A cousin of the new Protector drone has been spotted onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth amid speculation that drones of a similar design could be operated from British aircraft carriers in the future.
The following image was snapped at the Atlantic Future Forum, a defence and diplomatic conferencing event held onboard HMS Queen Elizabeth in New York Harbour.
Stephen Watson, Director of Atlantic Future Forum tweeted:
And one here onboard @HMSQNLZ for #AFF22 in New York last week @FutureAtlantic Hugely impressive capability. https://t.co/OyqSnoOQSe pic.twitter.com/X65oRCPDKt
— Stephen Watson (@StephenWatson39) October 6, 2022
While the UK hasn’t committed to operating drones like this from the carriers, it’s clear they’re trying to sell the idea to Royal Navy brass. This isn’t the first time, either.
Earlier this year, General Atomics showed off a concept for a carrier-capable MQ-9B drone, a type already entering service with the Royal Air Force. General Atomics Aeronautical Systems said that it would begin developing a short takeoff and landing (STOL)-capable MQ-9B aircraft, which includes the SkyGuardian and SeaGuardian models.
“GA-ASI is taking on this revolutionary engineering effort to meet an evolving operational environment in contested expeditionary environments. GA-ASI began STOL development in 2017 as part of its Mojave initiative.”
Presenting MQ-9B’s new short takeoff and landing capability: MQ-9B STOL
With this developing capability, MQ-9B will be the first #UAS in its class to enable big-deck amphib takeoff and landing, unlocking unlimited potential at sea. #MDM2022Learn more: https://t.co/uJDDaWgOZJ pic.twitter.com/tLV7TGtXWo
— GA-ASI (@GenAtomics_ASI) May 10, 2022
The firm says in a news release that the STOL capability was initially flown on a modified Gray Eagle Extended Range platform in 2021, but now the company will begin developing STOL on the MQ-9B, a platform already selected by the Royal Air Force, the Belgium Ministry of Defence and the Japanese Coast Guard.
“MQ-9B STOL will combine GA-ASI’s proven long-endurance, highly reliable UAS products with the versatility to execute missions in more austere locations, opening the operational envelope for commanders across all Services and geographic locations.”
The firm also say that the MQ-9B STOL configuration will consist of an optional wing and tail kit that can be installed in less than a day.
“The core aircraft and its sub-systems remain the same. Operators can perform the modification in a hangar or on a flight line, delivering a capability that otherwise would require the purchase of a whole new aircraft.”
MQ-9B STOL, say the firm, presents an opportunity for future operations aboard an aircraft carrier or big-deck amphibious assault ship.
“The wings fold so that MQ-9B STOL could be parked on the deck or in the hangar bay, just like other naval aircraft. When it’s time to launch, operators will start the aircraft, unfold the wings, and take off over the bow without the need for catapults. GA-ASI believes the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps will take note of this innovation as it opens the door to persistent and long-range Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) operations over blue water.”
Could these end up on the Queen Elizabeth class?
This is speculation at best but it would certainly be possible.
The Royal Navy is moving towards drones to augment and complement the number of aircraft that can be deployed onboard their two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers. Last year I reported that drones could “allow the opportunity” for Britain to put an air wing on both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales simultaneously.
Drones could ‘allow’ Britain to create a second carrier air wing
The current plan is for two aircraft carriers and one air wing that would sail on whichever aircraft carrier is being held at “very high readiness”. It was however suggested at a Defence Select Committee evidence session that drones might allow for a second carrier air wing. The transcript is below.
Admiral Sir Tony Radakin:
“Are we matching what the Department has always said, which is that the carrier full operating capability matures at the end of 2024 and needs to be able to deploy 24 jets on an aircraft carrier? We are absolutely on track to be able to do that, and I think that has always been a very clear aspiration and it has been laid out. Within the Navy—so not yet a departmental plan—how might we be able to look to provide a second carrier air wing? In the modern world, does that mean purely more jets, or is it what I think most of us would see as being a hybrid force of both jets and drones?”
Chair: “Littoral.”
