in a networked group, thereby generating a greater area that is continuously covered. A single aircraft will be no better than Crowsnest. Regardless of the height it could achieve over a Merlin. This is due to atmospheric attenuation, where as the the transmitted frequency rises, the easier it… Read more »
I would have agreed with you, but I just watched a GA presentation that said they were developing AEW underwing pods for the MQ-9B. I suppose they are prioritising persistence over distance.
The cost associated with this tech should be a fraction of the costs for aircraft we are used to whilst at the same time providing a reasonable return for the company in question. Costs will esculate however if the MOD turn it into a Bureaucratic nightmare. If done right this could provide the UK with modern effective firepower to complement what we have now.
That is always the issue. Is it kept MOTS or does it get Gucci’d. The the issue is is the MOT product good enough for a combat environment edge; or is some degree of modification necessary to have any reasonable kind of edge; and even if it has an edge at inception does that edge extend for a reasonable % of service life? Personally I would get the frames flying with the standard kit(s) and then worry about any new payload modules in collaboration with Japan, AUS, SK, Spain, Italy who all have, or will have, ships that this is… Read more »
Totally agree, the advantage of this is that it can be put into initial service after this proving and development period at a reasonable costs so that we both have an effective weapon while allowing a much longer period of learning while testing parameters and limits for what to produce as a specialist platform later with maturing technology, rather than somewhat ‘guessing’ over a long and expensive development off of a cad screen. Really enthused about this.
The payload modules are almost unimportant at this point in time. It is more about proving the point of concept without spending a fortune which this does offer.
Then there is a whole discussion about APU and fuel load wrt AEW. But it only sensible to start that discussion when it is proved that something like that can operate off a QEC.
MQ-9B can have interchangable wings and payloads, so can also capitalize on the RAF order for dual use, AEW as well as ASW and ISTAR.
Maybe that is a good idea. Maybe it is a terrible idea. The issue is the push me pull me of taskings. If the fleet is joint it will be and running argument as to where the frames go and what they are used for at any one time. Also the pool of frames will be reduce to the minimum to support overall taskings. I doubt this will be used for ASW as there is absolutely no need to have something this large and persistent mooching around? The quad copters that can be launched from T23/26 would seem a much… Read more »
Can be teamed with P8 (Sea Guardian), do the grunt work of searching large areas of ocean for subs.
An extra layer far out and quad copters closer in added to Merlin’s yes I can see the logic especially as Russian/Chinese subs become better, quieter and more numerous. This is exactly what tests of this nature can help analyse for future strategies and technology I feel.
That’s the RAF’s role!
F35 operates from both land and sea by RAF and RN, why not MQ-9B?
Not much use to the RN, because no good at ASW or AEW due to speed and radar power requirements as other posters have pointed out here.
Given the RAF Reaper fleet has been on continuous ops for 15 years now, it’s highly likely the Protector will be used for this rather than practising with the RN…
The RN needs to buy more airframes, and people to operate them
Well quite.
Given that we bought a brand new Reaper last year as an attrition replacement it is possible that more Protectors will be bought, and for a while both types will operate alongside each other. There are options for more in the contract too.
The MQ9 could replace a Crowsnest equipped Merlin. With an underbelly podded mechanically rotating single paneled AESA radar. If for example the radar was Leonardo’s Osprey 50, this would be a massive step up in capability over the Crowsnest’s Searchwater 2000 radar. It would have all the advantages that AESA gives you. Plus it’s fairly frugal on the Amps demand, so the single engine with an upgraded generator would do. However, if you want it to be able to simultaneously look east, south, west and north. You would preferably need four panels. You could use three, but they would have… Read more »
If they can put ammram on it would give a persistent CAP ability keeping F-35’s on 5min alert? or maybe 2 asram and 2 brimstone be able to target surface and air
It depends on what it is to do.
If it is a radar carrier it needs the most power and persistence it can have.
Radar needs a lot of power so a lot of fuel weight.
Less power means more limited EW.
That must not be compromised by hanging bits of weapons off it.
Nope, much better to separate the roles.
And just have another drone with missiles.
If the data goes back to a T45 with A30 or T26/31 with CAMM/CAMM-ER then it can be the effector to protect the drone.
Hey SB, I know nothing about drones, my background is more metallic. However, noting your comments about fuel, / duration, my understanding was that these drones come with a ridicules range potential because they don’t have to carry a pilot and associated equipment. In the case of a carrier AEW, I would have thought that because the carrier is always with (underneath) them, ie they don’t have to fly “somewhere” that range and duration should never be an issue. I would have. Thought 3 would be sufficient to keep ARW up 24/7. Like wise, a similar arrangement for CAP assist?… Read more »
Range and duraction drop dramatically when you hang stores or draggy radar pods underneath. A radar would also need significant power so you may also need an APU to generate that…
You also never park your carrier under your AEW…for obvious reasons…
For advanced earlly warning the AEW platform should be pushed as far out from the ship as possible to give early warning before missles have been launched. The USN have been known to daisy chain 2 E2Cs to give really long rnage early warning to an advancing Battle Group – But! this will be dependant on reliable datlink – anther weight/power penalty. I suspect this first use of drones will be largely related to operations from the ship in all weathers and deck/hanger management with the drone. Nevertheless, a good first start which should influence CONOPS and equipment fit for… Read more »
Hi SB wasn’t thinking of it being AEW more as just replacing F-35 doing CAP to maintain constant air patrol nearly impossible with F-35 numbers on board but the 12hr? duration means 2 drones aloft 1 x strk and 1 x AEW gives CSG constant airborne surveillance and deterrence? F-35 can then carry out strike sorties and air defence intercept without needing 36+ a/c. i reckon 24 F-35 plus 8 drones (4 each) would provide really powerful CAG
Agree. But using future Drone types, not this.
