Drones could “allow the opportunity” for Britain to put an air wing on both HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales at the same time.
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?
Carrier based ‘Vixen’ drones are 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 refueling, 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.
You can read more about the aerial surveillance side of things by clicking here and the aerial refuelling aspect by clicking here.
What will they look like?
Project Vixen also parallels the Mosquito project, part of the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative.
Naval Technology reported here that the Royal Navy and RAF are working together to study potential platforms for Mosquito and Vixen, suggesting that a common drone could be fielded fby both services.
We reported recently that the uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator for LANCA, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023.
Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, gave a keynote speech at the RUSI Combat Air Power conference outlining the plan.
“Our £30m contract to design and manufacture the prototype for an uncrewed fighter aircraft, known as Mosquito, is supporting more than 100 jobs in Belfast. In 2023 we will be looking to conduct a flight-test programme for the demonstrator.”
Known as a ‘loyal wingman’, these aircraft will be the first uncrewed platforms able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and intercept surface to air missiles.
“The uncrewed combat aircraft will be designed to fly at high-speed alongside fighter jets, armed with missiles, surveillance and electronic warfare technology to provide a battle-winning advantage over hostile forces. Known as a ‘loyal wingman’, these aircraft will be the UK’s first uncrewed platforms able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and survive against surface to air missiles.”
Team MOSQUITO, which also includes Northrop Grumman UK, will mature the designs and manufacture a technology demonstrator to generate evidence for the LANCA programme.
If successful, Project Mosquito’s findings could lead to this revolutionary capability being deployed alongside the Typhoon and F-35 Lightning jets by the end of the decade.
“The Project will deliver a demonstration of a capability that the RAF may wish to develop further in the future,” a spokesperson from the RAF said.
“It is not intended to output an operational capability at this stage, but it will inform future decisions for the future UK combat air capability. We are exploring the optimum way in which such capabilities could complement platforms such as Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest.”
Most commentators believe that Vixen and Mosquito are likely to share a common platform.
How will the drones be launched?
Earlier, we reported that the Ministry of Defence is currently seeking information on the potential for industry provide assisted launch and arrested recover systems for a range of air vehicles, which would be suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 – 5 years.
The Ministry of Defence say that this request for information is to support the development of the Royal Navy’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (a presentation on which is where the slide above came from) with potential for use with both crewed and un-crewed air vehicles.
The Ministry of Defence add that it is looking to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.
While the Request for Information looks to assess the “availability of electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems to launch aircraft” from a ship, words associated with the previous effort to explore converting the vessels to ‘CATOBAR’ in order to launch carrier variant F-35Cs, it shouldn’t be taken as indication that the Royal Navy are abandoning the short take off and vertical landing F-35Bs and returning to catapult launched fighters. On the contrary, they’re looking to augment the F-35Bs.
In fact, the upper and lower weight limits of the catapult and recovery system outlined aren’t enough to launch or recover any variant of the F-35 in normal conditions.
The launch and recovery options mentioned would be utilised for larger uncrewed aircraft as the armed forces begin to rely on them more and more in place of crewed platforms.
Anyway, on to the Request for Information itself.
“Potential supplier and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.”
According to the Request for Information, the Ministry of Defence have set out the following requirements.
“Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation
Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”
According to the Ministry of Defence, the intended outcomes of the Request for Information are as follows:
“a. Develop further MoD understanding of the different technologies and capabilities available in the market, both current and emerging.
b. Alignment of potential future MoD requirements with industry standards and processes for procurement of maritime un-crewed and autonomous capabilities; and,
c. Enable the Authority to develop a procurement strategy that will deliver best value for money for Defence.”
The Royal Navy say that the DEVELOP Directorate leads the development of the Royal Navy’s future warfighting capability and “acts as the platform for the through-life capability for all maritime capabilities in order to achieve the optimum mix of present and future warfighting technologies for a modern, global and ready Royal Navy”.
The Royal Navy is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles and to “give wider options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet”.
I still think a standard carrier wing should be 24 F35Bs, four Merlins for Crowsnest,( when Crowsnest is replace then four of the replacment type), eight Merlins (mix ASW, Troop), four Wildcats, four Apaches and 16 ‘Vixen’. A total airwing of 60 aircraft. Yes I know why Apache, a good anti swarm platform and with some skill get in close enough to kill any ship.
The issue that I see is that if the Carriers and future Amphibious ships have their full helicopter compliments then there will not be enough for the frigates and destroyers. We have 30 Mk2s ASW, 25 Mk4s Troop carrier, 28 Wildcats with a further 34 in the AAC. Will that be enough for two Carriers at sea, 24 FFGs/DDGs, 2-4 Amphibious ships and the RFA vessels? If we intend to operate on occasion both carriers and we have 72-80 F35Bs operational at anyone time would it be better if the F35Bs come under FAA control?
Regards the low numbers of helicopters. That is why I would rather see money increasing that fleet than large numbers of expensive F35B way beyond what is needed to utilise the potential of the carriers.