Admiral Tony Radakin:
“No, drones from the aircraft carrier. If you look at what is going on with the Air Force and their Mosquito and LANCA programme, and if you saw what happened in September with HMS Prince of Wales flying the first jet drone, that is the area that we want to pursue. Then we can start to give Ministers choices around whether or not it might be feasible, but not at the expense of buying lots of expensive aircraft even more quickly. Are there opportunities with the cost of drones? Does it become a better offensive capability to blend drones with crewed jets? And does that then start to allow you the opportunity for two carrier air wings to marry up with both carriers?”
Drones on the carriers?
Plans to incorporate drones aren’t new, carrier-based ‘Vixen’ drones are already being considered for a range of missions including combat, aerial refuelling and airborne early warning but what could they look like? According to an official Royal Navy publication, titled Future Maritime Aviation Force, which was originally published in December 2020, the Royal Navy aims to replace its helicopter-based airborne early warning (AEW) platform, the Merlin HM2 Crowsnest, with a fixed-wing UAV, currently known as Vixen, by 2030.
The Royal Navy also expects to utilise Vixen in surveillance, air-to-air refuelling, electronic warfare and strike roles. A slide from the publication shows that Vixen could be used for airborne early warning, strike, aerial refuelling and more. Additionally, MQ-9B/Protector is also mentioned (albeit as a land-based platform) so the ‘STOL’ modification at least increases basing options for a platform already part of the Future Maritime Aviation Force.
What is the status of MQ-9B with the UK?
The Royal Air Force say that the first world-class Protector aircraft has been accepted off-contract by the Ministry of Defence from General Atomics-Aeronautical Systems-Inc (GA-ASI).
Will these end up on the Queen Elizabeth class?
I asked a respected defence analyst, known on Twitter as @Sierra__Alpha, what he thought about this. He’s well worth a follow so please do so by clicking here. He told me:
“The prospect of a deck capable MQ-9B is one of great interest and something that many familiar with the defence industry would consider somewhat overdue. Today’s unveiling of such a platform by General Atomics, will have many Defence experts wondering as to where the platform could possibly fit into the inventory of the British Armed Forces, if at all. For the last 18 months, the Royal Navy has been keen to explore (and even in some cases trial) a number of different unmanned aerial platforms for the primary purpose of heavy lift, including the Aeronautics T-600 quadcopter and Windracers Autonomous Systems’ Ultra Drone, although none of these trials have taken place outside of RNAS Culdrose.
The MQ-9B STOL has a number of differences from its land-based variant. Folding wings make for additional space saving, both on a burgeoning flightdeck and lower deck hangars, it’s Short Take-Off and Landing package also significantly means that ‘cats and traps’ are not necessary for the aircraft to successfully operate off the intended flightdeck, a feature that highlights a possible operational consistency with the two Royal Navy Queen Elizabeth Class Aircraft Carriers. With its respective weapons payload (including Air to Ground Missiles, Air to Air Missiles and also the ability to deploy sonobuoys), remaining largely unchanged by the addition of STOL capabilities, the operational effectiveness of the MQ-9B STOL will remain at a high level, with Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance at the forefront of its function as part of a carrier air wing, alongside Anti-Submarine Warfare and even Oceanic Survey missions.
All of which could prove to be a valuable asset to the Royal Navy, in which as things stand, currently lacks a long range fixed wing ISTAR platform capable of delivering world beating coverage and weapons delivery from HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales. The ongoing narrative of needing an unmanned, deck operated platform for the RN could be put to bed, as Royal Air Force personnel now have years of experience operating and maintaining the MQ-9 in high pressure environments and therefore, would certainly be a viable customer for the MQ-9B STOL.”
Nothing like a war to speed up decision making.
Although, this has been brewing for a good few years.
It is worrying to think that the powers that be might be overthinking the problem. They should be chucking money at producing prototypes over a very short timeframe without worrying if they will work or not. It should all be a learning experience.
I’m sorry to keep banging my tin drum but there is a world of difference between an overgrown hobbyists drone that has been souped up like a TB2 and a proper asset. When I started to work in defence the incremental research approach was a thing. Armies of, mostly, guys fiddled around and amused themselves researching away. Some teams were very focussed but it had a very old school, academic: curiosity driven, feel to it. It was eye wateringly expensive to run: we are still paying the pensions of the many. Sure it built up knowledge but my god it… Read more »
SB,
No mention in article re costs associated w/:marinizing MQ-9B STOL for extended shipboard environment, and other factors. Color me cynical, but as a general rule I would clutch HMG’s checkbook tightly, until fully wrapped cost data presented and audited. There be tales of woe in the land of defense contracting that could be relayed over a tankard of ale, re contractors and loosely drawn specs.