As eyes and ears it makes total sense. It add another dimension to the radar and other pictures.
Why bother putting missiles on it to reduce range and endurance when the CSG below it has plenty of missiles that the eyes and ears can tell where to go?
I tend to agree but wow having the option would be very useful. As we see in Ukraine solutions need to develop and become flexible to stay ahead of the enemy as they themselves adapt. The Russians adopted a wide range of combined attack missiles and directions to try to take out Patriots the other night and yet thankfully failed beyond some minor damage it seems. Strikes and defence are become a serious game of chess to defeat the opposition and increasingly so I suspect. A drone at some point in the future that can take out cruise missiles or… Read more »
If and it’s a big if. The Navy get a carrier based tanker aircraft. This will help massively with CAP duties, as it could double the F35’s duration, as the pilot would then become the limiting factor.
AEW is still the key multiplier here, due to its over the horizon capabilities. However, a MQ9 teamed up with either the F35s or a dedicated AEW platform, could still be used as a weapons carrier, especially if it carried a brace of Meteors.
Quite possible it seems.The MQ-9 has made its first air-to-air kill by shooting down another drone using a heat-seeking missile in a test “Something that’s unclassified but not well known, we recently in November … launched an air-to-air missile against a manoeuvring target that scored a direct hit. It was an MQ-9 versus a drone with a heat-seeking air-to-air missile, and it was direct hit … during a test,” he said. “We develop those tactics, techniques and procedures to make us survivable in those types of environments and, if we do this correctly, we can survive against some serious threats… Read more »
I was going to say they first did that in 2018, I see the article is from that year worth noting for those to whom it is new news.
Steady on!
Lets just get the thing for ASW/AEW/ISTAR roles and keep that CAP for the fast jets. It would not last 5 minutes if OpFor fast air came at it.
These things are ideal for persistent surveillance and dropping LGB on ragheads in the ME but they are not a replacement for a proper combat aircraft. At least, Reaper/Protector is not. But future UCAV will be able to supplement them.
I know you probably were not suggesting they were, I’m just emphasising the point before people see them as the solution.
Exactly so for AEW and ISTAR I have my doubts about ASW works.
Where it is useful is that it can be flown upthread and used and a digital hoover uplinking the raw data to satellite so it should be very hard to detect if it is running passive.
I’d have thought a blimp/LTA type could also do a rebro / relay role? Wonder why not, weight?
Blimps get blown around. It has been looked at a lot of times.
As radio signal are inverse cube power to distance you can need quite a low flying sonar relay.
There is also the issue of shuttering from wave masking.
Nope, the relay option will be cheapo quad copters. The buoy laying option will be a big chunky quad copter that drops and returns to mother to get onto charge.
Ok. Tech stuff which is way over my head, but thanks for explaining. 😆
Or the Strix…with its sonobuoy derived dipping sonar….
Saves on cost of sonobuys…which there are never enough of..particularly with the new generation multi-static versions.
That beefy quad Bae are developing to fire a couple Brimstones strikes me as a pretty good base candidate for that sort of task at least with further development.
There are plenty of beefy quad copters being developed commercially.
The thing with drone tech is that it needs to be done at 100x the usual procurement speeds otherwise it is irrelevant by the time it is brought into service.
The usual enemy of ‘good enough’ is ‘perfection’.
Well said pal. These are not air to air assets. But excellent ISTAR assets, with great persistence.
The idea of flying cap with a prop driven drone is quite amusingly naive.
Hi, Not suggesting they replace F-35’s but we don’t have enough to maintain persistent CAP over the CSG if we have AEW drone loitering above formation and couple of asramm/brimstone armed drone orbiting 50-100 miles out if something is detected approaching that is suspicious the drone can investigate no commander is going to shoot without either visual site or being fired at! if bad guys know its armed they have to honour the threat and we know instantly to go to defcon 1, spin up Sampson to full power to launch F-35’s and worst case is lose a drone if… Read more »
Totally agree with you it’s the flexibility it can potentially offer and how we develop it that’s important here not necessarily seeing it as the platforms prime function, it’s having options as threats develop and change. The biggest question is what combination of assets could be fielded on a carrier if airframes need specialist enhancements to field such capabilities. But this is what tests of this nature will help clarify for future commitments. A drone version of Boxer I guess would be the ideal where airframes can be adapted for specific tasks reasonably quickly. Or am I getting all Thunderbird… Read more »
Carriers don’t have persistent CAP over carrier’s. They have never done that. They have aircraft on alert ready to launch quickly if needed. Real operations are not like it is depicted in films.