Regards the airwing, I don’t think Wildcat or Apache will play any regular part. Wildcat is needed on the escorts, and Apache with the land forces.
If the AAC Wildcat moved to the FAA that could change.
Part of me thinks maybe they should do that; give the Wildcats to the FAA and just go in with the RAF on a medium helicopter.
Could probably get 100+ Black Hawks for a good price and split them between AAC and RAF.
Problem would be Yeovil would close.
I thought I read somewhere that the US said they were potentially open to them being built here under licence.
Apart from assembly it’s hard to think of how much work that would provide for Yeovil. If we changed it to provide more that would prob increase cost and def delay date we could get them into service.
The only problem with that Steve is they will be double the cost if we don’t buy them straight from US Army production lots.
We need to follow the highly successful AH64E procurement model.
Even if they were double the cost it’s still less than a Wildcat, which is £26 million per airframe.
How you figure that one? It’s a very large base and been a ‘SUPER’ base for decades. CHF there and all the wildcats which the RN use the major share of anyway. Not going to happen.
He means Yeovil helicopter factory, not the RNAS.
Exactly can’t see Leonardo wanting to sling together Black Hawks. My major concern however would be the short sightedness of endangering our only helicopter design and build facility when the World is about to enter a whole new world of drone and eVtol air vehicles. We are already in a relatively poor position to exploit this sector and ‘Westland’ may not now be the best business to even exploit it but I certainly wouldn’t want to cut it out while this sector is in such flux for the skills and facilities there just may become crucial for a domestic supplier at this juncture.
Angus I think they are talking about Yeovil not Yeovilton.
Daniele beat me to it.
Yeovil Leonardo helicopter factory doubt if its RNAS Yeovilton Tarnish
That’s exactly what I am saying Tommo
Okeedokee Tarnish
That summaries the problem with UK defence procurement David.
We should furnish equipment the military actually needs in a timely manner, instead of blowing eye watering amounts of cash reinventing the wheel on projects like Wildcat we can’t sell ( apart from tiny numbers) and the Army have no use for.
If Leonardo wants to keep Yeovil open, then complete with a medium support helicopter as capable as Blackhawk, at a comparable level of reliability and the same guaranteed price point and delivery schedule.
If they can’t, then the UK tax payer (and our defence budget) shouldn’t be paying huge amounts to keep an Italian company in business.
It might be harsh, but the reality is UK Westland disappeared years ago….
In my own mind i’m 50-50. Your argument is sound. But then you get into national security problems. We get into a conflict and the US, France or whoever supports the other side. They cut off weapons, spares etc for crucial kit. What would/could we do ? The other argument is economic the industries that supply our military employ people in constituencies around the country ensuring a lobby for defence spending. You can see why I struggle to find the right answer.
Absolutely David, it’s a thorny problem.
For me personally Leonardo and the MOD blew my good will when they developed and funded the ridiculous Wildcat, though an excellent Naval helicopter, it’s utility version is about as much use as a chocolate tea pot!
Sales are dire and unlikely to change….
That’s rather short sighted in various ways some I have covered elsewhere. It’s hardly to keep Leonardo in business, it’s about keeping sovereign capabilities and an important defence manufacturer invested in Britain literally and in mindshare which covers much more than helicopters. When you see how helicopter and drone technology is beginning to overlap and the potential within a decade or so to write off a potential centre of excellence would be something that likely will come back to seriously bite and cause a political and public outcry once any such short sightedness potentially came into vivid vision in a decade or so. As so much of our defence industry is foreign owned now it would be very dangerous to signal to Leonardo that we really don’t care about them being here or not, if they and Thales and others lost interest in Britain then most of our on shore radar and sensor business and research is potentially gone and you can forget about Tempest being a practical programme anymore,.
Hi mate,
I see your point, but would disagree. Our selection of Blackhawk, as opposed to a Leonardo or Airbus offering would have little impact on projects like Tempest.
We lead the way with Tempest and as a potential massive international project, foreign contractors are now clambering to get on board.
My concern over the Leonardo offering is that the MOD will insist on a series of modifications to create a bespoke UK solution that will sky rocket the price and cause serious delays and reduce numbers procured to the minimum.
We all know development costs always run out of control with these programmes.
Ask the Army and RAF what they want and I would guarantee the majority will opt for Blackhawk today, a practical and relatively simple helicopter (by the standard of the latest fly by wire offerings at least), of conventional construction, a robust reliable and utterly proven battlefield taxi if you will.
As I mentioned previously, it opens the possibility of Pavehawk procurement too, this would be a great asset alongside our SF Chinooks.
Exactly what’s needed as Puma replacement.
Modern, software driven, composite construction transport Helicopters, have proven less than robust in active service.
Make it an open transparent procurement and let the manufacturers compete on a fixed price and service date contract.
“Could probably get 100+ Black Hawks for a good price and split them between AAC and RAF.”
Sold! Could have got those years ago for £300 million rather than 1 billion on Wildcats.