Too true!
But I think RN is quite wise to that.
This will be supplied on a COTS/MOTS model as is with no fiddling ‘to make it better’.
That is my best guess anyway.
The problem always is when the customer asks ‘can you do with’ the academics / technical guys go ‘but think of this’ and top brass goes ‘that would be incredible’ then technical procurement are going ‘oh, god please no: not again’.
🤣😂🙄, truer words seldom written.
I think that sums up the Navy’s T31 procurement. Pick a large hull with plenty of volume, give it systems that give it a so-so performance, but design in the growth potential, such as networks, power etc. get it into service ASAP. Worry about upgrades after it has got into service. But have a planned agile life cycle, that includes progressive upgrades. Which I think would have been ok 8 months ago. But life always has a way of throwing a spanner in a well laid out plan.
Given where they are in the build cycle they would be launched trialled and up armed one accepted.
Otherwise back to the bad old days of open ended contracts….
So just up capability and systems in build.
Eg inerim anti ship missile capability. Navalised HIMAR or navalised Brimstone or storm shadow type strike missiles.
It is easily within our gift to up arm type 23/26/31/45 but HMG choose to penny pinch and deny the RN the ability to change their hedgehogs to lions
To be honest, I think we would possibly see a “navalised” version of Spear-3 before we see either Brimstone or say HIMARS on a RN frigate/destroyer. Primarily because Spear is basically a longer ranged version of Brimstone. It can do whatever Brimstone can against ground and vehicle targets. Spear outranges HIMARS, unless it’s firing ATACMS. But the standard M31 rockets hold a much larger warhead. So will have a greater effect when hitting something. Spear has the ability to hunt for and loiter over a target, the M31 rocket can’t. Which makes Spear a much more flexible weapon. I still… Read more »
Who said anything about hobbyist kit? This is exactly the problem. In the minds of everyone including the decision makers it is a toy – until of course the opposition have it and it is ruining your day. Throw money at it! Tell the likes of Rolls Royce you need a range of power plants to test. Get a bunch of airframes of all types and sizes. Need some control systems etc. We have the benefit of computers so we can see what works upfront but we need the real thing in the air so that people can see it… Read more »
TB2 is overgrown hobby level kit. It is no use in a contested environment.
Throwing money at R&D or development does not work: ever.
What is needed is a clear idea of the problem being solved.
Bear in mind we work closely with the USA and Israelis we are perfectly well aware of what is going on where.
As the sabre rattling has got louder a lot of programs are going dark until they are close to fruition. No point in giving the opposition a head start on your latest thinking?
Winston Churchill threw money in Alan Turing’s direction during WW2 with absolutely no idea what he was talking about. We know it worked because we are all here chatting about it.😀Today it is obvious to everyone that a computer can solve such a problem but at that point nobody could envisage such a thing to understand how it might help them. The powers that be cannot specify what they want because they do not know what is possible. The engineers do know what is possible (to some extent) but don’t know what is needed. Your point about when is going… Read more »
and hopefully budget increase allocation!
But keeping away from complex risky mega projects. QEC is a great example of a very big relatively simple versatile and at the same time a very upgradable ship. T31 will be in the same vein. RAF needs tempest to be a big fast manoeuvrable platform with payload and power margins. The more the rest of it is decoupled from the airframe/avionics the better. OK these days the avionics are integral to awareness and weapons but you get the drift……otherwise you end up with the 6th gen version of the F35 headaches. The days of worrying about the space and… Read more »
Hi SB, As I am sure you know I have been saying for ages that the ‘platform’ should be treated as a seperate development project to the mission systems. The main reason for this is that platforms usually last far longer than the electronics that make comms, sensors, data usage and targetting work. The other thing to note is that some big platforms actually take so long to build that the electronic stuff first fitted during build and needed to test the platform systems (engines, etc) needs upgrading before they even enter service e.g large warships. Few seem to be… Read more »
I did research too for both for academia and industry.
It was an interesting experience.