Wondering why a very respected commentator needs to use pejorative terms like that..
Hello OOA. I’m sorry? I’m not aware I’ve been rude to anybody?
Perjorative, you should read some of the abuse myself and others get for daring to state an opinion!
Whilst this site is a sanctuary from woke madness, I’d suggest that using the term ‘ragheads’ to describe Arabs is poorly judged. I know many Arabs who are great friends of the UK and who, it sometimes seems, cherish its traditions and values more than some of our own citizens.
Aahhhhh, OK. Now I’m with you. You’re right.
My apologies OOA, to you and others reading. It is an army term for the Taliban, Mujahideen, ISIS, and assorted terrorists ( I think ) that I have read.
Apology not really requested – was more of a friendly suggestion to ensure slips like this are not misinterpreted – but accepted nonetheless.
Your previous views on the potential for a UK F35A/B split buy on the other hand:
Completely unforgivable..
😉
Game changer for the RN and not only as a crows nest replacement. Imagine POW or QE anchored off a coast with 1 squadron of F35, helos and 2 dozen of these onboard in various roles will have massive amount of flexibility. CAP, Anti Submarine, AEW or just having a couple always in the air as missile trucks in support of littoral ops, fleet protection, asymmetrical warfare protection would be huge. UAV’s are nowhere near the answer to everything but they will have a huge role going forward. My only worry is that the treasury see this as an excuse… Read more »
This wouldn’t be good enough for AEW or CAP. It would stand out like a sore thumb and be shot easily. I can kind of see its uses for ASW but it wouldn’t be able to carry full size sonar buoys like a merlin, and do we really need to go further out than 200nm from the ship to detect a sub?
I would imagine they would look to fit crows nest onto this aircraft possibly via the same rotating system or put a radar on wedge tail style. Even if it was a crowsnest system and it would obviously have a large effect of the flight duration. But even if that endurance halved, 24 hours is a smidge better than Merlin
But it couldn’t carry crows nest, not even close. We need a purpose built AEW platform, I get bolting things onto existing airframes to get some sort of ASW or Ground attack role done, but I just wouldn’t play around with AEW, it’s too important. It could be the difference between intercepting those Russian missiles at 100nm out, swimming along the top of the ocean, or fishing the survivors out of the north Sea. For me, its the most important thing on the ship and cost is irrelevant. I’d sacrifice 20 F35b to get a world class STOVL AEW platform,… Read more »
Well since Merlin has a ceiling of 15000 feet If you had missile at 30feet above sea level…the radar visibility is out to 157nms…..as long as the radar is capable of seeing the target 10000-15000 feet works well….also without inflight refuelling the present fixed wing options actually have less endurance than Merlin….so it’s not as bad an option as is sometimes thought, when you also add in the nature of the F35 and it’s own abilities as An AEW asset..the the UK carrier group will have quite a lot of AEW..add in some very long endurance drones
But it’s all just a bit crap though isn’t it. 157nm will be able to detects ships, can it pick up a supersonic or hypersonic missile at that range? I doubt it. If we are using F35b as AEW platforms then we might as well give up. £25k per hour to do the job of a drone at a quater of the price is about right for the RN. I know money is tight, but this should have been sorted years ago. It should have been the first thought of any bean counter at the treasury or any time waster… Read more »
Personally my biggest issue with it is that we are using probably around 20-25% of our available Merlin fleet as an AEW asset…why are we using the finest ASW rotor in the world to cart around a radar…..I think their is a place for a good tilt rotor especially if we are getting rid off C130..as there will be a small runway tactical airlift hole left behind ( the combat radius of a CH 47 is to limited) so with that space there is opportunity…after all a good tilt rotor is not only a tactual transport,,as you say it could… Read more »
“using probably around 20-25% of our available Merlin fleet as an AEW asset…”
Exactly. Yet another example of in service assets replacing other assets. A cut, pure and simple, when the Sea King ASCS Mk7s of 849 were lost and precious Merlin’s used.
Putting a multi flat panel AESA on such a platform would be the ideal solution, Thales and Raython have lightweight radars ( Less than 100Kg) that could be trialled.
Why not stick with the Leonardo? RAF Protector uses Seaspray, HMCG and USN Fire Scout use Osprey 30 and Osprey is designed to be multi-panel from the off. They are sub 100kg, made in UK and already in service.
That is fine for passive, as that ‘just’ needs detector area, receiver and processing on board.
For active it will be pretty hopeless and it wont have the power.
For EW etc it also won’t have the power to do what it needs to do.
You could fit multi flat panel AESA radar into the skin of a Taranis type UAV. I wonder if the USAF plan to produce a scaled-down UAV version of the B-21?
Both roles already tested and done on SeaGaurdian. Keep up.
Air ASW needs a good indication from somewhere to go to an area and prosecute a POSSUB contact. You dont go dropping Sonobuys on the off chance you will find a sub in a random bit of ocean. You run out of buoys really quickly doing that.
Pasive /LF Detection from a FF ist not unheard of at 200Km or getting a pointer from seabed sensors.