Usual problem, home build. Pros and Cons.
In some ways the cons hamstring the military.
I’d go AW149 built in Yeoville, but otherwise agree.
I know Blackhawks have the mass behind them to get really cheap orders, but the AAC and RAF combined don’t have enough aircrew for 100 airframes. Unlike Wildcat, the AW149 is not a custom platform and has very broad export potential, so I don’t see it becoming a billion-pound gold-plated restriction to airframe numbers. We could get the economic benefits of domestic production and still come in cheap enough for sufficient airframes for our needs (hopefully).
Exactly, it has the advantage of being built here retaining the very important facilities and skills active and we have been promised the lead for military sales of the platform while benefiting from Leonardo world wide network, facilities, influence and reputation. You will never get that option again while if it doesn’t prove a great success then at least you have maintained the option for involvement in the new expansive drone sector if it proves an option and viable market for Yeovil to enter and if not then decide to close it down and accept you will forever more be a minor client to US and/or European design and production output in a sector likely to be evolving into one of the major ones in the World for a century and more. Lateral thinking is vital here even if there is a gambling element but the Govt has done that with OneWeb which reflects a very similar uncertain play on technology.
Exactly, I think it makes sense in the long run if we can just avoid making too many spec changes that only suit us.
It’s also worth bearing in mind that AW are licence building one of the Boeing (?) tilt-rotor aircraft and building up an understanding of them. If we want a hope of a domestically produced future vertical lift platform to replace merlin et al, it’s worth keeping Yeovil going.
Spot on Steve, Wildcats to the Navy, additional Apaches for scouting and a big buy of Blackhawk for the RAF and Army.
We won’t of course, we will spend substantially mone money on 30 or 40 of the Italian offering, reinventing the wheel.
It’s how we conduct procurement in the UK, piss the money away….
Wildcats area a waste as RN uses them.
RN need medium helicopters with +100km range missile and ASW capability.
Army: AW 149
Navy: Merlin
There is no reinvention, AW 149 are operational and are part of a big family, several AW 189 (AW 149 civilian version) operate in Britain including HM rescue service in naval SAR.
I take your point Alex, but you know as I do that the MOD will add a whole level of sophistication and cost to the basic design, countermeasures, increased lifting weights, power etc, leading to gear box upgrades, structural alterations and on and on…
They will specify, this, specify that and it will progressively get bogged down and very expensive, you just know it!
Blackhawk, is tough, affordable, utterly proven, reliable, upgraded and available almost immediately.
It also allows the possibility of procuring Pave Hawk special operations versions to compliment our Chinook SF force too.
Why the MOD would want to change the AW149 but not the Blackhawk?
Well basically Alex because the Blackhawk is already a fully developed and matured medium battlefield helicopter.
It could be flown into Benson next year.
The AW149 isn’t fully developed as such, requiring considerable development work to meet the necessary specifications.
It’s an unknown quantity and I’ll guarantee its unit price will be at least double the Blackhawk or more…
And it’s sister copter from which it is derived is a massive seller even in the US. Committing to it is a risk like any programme but is it worth copping out of to get a load of cheap Blackhawks to do the business for a while and then nothing to offer thereafter as a benefit. Geez if we have that attitude why bother with Tempest or Mosquito et al and just buy far cheaper off the shelf options, indeed we should never have built Typhoon and thus lost the ability to even build those new projects. This Country has failed most often when it hasn’t seen the bigger picture while others retain national skills and production but make sure they aren’t simply tied to an internal market even if that means compromises.
It’s actually the way nearly all growing defence spending Countries are increasingly working in fact from India, through Turkey to Australia. All are trying to bring skills and output onshore rather than simply buying the cheapest option abroad. We have already seen how British ability to sell missiles abroad has been deliberately sabotaged by the US to the extent we have removed their tech to enable foreign sales so taking this even further into reliance on others affecting sovereign skills seems very short sighted to me. The fact that Australia in particular are committing to a longer term sovereign defence se tor and making sure all deals now lead towards this aim by transfer of technology and skills says a lot to me about the importance of maintaining this capability even as you have a longer term plan to improve its viability. The French did this with Renault we did the opposite with BL while both piled in enormous amounts of financial support when the sensible option would have been to close them both down. Look at the difference in results now and the relative effects on the economies of each.
The Wildcat AH1s have a specific and valuable role in the AAC. They are the stealthy forward recon that locates and lights up enemy positions, for the Apaches, lying below the treeline or ridge, to pop up and blast them.
That is the route the US is going down too, it concluded that the Apache was not so good in the recon role, replacing the Lakota, and was very vulnerable.
One of two competing designs for the future US replacement is in fact very similar to the Wildcat in size and layout.
The big difference in the US army is that their recon helos are armed, like our RN Wildcats, still don’t understand why our Army ones do not have a cannon or weapon pylons on the stub wings.
Anyways, they are needed and not available for the FAA.