Chemistry -> Physics -> Electronics
Learned a lot about how to do things.
Having a broader understanding was useful in problem solving.
nice thread here guys
Inevitable.
Hope the RN can get some MQ-9B STOL drones, they would be a useful addition to the strike force.
The vid looks good but the wingspan is the issue, in it 2/3 of the left wing is over the edge of the USS type ship. the question is could it fit between the parked a/c on either side of QE/PoW and use the ramp? would be pretty pointless if you have to move 10 F-35’s (if possible) to allow room for launch/recovery.
The ramp is around 13m wide I think and the MQ 9B Sea Guardian has a 24m wingspan. Centre of the ramp you have 5.5m overhang if its centre of the ramp. I guess this could be reduced offsetting the take off to the port side. Or the carrier version could have a reduced wingspan of 20m like the original MQ 9s but than would reduce performance.
I wonder if it would need to use the ramp at all. The concept shown in the video is that it can take off from the flat surface of the carrier and land on it without arrestor hooks. If it can manage that on a US assault ship it can do it from the bigger QE class.
A 24m wingspan is big, much larger than the F35B which is only 10.7m. With folding wings, it would only be an issue on takeoff and landing though.
Yes not ideal but these things have been designed to operate on the US Americas and indeed with as I read the Australian ships in mind so the QE Class should have little problem in theory if they can operate off the ski jump which I believe they are testing it to do. However the wingspan could certainly limit other operations to a degree and that perhaps will be the big question, how much would it affect F35 ops in particular. Of course if it operated from the ship not having the jet air wing ( or few of the… Read more »
The ramp is no issue at all.
There have been plenty of trials of aircraft using ski jump ramps over the years, apart from Harrier and F-35B.
All have gone off without a hitch…
Expat….. could the new supply ships have a large flat deck for launch and recovery of drones… at least they would be with the fleet…..
Also we should hold talks with the Turkish government…they seem to have got the Drone game sorted
No and no.
See my comment above.
Forget TB2/3. It’s the MIUS programme we need to hook into.
I think we have better tech.
Bear in mind we do jet engines, radars, sonars, and small missiles rather well (the hard bits) and we could perfectly well create an improved Typhoon type aircraft from scratch in the UK.
We have better tech yet nothing to show for? The UK and Europe in general is behind in drone tech! Why are we suddenly talking about a drone carrier? Drones are nothing new! It’s because of the Turkish drones success! The Turks will without a doubt surpass the US even if they continue on the drone path they are on which Is moving at lightning ⚡ speed! It took the US decades to reach such levels. If MIUS flies next year they will poses a unmanned fighter jet pretty much which nobody in Europe poses
No. The hard stuff for us is procurement, both decision making and specification. To get speedy drone production we need a leg up, and either that’s pushing ahead with BAE’s concept drones, or a foreign company producing in the UK. We don’t need a Typhoon type aircraft modified for carriers and arriving in 10 year’s time. We need a purpose built drone asap, and getting into another country’s fast-moving drone production programme means we don’t get to cock up the specification. Putting two Rolls Royce Orpheus engines into the under-development MIUS C would help us, as we’ll get a drone… Read more »
I wasn’t suggesting that we need a son of Typhoon: just that we have the know how to do it.
Jon I think you may be on to something! Turkey has been a very reliable partner in Ukraine by not selling drones to Russia despite Putin personal request! Instead they got Iranian drones . MIUS is I think a game changing 5th generation drone , the Turks got engines from Ukraine until they finish building their own engines which I’m sure they will do one day . I think the UK could help with engines and get MIUS with Rolls Royce engines on UK carriers at fraction the cost of F35, increasing the fleet fast. MIUS could take pressure off… Read more »
MIUS is a game changer! Once it flies next year it will transform military aviation. It’s an unmanned fighter jet pretty much with stealth capabilities AESA radar , long and short air to air missile. AI function. Penetrate enemy air space and use cruise missiles to take out radars. How do we class this ? 5yh generation? It’s extraordinary what they achieved in such a short time! They are doing the same now with unmanned boats armed with anti ship missiles and soon submarines
There is stealth and there is stealth.
We did Tanaris years ago…..
There is expensive stealth and there is attritable.