Dont think it would using something like Vigilance AEW system, being above the CSG looking out down would provide look down for surface/sea skimmers and the T-45 would provide protection against aircraft. It would provide massive low level detection increase? having couple of Ammram armed further out within radar coverage would give longer reach than the Sea Vipers from the T-45.
But every AEW platform has that risk. The US still think E2 is valuable.
Considering the range of Russian torpedos and sub launched missiles then surely in many circumstances yes. And why would it be more vulnerable than a Merlin?
They are of massive use for persistent support for RM as well.
They can hang around at high altitude and provide close support with small LGB’s and missiles so providing a potent fires backup.
Other than that it is mostly AEW and ISTAR they are useful for.
Ah, good, you linked to Gabs Twitter post.
Excellent stuff.
These won’t give anything more than a crap AEW and light Anti ship capability. It can’t carry enough to hold a large radar, not a chance crowsnest can fit on there, and it can’t carry 2 or more JSM. So we would still be lacking any sort of offensive capability other than spear 3. Not good enough. The V247 could do everything this can do and more. It carries more, could be adapted to carry a better radar than crowsnest which would sort out AEW, has a 25,000 ceiling and because it takes of vertically you wouldn’t have to start… Read more »
Mojave doesn’t need – “messing with the flight deck with either arrestor wires or angled flight decks” GA when they first announced it they said it would be capable of flight from a an America-class amphibious assault ship. They have shorter decks than the QE-class, no angled deck, no catapults, no traps. The Bell V247 is still a concept, as far as I’m aware. However the V280 Valor which has been selected by the US Army could be an option to replace the Merlin. Although principally crewed, it’s been flying autonomously since 2019. However in the meantime, the Mojave could… Read more »
They have a 66feet wingspan. That’s fine for an America class or wasp class assault ship as the port wing can hang over the edge of the ship, but on a QE carrier that means no F35b can be parked on the port parking spots at all when these are taking off and landing. That’s 14 spaces gone for deck parking F35b. I know the RN doesn’t like to deck park, but in a crisis with 36 f35b or more, it doesn’t have a choice. Why have 3 up in the air when we could just do it right and… Read more »
So to answer your points: • Wingspan of Mojave is 52 feet, not 66 feet as you state • Yes you wouldn’t be able to park F35Bs on the port side while a Mojave was taking off/landing. There would still be room for 24 in the hanger and a 12 on the starboard side. But the obvious solution would be to use the port side for Mojave’s with wings folded. • The RN has good reason for not deck parking aircraft, it’s to reduce their exposure to salt-air corrosion. Additionally, as the USN has discovered, stealth coatings are even more… Read more »
Folding wings anyone? Its a no- brainer.
Yes the Mojave’s wings fold back along it’s length (like the glider in “No Time to Due”) greatly reducing the space it requires on deck when not flying.
See the images in the article….
Mojave is just for trials. She won’t even go onboard…
The ‘real deal’ is the proposed MQ-9B derived version…(i.e. an RG.1 Protector derived variant), larger STOL wing, powered fold…and near twice the max takeoff weight…
The advantage there is that the UK has all the ground infrastructure and will be using the RG.1 to replace Reaper.
When I read the headline I thought that too, but Mojave is substantially bigger than I’d expected (I’d thought it was MQ-1C size). It might be okay for a long endurance ISR and comms-relay role. Worth a trial. It depends on how long it takes for GA to produce STOL Sea Guardian / Protector and what the price difference is. But neither Mojave nor Protector will hack it in a contested battlespace. Neither are the real deal when it comes to Loyal Wingman. Mojave can’t fly CAP and the STOL Protector would seriously struggle. The advantage Mojave has over the… Read more »
The won’t hack it as a loyal wingman as they’re not designed for that role.
It’s like complaining that Rivet Joint is no good at air-to-air combat.
I’m a fan of the idea of Mojave but having it try to fly CAP is insane.
Just as with aircraft, the term “drone” covers a huge variety of types, from cheap repurposed commercial quadcopters, through kamikaze drones, to autonomous aircraft like Ghost Bat.
If you announced Rivet Joints as being part of a fighter squadron, I think I’d be justified in pointing out their air combat deficiencies.
Mojave may be useful, I certainly hope so, but the article talks about creating a second carrier airwing, and that requires combat mass.
https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/star-wars-memes/images/e/e4/NotTheDroids.png
Actually neither the RN quotes nor anything in the article talks about using these to create a second carrier air wing.
I think that talk all comes from over enthusiastic comments.
Yes constant desk parking is probably going to be a real nightmare for F35, modern 5 generation fighters really need a nice hanger. Which is probably why the the RN are going for a standard of no more than 24 F35s for any normal operation…if you really wanted to you could apparently cram 60 cabs and jets on it but you would need to really need to for an emergency as your increasing environmental ware on your assets as well as increasing the risk of accidents ( most people don’t really get how nasty the sea is…it rots everything.
👍. And of course our second carrier will probably rarely have lots of F-35s on it so far less of an issue.
I doubt we’ll see more than 24 F35s on each carrier – as that would involve keeping some permanently exposed on the flight deck.
Given that all the 24 will be flyable jets: that would still be the size of a lot of *active* airforces…..
