Spirit AeroSystems, a key member of Team Mosquito, have published images of how the Mosquito combat drone will look.

The uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023.

There’s also a video, you can view it below.

According to the Royal Air Force, known as a ‘loyal wingman’ these aircraft will be able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and intercept surface to air missiles.

Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast were recently been selected to lead Team MOSQUITO in the next phase of the project. Team MOSQUITO, which also includes Northrop Grumman UK, will mature the designs and manufacture a technology demonstrator to generate evidence for a follow-on Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) programme, you can read more about that here.

A full-scale vehicle flight-test programme is expected by the end of 2023.

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.”

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

79 COMMENTS

        • They are also heavily involved with the F35 building the central fuselage and many of its systems, that and they produce the E2 Hawkeye.

          So not much then 🙂

          • That would explain ‘volume production’ then. They must be doing other stuff though as B21 production was tiny….how do you make money on such low level production. I’m sure that the USAF and Congress are very generous with exotic projects but the day to day bread and butter work, must be elsewhere (F35 contracts would explain some of that)?

          • B21 production will not be tiny – current requirements are for “at least 100” at a unit cost of up to $550 million each, and there are calls for the eventual total to be even higher.

          • At the risk of being proved wrong, I think it is different this time.The Democrats seem ambivalent about replacing Minuteman as the ground based element of the nuclear triad; if B21 were cut back the whole concept of the triad to provide security falls apart. Given the worsening international climate, that would seem a step too far, at least let’s hope so!

          • Not sure their triad makes a lot of sense anyway personally, but, brave of you to commit 🙂

          • also why doesn’t Britain have any bombers any more? surely they deliver larger payloads. plus we basically imbedded bombers into military aviation with the Lancaster’s and Vulcans.

          • Expensive and too vulnerable! The Vulcan was to acquire a stand off missile…but these projects were cancelled in favour of Polaris! Large conventional payloads on the B52 caused devastation in Vietnam, but didn’t win them the war.

          • The positive on this was that when State of the Art Vulcans in the 60s penetrated US air defences and ‘took out’ New York with the loss of one (out of 5) aircraft. And then despite the pre warning did it again a year later. The negative is that that was the high point of such capability I suspect. the expense unsustainable as time passed and in a country like Britain with so few places to operate them would probably be taken out before they could respond. In those respects a submarine launched deterrent is far more logical especially when you can barely afford a single option.

          • Too expensive, too vulnerable and a single-use platform.

            If we want to go down the long-range bomber route we should make it not a large heavy bomber but a drone.

            I’d say put Taranis into production, make sure it can carry large munitions such as 2,000lb Paveways or Storm Shadows, and get 2 squadrons of those plus spares.

            Whilst we’re at it get another couple of squadrons; an AEW version and an A2A refuelling version to be used on the QE carriers.

          • Would sure be nice if the Brits and their EU neighbors could take some of the SEAD heavy lifting from the USAF/USN. Do the Brits even have an anti radar missile or anything like the Growler?? I know they got rid of the ALARM years ago but haven’t heard about them replacing that capability. Not to mention a capability like the EC-130H Compass Call to jam radars, comms, ect.

          • Britain recognised when ALARM was reaching end of life that an Anti-Radiation missile was an obsolete concept as radar was becoming cheaper and more dispersed. The launcher is very rarely in the same location as the radar nowadays or tied to a fixed installation which couldnt just as easily be targeted with other weapons not reliant on it broadcasting its own location. So blowing up a cheap mobile dish doesnt tackle the real threat. Rather than relying on a single purpose aircraft to provide jamming for the rest of the squadron most aircraft will carry a jammer pod that can easily be included in the aircraft loadout, beyond that you have for example Britecloud that fits in a standard chaff dispenser and is a disposable RF Decoy generator that listens to and reproduces the electronic signature being reflected from the aircraft its dispensed from by the enemy radar. Theres also the SPEAR-EW under development which puts the same capabilities as a Growler onto a disposable long range missile instead as well as a possible upgrade of Meteor radar with an AESA radar that would give it a anti-radiation capability while fitting inside the F-35 internal weapon bay which the AGM-88 cant which its reported the Japanese are quite keen on too.

          • They didn’t want to spend the money on them and let the US taxpayers do it instead.