There is
non stealthy
Reduced RCS
Stealthy – F35B
Very stealthy – F22
Undetectable……
Stealthy is a broad church….!
It matters not whether we have Taranis a decade ago , what matters is what we do with it and you and I know the UK is bad transitioning a concept design into something real that is produced and in service with the armed forces. I think Jon found a great idea ! Get MIUS customise them with Rolls-Royce engines so that the UK has a stake in the project . This would instantly bring the UK
shoulders above the US even in terms of drones carrier capability.
These radars do seem to have a good time.
In theory yes but in practice requirements have been set and several companies have designs already. However with drone use accelerating more launch/recovery real estate for the RN wouldn’t be bad.
The benefits of drones for certain roles will make them a must have on carriers. The objective here is is clearly to play with the kit you can get off the shelf. This doesn’t stop you putting out a requirement for a whole range of new drones which will better suit our needs. The whole point of drones should be that they will be cheap, plentiful and adaptable.
I think this misses what Radakind has said.
The drones are to go on carrier #2.
So it is likely that wingspan is not so much the issue?
So it is using the deck with drones and maybe helicopters or other VTOL drones for other applications.
That is my interpretation of what he said anyway: which was, as ever, quite precise.
Don’t think the drone wingspan is the issue, after all the carriers are 73m wide.
Believe the issues are with take off/landing a STOL aircraft with other assets parked on deck, there being no arrestor wires or safety barriers!
Believe another issue is the extra crew required for moving airframes around the deck when launching/recovering them. As it is we don’t need that many on deck for F35/hello ops. Just something someone else posted a while ago on the subject. Sounds pretty reasonable comments though.
Sure.
But Radakind specifically said for generating an air wing for carrier #2….
So one could do F35B and some cabs and the other could do drones and more cabs?
It would make for a very cost effective carrier air wing for things like prolonged ISTAR operations or an operation like SHADER, with no risk to air crews and now flight hours on very expensive F35Bs. So you could see a purpose for an almost all drone airwing. But it is only because we did not go CATOBAR that we have the opportunity to be so innovative, as you cannot Shut down a CATOBARs manned air wing for 6 months or a year and do something different, like you can with a Queen Elizabeth’s air wings ( carrier qualification. Is… Read more »
I agree V/STOL was the right way to go, but a we still need to get on and produce the right drones for the Vixen requirement. I don’t think Mojave (nor Predators) will give us enough capability for carrier strike, and with Project Vampire supplying the low-end ISTAR capability, I don’t see what role either would play on the carrier. The trade offs between endurance and payload to allow them to operate STOL means they can’t reach any target at strike carrier distance. If we got a couple of through-deck littoral-orientated MRSS, I could see Mojave being useful for short… Read more »
Yes, I know he did, but the idea is to only have one in service(which will be soon) at any given time, with the ability to surge two in emergencies.
Not sure what having a carrier with a drone airwing would bring to the party, given their light load, slow speed and reduced manoeuvrability compared to aircraft? Yes some for AAR/AEW and possibly ASW, after that not sure.
Still, you would like to think that Radakin knows what he’s on about, I’m sure he does and time will tell.
For AEW having enough drones to form a triangle so as to be able to obviate flanking threats would be a massive plus.
As you say for ASW having a big drone prowling able to drop a heavy torpedo might help.
How about you use the drones with smaller missiles as tank / emplacement busters in front of a landing?
There is a pretty big list of things that decent drones will do.
This would leave one deck and it’s lift and hangars free to concentrate on getting the best out of F35B with no distractions.
Yes, that’s eminently doable, assuming we are operating both carriers at the same time.
I believe that once we have proved FOC for carrier strike, then the resident airwing will become a mix of F35/Merlin/drones, with the tasking driving the mix. If we get in a position to need both, then as you say, one will be F35 heavy the other Drone heavy.
Again shows how UK not perusing a drone strategy earlier means we re a user not a developer of the tech. One observation, the undercarriage on Mantis looks far better for carrier operations than the MQ 9. The logical choice now is to follow on with a another GA purchase, sadly.
Money
Yep. You have to speculate to accumulate.