More than a match for the 24 A-4s that comprise Argentina’s entire fighter force for example.
Or even the Russian airfarce?
Mojave is much simpler than V247 and V280. It is like Hawk vs Typhoon, or River OPV vs T26. Different league. Capability Mojave or SeaGuadian can give is enourmous, but it is not for high-intensity land attack nor AEW. For example, ASW kits will give a very good area-coverage for ASW screen. A single SeaGuadian can fly nearly a day transmitting multiple sonobuoy signals to T26 or CVF. To do the same (but with much better accuracy), you need 4-5 Merlins and its maintenance load will be HUGE. Loitering on land-attacking mode is also Sky/Seagiadians’ strong points. A single Sky/SeaGuadian… Read more »
Also, there is very low probability RN will field “36 F35B”. Simply not enough number of F35Bs. So, the flight deck of CVF will be relatively loosely filled. What is more, these UAVs can fly nearly for a day. The UAVs can wait for several hours before a part of the CVF’s deck is cleared for their landing.
When 36 F35Bs are somehow realized? No problem, these UAVs will find many places to do their work. How about patrolling North Sea with ASW kits? Shore side of Norway? Baltic sea? G-I-UK gap? Mid Med?
I see no big problem here.
Well said they can used in secondary roles when not required on lard, that’s important to remember they are NOT wasted assets.
A Mojave would still not meet the radar power requirements of AEW, even with smaller radars, which are inefficient.
Completely agree 👍
Indeed, we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves here this would be a great first gen platform to add flexibility and focus upon where we go from there, probably early next decade most like. The Vigilant on paper looks a big step up but they have been looking for a customer since 2016 or so despite its potential. Whatever happens with that we wouldn’t get it for years and then you are doing your developmental testing having committed to the platform, it needs the US Marines to do much of that before we jump onboard or at the very least a… Read more »
Agreed. In ISR role, it can take off in 400 ft but loaded with Hellfires this rises to 1000ft. Crowsnest would have a similar effect on performance. Not sure whether it could use ski jump to reduce these distances. If we’re going to buy American( yet again) why not the V247 which would deliver a major increase in capability over Merlin for the AEW role.
I Have been screaming this ever since I saw the V247 concept years ago. Double the size if we have to, it still won’t be bigger than a MV22B. And so what if it costs £100m a unit, it’s worth more to the carrier and escorts than any F35B. To be able to track an incoming missile to say 200nm could save the day. It gives rhe T45 TIME, time to use the v247 to track and lock and puts the carrier strike group back in control. The sky guardian is too big with its wing span to operate effectively… Read more »
V247 is still pie in the sky (or rather not in the sky) and as you say too small. V280 is the strategic way forward for the US Army and is optionally manned. Why develop something from concept with all the attendant risk if you can get the economies of scale of the US Army’s V280 programme, and you just have to pay for marinisation?
So what if the V247 costs £100m, you say? Well the V280 will cost about £30m and has twice the power, which is important if you want it for an AEW platform.
Because despite all of that, it is still inferior to the V247. V247 will be brought to fruition by the US, I’ll bet my house on it. If this was the first tilt rotary aircraft I’d say the risk is high but bell, after the V22 and the V280 know what they are doing. I didn’t say it wasn’t big enough, I said if we can make it even bigger by upscaling it then it could carry the biggest radar possible. The current shrunken version the us marines want has a combat radius of 500nm, the V280 is 500-800nm. But… Read more »
“V247 will be brought to fruition by the US, I’ll bet my house on it“
I think you might end up homeless.
Bell will only produce it if it’s going to get hundreds of orders for it. It stopped work on it when it lost in the MUX competition, it’ll do so again if it loses the FVL-MS too.
By comparison, thousands of the V-280 have already been ordered with the target unit-price of less than $50m.
“Just” is kind of soft-pedalling the issues when it comes to V-280 marinisation, I grant you. However, Bell have already looked into the design requirements and if we can get the USMC to chip in, I think it’s reasonable. Extra weight isn’t that much of a thing given the power available. It uses the same engines as a larger MV-22. We can’t afford to pay for a design from the ground up in the US. You may be right about a version being superior the V280 — but it’s ruled out on price, risk and timescale. Besides V-247 wouldn’t be… Read more »
Rotating ducted fan design, interesting 🤔
Exactly my point, the V-280 is the best solution. But it’s not scheduled to enter service for another 7 years – assuming no development or manufacturing delays.
Yes. It’s not an immediate solution — probably 2033-2035 for us — but I think Crowsnest will be extended in service until then anyway.
This is a second generation option at best
Perhaps one of the reasons GA is partnering with the RN for this rather that the USN is that the USN doesn’t have any vessels with ski-jumps on them.
The V-247 doesn’t exist yet.
IF in its new smaller version it wins the FVL-MS for Bell then it will go into production. If it doesn’t, then like with the MUX competition, it won’t.
The V-280 will be produced in the thousands, will enter service in 2030, and can be flown both manned and autonomously.
You’re talking about a takeoff from a runway….
Now add wing over the deck…and steaming 20 knots into that wind….