TBH we need two relatively cheap LPHs, or to somehow make two MRSS per LRG have the same aviation capability. The LRGs will carry a 250 strong FCF battlegroup which is designed to be deployed over the horizon by air, so that would ideally require 8+ Merlin + an Apache/Wildcat package and UAVs for each LRG.
Agree. Radakin is on record as saying it was a pity the Aircraft Carrier Alliance was wound up before it could produce a couple more LPHs.
That would have been LPH’s instead of the River B2’s?
I agree that having honed large warship construction down to a pretty fine art we then shut that down and kept a skeleton key yard staff to build the B2’s.
How on earth we would crew two LPH’s I have no idea given that Ocean had to cut to crew PoW?
Agreed.
90 RN helo’s are alright, not great but good
To be honest, I wouldn’t assign ASW (or air assault) Merlins to the carrier as part of the air wing, unless you’re thinking of distributing them out to the ASW frigates? I’m not aware of the USN operating their ASW airframes from the carrier, they distribute them out to the Burkes to actually do the job even if they are officially part of the air wing. That being the case, it would relieve the strain on helicopter numbers slightly, because I think you’re “double dipping” for the ASW role by assuming that the attached frigates in the carrier group will have their own Merlin and/or Wildcat too?
Personally, I’m wary of operating any Merlin at all from the carrier (except for AEW, until that is replaced by a drone); I’m not sure what function they would perform. If we’re talking about a CSG, then the carrier will be at the centre of a ring of escorts- well away from the shore and screened when it comes to threats. The ASW frigates would likely be quite a way out from the carrier, and a much better spot to launch ASW helos from to maximise the radius and improve response time. I would potentially want the Vixen drones to be able to launch from the carrier to range even further ahead and be capable of supporting ASW by dropping sonobuoys and torpedoes though (the USN used to have a fixed wing ASW capability within the air wing, which they lost when they retired the S3). Similarly, if we’re operating as a CSG rather than an amphibious group (the RN seems to be seeing them as two separate mission sets), then I don’t see a need for the air assault Merlin, because the carrier won’t be carrying the complement of Marines to ride in them.
For me, I’d have:
24 F-35B
8-16 “combat” fixed wing drones (capable of carrying ASW or strike loadouts)
4 AEW fixed wing drones
4 AAR fixed wing drones
2-4 Wildcat for SAR and potentially close in protection
This gives ~40 strike/combat aircraft and 8-10 support aircraft, which is pretty close to a current USN air wing in terms of numbers and balance.
In addition, each of the ASW frigates would have a Merlin and a Firescout-size rotary-wing drone capable of ASW and each AAD destroyer would carry a Wildcat and the same Firescout-size drone (which would also be capable of launching Martlet). If necessary, the carrier could take a couple of extra ASW Merlin to provide some redundancy within the fleet.
It could be that the fixed wing drones all share a common airframe, and then it’s just a case of changing the payload, or at least having commonality of parts etc.
I still think we should shift all the Wildcat into the FAA and get AW149 as a medium lift platform that is shared by both AAC and RAF. But combined with the force structure above, that should hopefully give us just enough airframes once the Merlins don’t have to do Crowsnest anymore.
This..
Sold!
Yup. Although our escorts can only carry one Merlin apiece, so that’s four, and RN seems to like Wildcat with the CSG for force protection work. On CSG21 the Vertrep HC4 cabs were farmed out on Fort Victoria.
Yeah, I’d only want the Merlin on the T26s though, with Wildcats on the T45s. Merlin sticks with the specialist ASW platform, and can be augmented by the faster flying Wildcat from the T45 (who may be out of position for carrying out ASW because of their AAD mission) if necessary. Most of the time the T45-based Wildcat can be used for force protection out at the edges of the CSG.
I’m still looking at 4 dedicated ASW platforms on the escorts though, because of the Firescout-type drone. I believe the RN are looking at rotary wing drones as well as fixed wing, so I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to include them. The drone I talk about is smaller than Wildcat, and a T26 can carry 1 Merlin or 2 Wildcat in their hangar so I’d imagine that it could carry a Merlin and a drone. Same goes for the T45s: 1 Wildcat + 1 drone. That gives 8 rotary wing platforms on the escorts, and my proposed carrier-based air wing includes an additional 2-4 Wildcat for SAR and force protection. I think that kind of looks after all bases?
It’s interesting that they did take HC4s out on CSG21- do you know what they did? I didn’t think there was a big enough contingent of marines to make it worthwhile, but I could easily be wrong.
Yes on firescout / AW Hero. Should be at least 2 in the T26 mission bay for ASW missions. They can maintain persistent surveillance with the Merlin put up to prosecute contacts,
Yes, exactly that. The Firescout B and C models have endurance of up to 12 hours and are actively deployed by the USN with all kinds of ISR fits, while also being capable of launching their equivalent to martlet. They even did tests of it launching sonobuoys and stuff with Ultra.
Evening James, not entirely sure what you mean by Firescout/AW Hero conducting persistent ASW surveillance?