          • We have stand off misssiles that can do the job at far less risk for conventional strike plus multi-role fighters & in-flight refuelling otherwise. For nuclear strike(God forbid) we have Trident.
            Apart from that, despite being c5th or 6th economy globally, we don’t have the political will or sense to turn that into decent funding for our tiny military.

          • And as I state above their airborne AI platform is deemed the most advanced in the world. That just might come in a bit handy on a project like this despite a question over just how much of it will actually filter through. But then that’s the case with any American company so might as well start with the best.

          • will the b21s replace the b52s? they seem pretty similar in terms of roles. i mean they both are strategic bombers with conventional and nuclear capabilities.

          • Yeah I think their appeal is somewhat in the same dimension as the slogan Make America Great Again goes to the core of American symbolism even if in reality the concept is rather nebulous. Rather like using a battleship from a different age I guess as was popular for a period in the US whatever use it had in terms of power projection was nothing compared to the PR effort it offered… and perhaps that little bit of doubt it puts in your opponents minds they could do without perhaps.

          • Maybe eventually but that’s only if the B21 is bought in significant numbers. Plans are to re-engine the Buffs and use them to haul hypersonic missiles, ect.

          • sound a bit dangerous to me. the airframe is almost 60 odd years old! i think its time to let it go.

        • They also completed against Lockhead building the YF23, some say it was better than the F22. They also make the RQ4 Global Hawk.

          • Yes I refer to that above as I had just done so research on that. Almost everything I read it was technically superior even in stealth despite that being the supposed strength of the oppositions skill base. Very much seems it was a fit up based around politics, future competition considerations and apparently a flashy aerobatic regime by YF22 test pilots to catch the eye of the brass watching. Clearly the pilots were told to emphasise the one area where the YF22 could match or probably slightly outperform it’s competitor despite that not being the logical core quality of a 5th gen platform and in achieving it added and/or disguised weight/range and other disadvantages that were far more important esp in terms of what is ironically now being asked for in a 5.5 or 6th gen aircraft proposal.

            Of course back in the day most of the decision makers at the top couldn’t see past their dated ideas about what makes a fighter the best not far different ironically from thirties proponents of biplanes who saw their superior manoeuvrability as the reason to discount monoplanes.

          • It was rumored to be a little better in range and some aspects of stealth but inferior in maneuverability mostly because it lacked thrust vectoring and no vertical tails.

      • Indeed having just read up on the history of the YF22/YF23 project and how a winner was chosen I was more than happy to hear about NG being a partner on this. Despite the YF23 being arguably the better fighter (decidedly better many would argue) it seems that Lockheed/Boeing were deemed the more ‘reliable’ technical/business choice based it seems on work on Nighthawk while the US wanted to maintain and expand competition in future projects. Thats despite the YF23 being more stealthy, longer ranged, lighter and almost as manoeuvrable using a clever tail layout now echoed on modern proposed designs in place of the complex heavy vectored thrust rear end of the YF 22.

        As it turned out the F22 as we all know ended up a production nightmare, unreliable with around only 33 available at any given time and so over budget and delayed that the number built was reduced from around 800 to around 170 odd. Meanwhile though no one can be sure how they would have faired in the production process NG had already reached heights with the extremely successful F18 (with McDonnell Douglas) and excelled thereafter with the B2 and B21 bombers. Then there is the X47b for which it’s designers have won prestigious engineering rewards for their achievements and is still deemed at the forefront of such technology especially in terms of its AI technology.

        Meanwhile the less said about the other two companies the better. So yes a good decision in my view especially as they will want to make the most of an opportunity to gain some bragging rights over its competitors.

        • Not so sure Northop excelled on the B2, it was well over budget and I think it could have tainted Northop. But what the USAF have learnt since is cutting edge stuff is complex and what happened on the B2 was not unusual as Lockheed suffered the same fate on the F22 and the F35.

    • The F14 was such an iconic aircraft and NOT shrouded in secrecy (and produced in smaller numbers) like those other newer aircraft mentioned. I blame Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman!

      • The F14. A truly ironic aircraft. US Naval aviators still get misty eyed at the thought of it’s passing into the history books. Any time baby! 😄

      • Tom hasn’t been the same since he was last seen clinging to an A400….credit to the guy. I guess that the F14 was the last big production run of a Grumman fighter! Given that they were the mainstay of US Navy aircraft manufacturers during WW2 and the Cold War!