As far as I’m aware, the only testing has been on land so the take off numbers relate to that. The point I was making was that, like any fixed wing aircraft, payload has a big effect on t/o distance. I don’t know how much this can be reduced by headwind or whether Mojave could use the ski ramp. For AEW, it probably doesn’t matter because, as others have pointed out, Mojave won’t have the electrical power for a Crowsnest type radar.
But in a less specific ISR role, its range and endurance could be useful.
The reality is that in the maritime environment for a lot of things endurance is king…more than anything else…especially when you’re not blasting out active emissions. These unmanned systems have simply massive endurance…as for offensive ability Ukraine has proven the concept of drone warfare…and western munitions are designed to do a lot with less bang……being able to send a low risk ISTAR asset or armed drone, instead of a massively expensive F35 or manned ISTAR asset is huge…your drone asset suffers attrition no one gives to hoots…you start losing pilots or manned aircraft its very different.
Could not agree more. For me, at least in terms of delivery systems for naval combat, those who have the ability to pick up a target from the furthest distance, and hit it with the longest range missile wins. Drones can do this. A long rang ISAR/AEW asset can pick the target up before it gets anywhere near the task group. Then another drone, like the V247 could carry missiles out further than any F35b and drop them outside of the enemy SAM range and return to base. The f35b is a fleet defence aircraft. Everything else should be designed… Read more »
As for offensive capabilities, the Mojave can carry 16 Hellfires, so weight-wise should easily be able to carry 6 Spear-3 missiles. That’s a big step-up from the Martlets carried by the Wildcat – and with a range 4 times that of the Wildcat and without putting a crew in direct danger.
Yes, I think the close air support / reconnaissance for expeditionary landings are the clearest role. As you say Mojave would give a significant capability – anti armour missiles. ASW and AEW are a bit blue sky at the moment.
V-247 died with the USMC MUX requirement several years ago I’m afraid….
It’s been restarted to compete for another requirement
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/v-247-tiltrotor-drone-downsized-to-maritime-strike-for-navy-warships
First step to full e-mals and FA-XX cross deck capability. Long overdue, with FAA operated F35 &/or FA-XX , and friends.
No it’s not. Mojave doesn’t need either cats or traps.
They proposed a version called Sea Guardian with a Tail Hook, beefed up undercarriage, 49 hours flight time, various underwing stores and most importantly an SeaSpray 7500 V2 AESA radar. And they also developed a system for it to drop Sonar buoys.
I sincerely hope this actually works because it really would be an enabler for the F35B and possibly an add on for the P8A’s. And they are not that expensive.
RN is really showing some Out of the Box thinking at the moment, adapting civilian OSV for RFA use and now this bright idea.
Whatever next.
Sea Guardian didn’t have a tail hook. It looked like it in the image, but its merely a guard section to stop tail and propellot strikes on the deck…
Is this the reason why POW is 3,000 tonnes heavier than QE, and wasn’t this the plan all along, to use drones on POW, rather than crewed aircraft?
Oh and there are dozens of Drone businesses/company’s in the UK. Why do we have buy US stuff again?
No No yes
It also looks like the navy has confirmed it’s going to be putting 32 Mk 41 silos on each of the type 31. If you combine that with the likelihood they will also have the 8 deck launched NSM, CAMM silos and the gun fit the RN seem to have managed to turn what was planned to be a cheap patrol frigate into what’s likely to be one of the most heavy armed ASuW/strike platforms in Europe.
I personally, would have liked to see an increase on the CAMM to 36, and make them the CAMM-ER version, with 16 MK41 for tomahawk MKV (which has anti ship capability too) and up the order of NSM to 16 per ship. These frigates will be operating alone most of the time and will be unlikely to get targeting data to attack another ship hundreds of miles away. The NSM increase to 16 would give it s much better punch out to 100nm and if it does need to hit ships further afield it could use its TLAM, or of… Read more »
Although it’s not the optimal use of a strike length mk41 silo having 32 of the things does mean the RN would be able to quad pack a lot of CAMMS onto a type 31. Personality I’m still hopeful that they will have 32 Cold Launch CAMM siloes as well as the the MK41 launchers. I also do think an extended range CAMM is very likely..although to be fair the RN CAMM armed frigates will have a better air defence capability than the vast majority of frigates…the type 31s are turning into a very serious ship…
Standard CAMM would be great on the T45 and even the T26 but for a sole armament the CAMM-ER for me should be arming the frigates. I read somewhere that the ER version cannot be quad packed and that any CAMM missile going into a MK41 would still have to go into their own launcher and then go inside the MK41, which has not been tested to date I believe. Which ever way they arm it, its much better than what I thought we would get. Basically a stupidly heavy river class. If they put 32-36 CAMM and 32 MK41… Read more »
CAMM-ER can be quadpacked….if CAMM can be…
The canister is the same in all dimensions apart from length. The issue would be the length of the ExLS insert and if it can be adjusted….