This is modern Britain sadly produce and originate lots of ideas but seldom develop them here and wait for others to do it and then consider our options, the opposite of what made us once great. The City isn’t set up to invest in hi risk uk projects and Govts shun them too far too much. The most depressing example is wind turbines, one of the best placed countries to exploit them even have more than any other Country yet all we really do is put them together and build the farms, nearly all the design and origination is done… Read more »
I don’t blame the city after all most of the banks are global , we have US investment banks there to. Banks will loan if the business case is sound and the business environment is stable. Profit is now a dirty word and the days when Britain innovated was purely because business men wanted to make their business more productive have gone. Canals, steam engines, railways, steam ships were all developed for one purpose originally, commerce and therefore profit. Now we can’t developed or improve anything because if it’s for profit them it can’t be good. Contrary to popular belief… Read more »
To be fair actually the victorians were as much about creating things because they could and it was not all profit, generally the pure profit motivation can stifle innovation and productivity. Consider the slave owning southern US states, profit stifles both innovation and human well being. It happened to a lot of U.K. industries after WW2 when business went for immediate proof over investment in productivity and change, while at the same time other nations were investing in productivity ( japan and German as good examples ). The industries and businesses that are most successful are generally powered by enthusiastic… Read more »
Probably Elon Musk is a good example of creating something to demonstrate it can be done. But he has a motivation and that’s to attract venture capital and ultimately build a business. The same went for the Victorians in some ways. But still a lot of infrastructure Iivestment was by capitalists who needed to move materials and goods. Elon Musk argues taking huge taxes from him when he would invest further in commercialisation of space, electric car etc to redistribute is wrong. Most would say no there’s more pressing needs. But if you asked the Victorians working fields or factories… Read more »
Getting a drone with AEW capability has to be vital fir the RN, Merlin based solution is expensive and those helicopters are desperately needed in the ASW role.
We were told when Mosquito was cancelled that the RAF RCO would be announcing something in the autumn, but I wasn’t expecting to see anything from the RN this year. Given that GA only announced they would be developing STOL MQ-9B in May, to see that on HMSQE at the start of October would be nothing short of amazing. So I’m going to stick my neck out and say, I don’t think it is MQ-9B. The proportions look wrong. Isn’t this more likely to be the already existing Mojave? Look where the forward wheel sits relative to the top of… Read more »
N450MV is believed to be the Mojave test article
Correct me if I am wrong, but was HMS POW ‘kitted’ or ‘fitted’ out to take on and use drones? I refer to the ‘extra tonnage’ in weight POW is, compared to HMS QE.
ooooooo you called it PoW..on here as well…hope you got your tin hat on…
Why would the name change?
We still have a PoW.
There was a thing about the acronym, not the name itself. Unlike myself, some people don’t like PoW. I think because pow suggests an explosion.
Prisoner of War. That’s why many don’t like it.
The Bedford Array might be part of that contributing kit.
If General Atomics manages to get this off the ground (no pun intended) and the RN procures it, it will greatly enhance the ability of the carriers to strut their stuff. Throw in a AWAC iteration then Robert is your Birthing parents brother.
Possibily enough aircract for two carriers? Oh goodness me, what a shambles huh.
a great fit for our carriers, still waiting to know if the ski jumps will be the obstacle
I wonder if it could be used for logistics in delivering stuff in the front. I must admit, my mind was still on landing a STOL Britten Norman. lol I forgot about this. https://simpleflying.com/autonomous-britten-norman-islander/
Slightly off-topic, but relevant. I found this interesting. The Condor has a lifting capability of 180kgs (400lbs) of payload, a travel range of 200kms and an operating speed of 120kph. The multi-package payload compartment is designed to carry approximately 20 cubic feet of cargo. There’s also an R22 cargo drone with a 1000km range with 400lbs carrying capibility.
That’s just cool I want one,
Swing wing drones..?
I do hope all these propelled UAVs have adequate ECMs as aren’t they all very vulnerable to SAMs and AAMs? I thought that there jet based versions of these in the pipeline too?
The mock-up on QE shows a system almost identical to Sky Guardian but not only does it have the wider wing (leading to trailing edge) that’s been talked about with this concept, for carrier operations, it seems to have a shorter fuselage, presumably as space saver for carriers? Not sure where the fuel goes in the Reaper/Predator but does a deeper wing mean fuel tanks can be transferred/made larger into/in the wing? If the overall Reaper/Predator/Mock-up design is rated for weapons such as Paveway and Brimstone then how does an AEW RADAR weight compare to such weapons? Appreciate there’s a… Read more »
I haven’t seen it confirmed yet that the Mojave MQ-9 can take off from a ski-jump. Does anyone have any info or do we assume that a different launch mode would be necessary for the QEs?