You go through an awful lot of Sonobuoys when trying to locate/track a SSN/SSK, it’s one of the reasons Merlin has a dipping sonar.
These drones won’t be conducting ASW ops by themselves, but acting as a mule, carrying extra sonobuoys or lightweight torpedoes.
Hi Deep. Loitering in a designated search box and conducting the initial detection takes up much of the airframe hours of MPAs and helicopters – UAS can do this for longer and much more cheaply. Other sensors such as MAD and underwater imaging can also be used, or an onboard processor connected with seabed sensors (the US have developed a subsurface laser imaging system called LASH). Obviously radar to detect masts and surfaced subs. Sonorbouys can also be dropped. The UAS can be on station for longer than the Merlin searching boxes, allowing the crewed platform to respond to and interrogate contacts..
What existing UAS can do all of that from a frigate?
Evening James, thanks for the reply.
Yes, appreciate much of the airframe hours are taken up transmitting,/searching for targets, but that’s SM hunting for you. All of the ait assets are usually queued onto a search area by other assets – normally something with a TA, and or IUSS data.
Afraid I’m a bit of a sceptic when it comes to oft quoted capabilities of drones. Not just UAVs, but especially XLUUV types.
I can see the attractions of using them in this fashion, but remain unconvinced of their abilities to actually do it at present. Certainly as sensor technology improves and becomes smaller,/lighter and data transfer becomes less problematic, then their usefulness will improve. I just don’t see that happening for a while just yet.
Of course, this is just my take on it.
I agree Joe, i would maximize the attack force the carrier. if the AEW can be put into a destroyer/cruiser even better.
Quite a bit of nonsense in Joe’s post.
The Royal Navy puts all the ASW Merlins onto a carrier because that’s the best place to maintain and operate them from. The escort ships do not deploy ASW Merlins.
The function they perform is ASW defence of the CSG.
The carriers are equipped to carry a force of Royal Marines that would be deployed by Merlins of both types.
Wildcats are deployed on the escorts to provide close in group protection.
The carriers were designed to carry 36 fast jets and 14 Merlin sized helicopters. If both carriers were deployed together, only one would need to carry ASW Merlins so its fast jet load could be increased beyond 36.
PS the Junglie Merlins were primarily deployed to the RFA to perform VERTREP.
There’s nothing like the internet to influence one’s choice of words towards the combative, is there?!
No worries, I’ll admit that I have never served in the navy, so my thinking may not match up with the practicalities of it.
In my head, the T26s are at the very edge of the CSG when they’re not having a PHOTEX- potentially 10-20 km away from the carrier at the centre (maybe even more?). To me it makes far more sense to have the ASW Merlins flying from them, rather than have to add ~30 km+ flight time to an ASW sortie just to get into the rough area of the T26 you’re to be working with. From reading articles from USN ASW veterans, this seems to be what they do; although the ASW aircraft are assigned to the carrier air wing, they actually operate from the escorts in performing the role. As I said in my post, the carrier would have supplementary Merlin on board for switching out with the one’s operating from the escorts as necessary for maintenance and stuff. I’ve never read similar accounts from RN veterans, but I’ll take your word for it that they operate differently.
Of course the carriers are equipped to carry a force of Royal Marines- about 650 of them or something if I recall. I never said otherwise, what I said was that my understanding of the RN’s plan is that this many marines is only embarked if the carrier is being used as an amphibious platform- not as a CSG. If we’re talking a CSG deployment, then I saw less reason for Commando Merlins in the air wing because there wouldn’t be enough marines to ship around. If they’re used for VERTREP then fair enough.
Yes, I was very clear that Wildcat on the escorts (T45 only in my case) are for force protection with a secondary ASW support role, but thanks for reiterating. In the USN, they also use their Seahawks for SAR if a pilot goes down- I presumed that this would be a function that Wildcat could perform, seeing as we have a gap for this as far as I’m aware.
That’s the reason for thinking the way I am- based mainly upon what I’ve read about USN carrier/ASW ops. If you know more about RN ops, then sure I bow to your greater knowledge.
My advice: Try researching why the Royal Navy do things the way they do before offering opinions on how you would do it differently.
Thanks, I will. Any sources?
Ron, shuffling the pact is no substitute for investment in hard assets. The primary role of the carrier is to permit our air power to be projected globally. That means our most accomplished and ONLY fixed wing carrier capable aircraft, currently the F35B. The FAA should have sufficient airframes to fully equip both carriers and have a reserve for BCR. Those in addition to a larger number of RAF F35’s of whatever model is deemed best for their needs. I suspect F35A or even F35C given it’s longer range. That is until Tempest can be introduced “like for like.” One airframe at a time.
In my humble opinion this is not a hypothetical best case scenario. It is the bare minimum for a nation such as ours in these very dangerous times. “Oh the cost, oh the manpower”. Balderdash and poppycock. The country has just absorbed a two year lockdown and found the money for that. While still planning to give away billions and billions to alien states. Some of them harbouring hostile intent.