Not necessarily. There is the little matter of efflux and heat. The CAMM-ER or CAMM-EX will have to hot launch from a Mk41 VLS. The missile is heavier and so will require more oomph and more burn to get it moving. So it is a different kettle of fish as it won’t have initial soft launch the gas charge impetus either so the range increase may not be so spectacular as you might think if used that way. The burn profile would have to be front loaded. I’ve no idea why you would want to buy an expensive Mk41 VLS… Read more »
CAMM-ER is cold launch from the canister….same as CAMM. It occupies the exact same size canister as CAMM apart from its length. No efflux issues. If its loaded in Mk.41, which I genuinely question the utility of…, it will be loaded in the canister. The question around ExLS length, and if it is fixed or adjustable is key to all this… CAMM-EX, or CAMM-MR or FCM/whatever (we don’t know what its called yet, apart from Future Common Missile) will be larger and will not be in the same canister as its pretty much maxed with CAMM/CAMM-ER in terms of diameter….but….it… Read more »
There probably needs to be a mix of camm plus the ER version
The ER would have a larger minimum range due to the larger booster which gives the legs.
Fast pop up missiles from subs, or threats directed late still need a close in defence. The Canadians are using Camm alongside ESSM for a reason.
This is good news and has potential to expand the carrier strike groups airwing. These drones have potential for high risk missions that you don’t want to risk a manned F35B on or you need a saturation attack.
I’d think the QE carriers could easily deploy 12-15 of these drones in addition to 24 F35Bs, 10 Merlin’s/ Chinooks.
theses drones are actually large in particular wingspan. I wonder if a folding wing option might be an option the horizon?
See the image of the MQ-9B variant (i.e. much bigger and more powerful than Mojave, based on the Protector…).
Look in the background….powered wing fold…
Thank you Rudeboy. Great name handle by the way. Makes me want to break out my old 2 tone ska albums – happy days!
The Mojave already has folding wings.
Thank you Sean
US Navy has been doing some trials with the MQ-9B Skyguardian that the UK’s ordered, essentially theyve been given a free demonstration by the manufacturer and they are reportedly really impressed with the platform. The MQ-9B was launching from the continental US, rendezvousing with a fleet in the western Pacific, performing demonstrations then returning to the US again showing its vastly improved range over the MQ-9A.
I can’t help but think we are missing out with STOVL. I don’t think anyone wanted it when it was announced that we were getting the F35B instead on the C, but we have it and we’re going to be having it for a long long time. We all know the advantages of CATOBAR and the disadvantages of STOVL, but if the UK government was actually serious about carrier strike we could really revolutionise the whole game of STOVL. The biggest gripe of STOVL has always been lack of endurance of the aircraft that can be carried. The F35B closes… Read more »
K, good summary. there is a ready made f35 b club of navy’s that would love to have tilt rotor AEW.
I think STOVL will be the future for carriers, CATOBAR air craft will always be limited due to aero dynamic forces. You can’t catapult something off the deck any faster or land it any quicker. STOVL aircraft are limited by engine thrust which is continuing to climb. I think you are right about the revolution something like V247 can bring to the party however it’s also necessary to have something like MQ9 onboard than can fly long and high. A large STOVL aircraft carrier can accommodate multiple rotary and fixed wing systems in a way that a CATOBAR carrier can’t.… Read more »
Jim. whilst you raise some valid points re STOVL, CATOBAR certainly has a valid role . Typically, Catobar assets carry greater payload over longer distances. Bear in mind there is a trade off in range/payload on the F35B model.
That being said, I believe the MOD made wise decision os selecting theB model, considering the interoperability between the RAF and FAA. Clearly the lessons of the Falkland experience have been well applied.
Yes with current technology but likely not with the next generation of technology. It’s physics that is the issue. Take bring back weight, the plane needs to travel to generate lift. An F35C is already landing at the same speed a TGV travels at. To bring back more weight the plane needs to land at a higher speed and it can’t land much faster. Engine power has continued to grow 20% plus with each new iteration. A hovering aircraft relies on this to bring weight back, so over time thrust based platforms will out compete aero dynamic driven platforms. CATOBAR… Read more »
Thank you Jim, interesting post. I think you are spot on in that one day everything will hover. From my Air force days, the rotary pilots used to say “to fly is heavenly, but to hover is divine”😀
South Korean carrier will be CATOBAR if it’s ever built.
In theory fantastic except you keep saying the V-247 can do-this and do-that. The reality is it hasn’t even flown yet, let alone demonstrated these capabilities. Even if it can, unless it wins a big order from the US it won’t enter production.
And the U.K. throwing money at Bell to design and manufacture it just for us risks the equivalent of a flying Ajax.
The V-280 exists, has been ordered in the thousands, and can do everything the V-247 can.
Ordered in thousands? i doubt it will replace UH-60 1:1 due to cost and altitude limitations.
Cost may obviously limit purchases. However the US Army has already awarded a $1.3nm contract for Bell to finish development of it. The plan is to replace up to 2,000 Black Hawks.
Either way, the Black Hawks are going.
True the Black Hawk has a higher service ceiling, but the V-280 cruise speed is almost twice as fast and its combat range more than double.
You cannot operate a V-280 above 2000-2500m.
UH-60 are not going until that can be fixed.
That will probably change, when they fit the Osprey’s engines to it.