Mojave isn’t MQ-9. It’s in the same family, but it’s closer to an MQ-1C with longer wings and more hardpoints. I don’t think we know if it can take off from a ramp. As a turboprop, I doubt it will gain any benefit.
Before anybody gets too misty eyed over the prospect of flying MQ9B from a carrier. It’s time for a reality check. The MQ9B has a wingspan when unfolded of some 79ft (24m). This means that the carrier cannot have aircraft parked along port side like it currently does with the F35s.
Is using a MQ9B from a QE class carrier doable, yes. But it will mean a lot of moving stuff around so they can take-off and land on the deck.
I guess it will depend on the deployment, it can stay aloft for 40hrs so there’s time to manage the deck space. General we’ll be sending just a handful of F35s to sea so there should be plenty of deck to work with. Its not going to be an option for high intensity ops and at that point would it be relevant to deploy as we would most likely be operating with allies. Could be as this is ‘cousin’ of the MQ 9 it has a smaller wing span but then there’s a performance trade off. It worth doing some… Read more »
Agreed, as it will depend on whether the ship is carrying 12, 24 or 36 F35s along with the type of helicopters for example. Parking some Chinooks on the deck will seriously complicate matters. But perhaps more significantly, is the level of threat that the ship will be facing! If it’s used in an asymmetric campaign where there’s little to none surface to air or air to air threat. systems like the MQ9 make perfect sense. However, should that threat change where the “enemy” has a means of shooting down these aircraft, extra measures have to be used to either… Read more »
The unmanned tactical aerial system comes with many pros compared to manned aircraft. To begin with, the MQ-9B STOL costs approximately $5,000 an hour to operate and uses about 200 pounds of fuel an hour and has a loiter time of around 25 hours In comparison, a manned maritime patrol aircraft, such as the P-8 Poseidon, costs about $35,000 an hour to operate and burns approximately 5,000 pounds of fuel an hour and can stay on station for about 10 hours. As the MQ9BSTOL is designed for LHD QE will be no problem. As shipboard UAV are inevitably people should… Read more »
I agree up to a point. As a lot will depend on the expected threat level. During normal peacetime ops or even asymmetric ops. Aircraft like the MQ9 has its place. The ability to fly with a 24 hours duration is not lost on me. But as soon as the airspace can be contested. These aircraft cannot operate in them. They are too slow, unstealthy making them easy meat for SAMs, SPAAGs and fighter aircraft. The major advantage that a large manned aircraft has is the stand-off distance. Plus the ability to make a decision quicker based on the information… Read more »
Appreciate your “Buts” but your thinking that a UAV will be used in the same way as a MAV. We are at gen 1, which are more persistent and cheaper and can therefore be used in “teamed” configurations to offer better coverage. All overwatch systems are “vulnerable” future stealthy drones will be less so. Future AI gen 2 drones will be less Vulnerable to attack. We have an opportunity to dump legacy systems and speed up procurement towards superior systems and save money at the same time.
General Atomics Aeronautical Systems (GA-ASI) revealed on January 18 that it is working with Leonardo to integrate the Seaspray 7500 V2 maritime radar onto its MQ-9B SeaGuardian remotely-piloted aircraft system (RPAS). The integration of the Leonardo-developed active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar onto the SeaGuardian will provide the RPAS with a persistent maritime intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability. GA-ASI states that the “Seaspray 7500E V2 radar is well-suited to the SeaGuardian mission set” as it allows the platform to exploit AESA technology to detect, track and classify hundreds of maritime targets. It adds that the integration will follow an… Read more »
Looking at the firepower these systems deliver in terms of stand off or high risk likely suicidal missions drones are the way to go.
QE class carrier could easily fit 18+ MQ-9B STOL type drones on in addition to Merlins and F35Bs.
If payload was right could they do buddy drogue refuelling from an under chassis drop tank into the F35Bs or fellow MQ-9Bs to provide extra stand off range?