Hi George, I agree, if I could find the money I would make sure that the carriers had three squadron each of F35Bs plus ‘Vixen’ type drones. Plus the required reserve that would mean about 120 F35Bs just for the FAA. Whilst many would mention cost, mapower etc what a lot of people would need to understand from my point of view is that the RAF would operate from where we have airbases UK,Europe, Gib, Cyprus etc. The RN with with the FAA would operate where there are no air bases available. The RAF for its combat wings requires three types of aircraft, a fighter/air superiority aircraft, a ground attack aircraft and a deep strike aircraft, the RN-FAA needs a multi role carrier capable aircraft. The F35B is not a good air superiority fighter, it is not a good ground attack aircraft and it is not a good deep strike aircraft, it is a good capable carrier multi role combat aircraft. So I understand that the RAF is not overly impressed but the RN is.
Sometimes when we speak about 24-36 F35Bs for each carrier we forget that the carriers are designed to have at surge up to 70 aircraft each. Thats 48-60 F35Bs if the carriers were of on a peer to peer conflict. Now you can understand why I say the FAA needs 120 F35Bs it fulfills the capability of the two carriers. Why build them if we do not intend to use them to their full capacity.
I also agree that our carriers should do the task that they are designed to do, carrier strike. I have often argued that we need some more ships preferably along the lines of HMAS Canberra that could have a multi role as Amphibious Helicopter Dock assault ships or as Anti Submarine Helicopter Carrier Task Group Flagships (operating with 2 ASW frigates). If I could I would build two Canberra type vessels and four Dokdo type vessels. Each of the Dokdo types would be teamed up with a pair of T26s to operate as a ASW task group. The Dokdos would be the multi role combat ship as two Dokdos would also team up with a Canberra type for an Amphibious Assault group. Again people are going to shout cost etc the Dokdos cost about £250 million each and the Canberra/Juan Carlos 1 costs about £400 million. Say a total of £2.5 billion,(the extra cost is improvements in speed). We wasted more than that on track and trace.
If we could build the suggested Amphibious force we could then couple a Queen Elizabeth Carrier Group with a Canberra and two Dokdos that would have the assault combat strength of a USMC MEU as a Expedition Strike Force. This however would mean a change in thinking, the Army units attached to the Assault carriers would be large armoured battlegroups (2200 troops, upto 28 Challanger 3 MBTs, 56 Warriors/Ajax plus artillery, supporting units and supplies for 30 days combat). They would operate more like USMCs whilst the Royal Marines become more like what they were ‘Commandos’ or US Seals. This could become the UKs mobile response force. The Royal Navy could then become a truly four dimensional fighting force able to fight on the sea, under the waves, in the air and on the land. Independent of any other force and the forward deployed representation of British Interests. Only if!
The other question to the investment cost is this, would Argentina even think about invading the Falklands if we had two carriers with 120 combat aircraft and an amphibious capability to land 5000 troops over the beach supported with 20 Apaches. Only someone very stupid would do that, so we would have saved hundreds of men that were killed/injured, saved money on the ships that were sunk or damaged. No, how much is a persons life worth? I must admit if I was to go in for fantasy fleets then I would have three cariers with the required escorts, three assault groups and their escorts plus several surface/ASW action groups. I would bring the RN upto a 50 ship combat fleet. I would be happy with a 30 ship combat fleet, two carriers, six assault ships and a hunter killer force of10-12 subs plus the bombers. Then again thats just me.
If money was no issue we could do something completly diffrent a ASW helicopter cruiser, some countries tried this notably Italy but the tech at the time was not quite up to it. The Italian Vittorio Veneto could carry 6 Sea Kings, operate as a flagship and had the armarment of a guided missile cruiser, all on 9,000 tons. I think we had HMS Blake and Tiger but they were ugly gun cruiser convertions. So we want to build the T83s, well the helicopter cruiser concept could be one to think about. However we would need to build 8-10 of these, two for each carrier, four for the T26s and two for the Amphibious group. The issue with this is that it would coast about £15 billion, but even six T83s in a AAW destroyers build will cost about £9 billion. I would still build the Dokdo’s and Canberras as not only can they operate as Amphibious Assault platforms but as ASW helicopter carriers, baby flat tops, escort carriers, humanitarian platforms, emergancy hospitals, ship to shore conectors and possibly with some lateral thinking forward deployed repair and maintance ships for everything airborne.
This is *probably* the future for Western air wings, some kind of hybrid manned/unmanned squadron set-up.
The issue is the manufacturing them, if we are going to build these drones, they have to be treated as an asset that can be quantitatively superior than an unmanned system. IE we need to mass produce the sh!t out of them. Give the CHICOMs and Russians something to think about.
Sorry for the typo, I meant “superior than a ‘manned’ system.”
Hi Thomas,
That would certainly work well for a land based system as you can build up a stockpile of spares that you can quickly access if and when needed.