We were always getting the F35B, we looked at the C afterwards, but we were always getting the B, that decision didn’t change. I’m pretty sure the RN carrier “problems” stem from this timeline. The RN and USMC had multiple “Harrier Carriers” and needed a replacement for the Harrier. The F35B was designed as a Harrier replacement for the RN and USMC. We ordered 2 carriers to replace the “Harrier Carriers” and when they were due into service we would either have Harriers and/or their replacement F35B in operation. They were designed to be large to be converted to CATOBAR… Read more »
Ukraine has shown how dangerous modern air defences are to anything med to high flying which is why the US will move to more stealthy surveillance, attach and even air to air refuelling platforms.
They will be good for persistent maritime surveillance and ASW screen , or potentially linked AEW platforms but I am sceptical how a “drone” wing will be spun.
You don’t see many TB2 missions over the frontlines anymore ( or at least footage
Buying less F35Bs and drones instead would be cost cutting, spun as something else.
If you take a very high flying drone with a small radar, combine it in a network with a medium altitude flying helicopter with a radar and a less persistent but emensley capable 5th Gen fighter with amazing radar you get a very resilient AWACS capability as opposed to a single high flying civilian airliner with a big dish on its back. The US was very reluctant to got to E7 because it knows such platforms won’t survive long in a conflict and the idea is very much a distributed system as I have outlined. The USAF did not think… Read more »
There’s also the possibility of LEO satellite constellations supplementing or even replacing HALE ISR. ISR is very much in flux at the moment. Not sure which direction it’s going to go.
TB-2 over the frontlines worked for the first 3 days, then actually ended after the first 10 days…after that they were shot down in numbers and withdrawn… The Ukrainian’s were very cute with the footage…they saved it up and released it over time to give the impression it was still active. it’s all detailed in the RUSI report. Since then they had a brief bit of fun over Snake Island….and since then they are used as a sort of ‘visual AWACS’…basically flying 20-30km behind Ukrainian lines using their Wescam turrets as a ‘gods eye’ view for commanders…. There were actually… Read more »
All true but also only true because Ukraine can’t take our Russian air defence of jamming capability. NATO would fight in a very different way and such MALE platforms would become useful after the initial operations.
Thing is….the USAF, the world leaders on SEAD/DEAD and MALE ops, and the people who do most of it for NATO…don’t believe that is the case…they’re going to divest of Reaper in due course. They believe it needs to be stealthy or semi-stealthy to survive…and remember they’ve actually had multiple Predator, Reaper and Global Hawk shot down by AD…so they know…
Surely they are building a factory with Baykar aren’t they. Or did I imagine reading that a few weeks back. Looking for an appropriate site I understood.
I really hope this is not a substitute for a domestic drone program.
It’s is, sea vixen is as dead as mosquito. Atleast this is full of British systems and sensors.
Sad though looks like Turkey is surpassing us on the airframe side. We’ve moved from leaders to followers. I doubt anyone would be happy with a warship made overseas but full of British systems!!!
Yes, no one wants a warship built overseas full of British systems except, Brazil, Thailand, Australia, Canada, and Poland.
Afaik there is no domestic drone program except the helicopter drone demo that was asked of Leonardo.
You’re a bit late….
When UK MoD decided not to proceed with BAE Mantis years ago and bought Reaper that already happened…
There’s been at least 2 attempts to rekindle interest with Taranis and Mosquito with no success. But yeah agree Mantis should have moved forward and by coincidence after some brief collaboration with the French the new European MALE looks like Mantis!!
Do we actually know why?
Warton SPS has developed several I believe, yet we never acquire them?
Massive cost, later delivery
Cost increase was only £45m of so! It was still worth it!
It may of been the case that the U.S somehow prevented the U.K developing the Taranis UAV any further. It looks too much like their stuff!
That is because of the several close ties between the USA/UK which include aircraft tech. There have been exchanges between BAE/LM/MoD/DoD/DARPA/DERA for decades, so the tech is similar.
Was a shame they did not progress it.
Don’t have a problem with this,but is this saying less F35s ?
No it isn’t.
Ok have a Beer 🍺
How or What would I like to see on our QE class carriers, 24 F35Bs, 12 carrier capable Sea Guardian and 12 STOVL Tanaris type, four Bell V280 with a light wieght Erieye and four Merlin size helicopters. The Tanaris type UAV would have two tasks, air-to-air refueling and to carry out strikes against air defence systems before the F35Bs go in. Yes I know cost, but from what I can see this would be a cost effective way of giving our carriers a good all round package improve some of the limitations of the B variant and improve the… Read more »
That’s a nice mix for different capabilities, though the STOVL Taranis UAV would be the sticking point. I would be surprised if LM aren’t considering a drone based-upon the F35, though probably not the B variant. They also wouldn’t want it to cannibalise F35 sales.
Potential gap in the market then?
It would definitely be a 21c air wing for a 70,000 carrier at less cost than a traditional air wing TBH.
Would be great if they are capable of launching from the carriers, how many would you need for each carrier to get full coverage 24/7 4? 6?.
HMS Prince of Wales has been in ‘drydock’ for 9 months!?
Anyone know why it takes 7months of trials to test something like this, seems an insanely long period, to make your mind up if a capability adds value or not?
It’s a step in the right direction. Why are they not going at it full tilt to get these things and more, into service ASAP?