Not so easy for a carrier to access the stockpile if it is deployed out of area. So I would suggest a mix of high end and cheap(er) systems… However,…
Cheers CR
It’s more than just building. Is there a single unit that can do this that is anything other than a paper concept. First you need a built concept anywhere in the world that comes close to the ability, then you need to find a way to build them and build within budget, which will realistically happen for the bigger powers first. We are probably 20-30 years off that currently. Great vision for the future but I would be surprised if one of the carrier’s aren’t sold off well before the realistic application is there.
Why do they have to be “qualitatively superior” to manned solutions?
Pretty sure the idea is for UAS to perform tasks that are on the whole either too boring or too dangerous for manned aircraft. NOT to perform every single thing the manned aircraft can do.
I see the RN moving towards UAV’s for AEW, AAR, loyal wingman combat roles and ASW. Obviously, not all from the same platform the latter role could see quadcopters dropping sonobuoys and or light weight torpedos and operating from escorts.
As for the carrier air wings it all depends on how capable the new drones will be. If they can carry a good payload, say better than half the payload of an F35B and you can team 3 with a F35B then you are looking at a very capable combination. A drone in that bracket would be smaller than the F35 (no life support equipment required for starters) so you would be able to carry more of them. So a squadron might have 6 or 8 F35 each with the potential to team with 2 or 3 drones, say a maximum of 32 fixed wing strike aircraft.
You may also have additional drones for AEW and AAR. If they are the same basic drone as the strike aircraft then it is likely that some of these roles will be supplied from the strike aircraft. Helicopters will remain a key element of the carrier air wing for ASW, counter FIAC and ASW possibly supported by quadcopters.
The precise make up of the wing would also be influenced by how quickly you can generate sorties. So given the ramp will still be in place that is not going to be an easy problem to sort out as moving aircraft around in a tight and active space is a significant piece of choreography. So if launching and recovering drones was identified as the limiting factor you may only be able to operate say 2 drones per F35 or risk slowing your operational tempo. We will also be looking to operate AAR drones to extend the range of the strike packages and these will have to take off and recover in a particular order relative to the strike package. So the choreography gets complex to say the least, especially if you loose the area to starboard of the ramp for the CAT.
The RN has a lot of variables to sort out before we get a CATOBAR enabled drone capability fitted onto our carriers, but they do seem to be putting a lot into it. The drone test aircraft is due to fly in 2023 so we will get a better idea of what is possible in about 3 years time once the trials programme is finished and the data analysed, in the meantime it is fantasy fleet time!!! 😀
Cheers CR
Do you really think that they might convert/add-on cats to the QE’s?
Whilst feasible, I do wonder whether they might just shift that whole drone launch and recovery operation to a cheaper to produce ‘drone carrier’ – for exactly the reasons you mention about sortie rate and choreography.
We’d only need two of them.
My idea is a a largish drone to be launched off the QEC’s future catapult that’s main job is AEW but is capable of Aerial Refuelling as well – Carrier Onboard Delivery (COD) could be delivered by a similar platform. This approach is like the USN – latest E-2’s perform AEW and Aerial Refuelling whilst the C-2 Grayhound is based on the E-2 but is modified for transport and COD. For the US they usually operate 5 E-2’s or a squadron – so maybe that’s what we do and then 2 COD drones – the US also has five fighter squadrons – but I doubt we’ll have that nor do we plan to. So a good UK air wing would be:
Cheers, Goldilocks
The E2 definitely does do air to air refuelling, receiving yes, giving no! The USN currently uses its F/A-18s for air to air refuelling, using its internally fuel plus that housed in five large external fuel tanks, which is killing their airframe hours. These will be replaced by Boeing’s MQ-25 Stingray UAV, which is currently going through its trials program. It has already been used to refuel all the USNs carrier based aircraft (F/A-18, F35C, V22 and E2C/D) except helicopters, it has yet to land on a carrier. The USN are also looking at using the Stingray in a limited ISTAR role as it has quite a low RCS. The USN are also getting rid of their C2 Greyhounds and replacing them with CMV-22B Ospreys, for the COD role.
Due to the available space, the USN have had up to 6 E2C/D Hawkeyes on the Nimitz class carriers, depending on where they are operating (Western Pacific/SCS), usually they only have four.
Just wondering how many drones an F35 could support before the pilot would become overwhelmed by the workload/information overload. I know Israel was looking at the case for a two seater version of the F35, but not seen anything recently.
An often overlooked point when posts about drones doing this and that appear! If the F35 were a 2 seater then yes I can see them controlling several at once, but isn’t it a big ask for one person??
Yes there was a very good reason a lot of 4 generation strike aircraft were 2 seater. There was a very good study ( I’ve lost the link) that looked at the effectiveness of 2 seater strike aircraft vs single seat and the was a great increase in effectiveness.
I know the theory was that 5 generation aircraft would reduce the pilot burden and increase awareness making one person as or more effective as two. But I’m pretty sure all that modelling of workload was based around present weapons and sensors and not the work load to control drone swarms as well as the aircraft and its systems. So I would not bet against Israel getting its wish for a two seater F35 ( swarm tender) at some point.
And probably why China has produced a 2 seater J20.
A 2 seater F35 will be an interesting concept, as it creates all sorts of new problems from a stealth perspective! If you keep the size as is, then something else (fuel/payload) will have to give.
It’s probably a much needed capability, certainly helps with the workload, just can’t see it happening, it would be v expensive in an already expensive programme.
You are thinking that drones would be “flown” by their controllers. That’s a misconception.
You should be thinking more like: go to this area, patrol it and let me know if you find anything that could be a target.
Or: keep station on me, 50 miles to my port and 50 miles ahead and send me any interesting radar returns.
Hi Ron, but remember we are talking about weaponised drones, keeping track of the information flows as well as targeting, firing weapons will always be more affective with a two man crew. I’m not seeing western nations giving complete autonomy to engage and destroy to any armed heuristic system anytime soon, which means a person will need to keep satiation awareness and control.
I don’t agree that a 2nd crewman is required. Neither do the air forces that are developing such systems. Nor do I agree giving UAS autonomy automatically confers the ability of the drone to engage targets without human intervention.
Don’t forget that the levels of autonomy that can be applied to UAS can also be applied to the manned aircraft to ease the pilot’s workload.
Hi Ron
This is worth a read: https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/are-two-seat-fighters-obsolete/
Interesting. Thank you 👍
No worries, the diplomat is a nice little journal around Asia/Pacific geopolitical movements/defence and is always worth a check out for anyone with an interest in the field.
Sounds great on paper but how far away is a naval capable unmanned drone?
I believe the US have signed a deal with Boeing for refueling planes recently, but thats alot different from a fully combat capable fighter/loyal wingman?
Seems to me the politicians are getting their excuses in early for not commiting to buy more F35, rather than the RN getting new capability.
Yes Northrop got very pissed off with that decision and didn’t even compete for the refuelling drone despite being the most advanced drone manufacturer. It will most like come back into its own on strike drones though be it the airframes or just it’s AI platform. Glad to see it as part of the UK programme even though much of that proven capability will not one presumes be directly accessible due to US restrictions. But at least they know and can advise the best roads to head down no doubt so not reinvent various wheels and save development time.
Loyal Wingman types are flying today as prototypes. The RAF one will fly next year so they’re not too far away.
Although I do share your cynicism 100%
Will these be RN drones or RAF drones….?
I’ll get my coat… -)
Army
As long as they don’t drone on too much 🙂
The question ought to be: should they be RN drones or not?
Only 36 comments? Mostly about helicopters? I think the carrier groups are going to be losing helicopters and replacing them with drones (AEW & Anti-Submarine), freeing the helos up for other escorts.
I see a mix of F35B, Top Cover/Wingman Drone (Vixen?), and MQ-25 Stingray catapult-launched or something similar. The AEW drone could also be catapult-launched & fixed-wing and maybe have 12 hours endurance. So 3 of those to replace 4-5 Merlins? Wildcats on the escorts and maybe you only wind up needing a couple of Merlins on the carrier for utility. Then you could have something like a little larger S-100 for swarm/local area defense support and maybe end up with 80+ airframes taking up the space of roughly 40 F35/Merlin.
I doubt these carriers are going to be seen as obsolete.
I don’t think we are going to see UK refueling drones. The carriers are not set up (and could not be setup without huge expense) to operate anything as large as they would have to be.
F-35B’s with drop tanks is much more likely.
this could be genius or a very expensive dead end. just to say i like cats but currently don’t have any at home, vet bills have massively gone up and the heartbreak if one did not return home.
Dogs are better. Quite a few in the RN’s past to chose from.
Australia seems to be moving forward with Loyal Wingman.
“The RAAF announced that the second Loyal Wingman prototype performed its maiden flight in early November, while the first aircraft raised and engaged its landing gear for the first time during recent a flight at Woomera in South Australia.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/air-platforms/latest/australia-progressing-loyal-wingman-development-programme
Interesting read, thing progressing on our side to.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2021-11-08/storm-warning-comes-uk-form-project-tempest
Interesting and not unrelated read. Honed in on this, so in Mosquito also Vixen in another configuration.
modular design of the Mosquito airframe allowed for five different wing shapes to be interchanged with a fuselage in 10 minutes. Different payloads could also be easily added or removed.
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2021-11-08/storm-warning-comes-uk-form-project-tempest
As a force multiplier to spread out the F35s maybe, but certainly not as a stand alone air wing of drones surely. But with the speedy advances in drone/UAV tech who knows!
I want to be 40 years younger and serve through this new era.
I think the first priority should be getting 2 wings set up, even if they half fill each carrier and can double up for a full wing if needed. That could do the job for next few years while we have 2 carriers on the ocean. I don’t know how long 2 carriers will be at sea so take advantage while they can
What about taranus? Or was that just a demonstration platform?