        • I think you ignore their involvement in the Super Hornet which has been one of the arguments put forward for their not getting the YF23 decision, they would it is suggested have had too big a role in too many projects (fighter and bomber) and potentially diminished competition and thus raise costs in future projects.

    • Just look at their web page. It lists all the defense related stuff they work on. Knowledge is good. lol

  2. I’ve just finished a book about WW1 pilots flying SE5’s, Camels, Spads, Fokkers and so on and here we are with Mosquito. Astonishing times we live in.

    • It’s quite amazing how quickly things have changed from Orville and Wilbur in a very short time. Makes you wonder what it will be like in 50 or a hundred years, not that I’ll be around to see it.

      • Interesting that the advance to the jet age was so meteoric yet B52s are still in active service….and will probably be so for another decade. Think about a Vickers Vimy still being operational in the late 1960s!!!!!!

        • Think of it as a S shaped curve, a long time with very little progress, then a period of rapid progress where improvements come fast and relatively cheaply, then a flattening back out again of relatively little progress over a long time – also requring huge investment for each incremental improvement.

          Most things in life are like that.

        • I read a while back some speculation that Chinooks might be the first aircraft to be in service for a 100 years. There doesn’t seem to be a mad rush to replace them now anyway.

          Sorry, way off on a tangent.

          • It’s a possibility…..though I think that the B52 will get the record for the longest serving airframes. Unless there are other candidates of course!

          • I think the SAAF can claim that spot as 35 sqn is still operating DC 3s in the maritime patrol role.

          • Aye, think we’re ordering another 14, there was something about it on here, I don’t think we want to pay for them for a while though so might be a delay…. sounds familiar. 🙄

        • The Canberra designed in the early 40s seen as a stop gap till the V bombers came on line, still in RAF service in the late 90s the last leaving in 2006 (yes I had to confirm that date on wiki as I thought it might be 2005). Oh and certainly as of 2016 in much modified form still flying with NASA for high altitude weather info gathering.

          • Designed by a Mr Petter who also came up with the Westland Whirlwind and, of course, lent his name to Petter engineering, manufacturers of portable diesel engines. I always thought that we could have done a lot more with the Canberra, a very useful design!

          • Yes he is a hero of mine from when I helped out on a Whirlwind documentary that sadly has never really taken off (ouch). I had always loved that fighter from a kid but hadn’t known too much about it until then and started doing profiles.

            Yes indeed ‘Petter’ was the original Westland company pre war changing the name to Westland when the aviation side was hived off from the parent and Petter himself installed as head designer. Sounds like nepotism I guess but considering his work thereafter on Lysander, Whirlwind, Canberra, Lightning and Gnat I think I might give him some leeway on that one.

      • As an aside to the two above comments I read on, I think Popular Mechanics re 6th gen concepts, a throwaway introduction on how the US (in true bigging up style) started the military aircraft revolution with the acquisition of a Wright Flyer in 1909. Sounded a little humorous in itself, but further so I think if it had mentioned come 1917 when it entered the war the US had no suitable usable Military fighter aircraft whatsoever for frontline service and for the duration of the war begged and borrowed deathtrap Nieuports and once available the very effective Spads from the French or even the odd Camel.

        • In fairness to the Yanks, they really picked the ball up and ran with it when they put their mind to it. Less than 70 years after Kittyhawk they they were landing on the moon*.

          *Or a TV studio, either way, they put stuff in space. 😉

          • Yes I think that 1st WW experience truly motivated them, we all need a shot up the ass at times certainly plenty of examples this side of the pond too. I think it just the bigging up of such a less than impressive period I found amusing when considering achievements since, there really was no need to try.

          • Yes, the persistent claim to have always been at the top of their game is pretty tiresome at times. But, of course, ‘isolationist’ America had no plans to engage in a European war and found themselves somewhat unprepared for the challenges. Had Theodore Roosevelt won in 1912 things might have been different. After all, as secretary to the Navy, he built an impressive fleet!

  4. I am reminded of the Hawker Siddeley Kestral P1127 demonstrator that was developed into the Harrier and as such became much more than a technology demonstrator. This was done to avoid the development of a ‘proper’ service aircraft so was in effect a ‘cut’ in the envisaged capability. Nevertheless, the Harrier had quite the career…

    I wonder whether this demonstrator programme will follow the same pattern. As I see it there are three programme routes going forward:

    1. The Kestral / Harrier option that weapnonises the demonstrator. This would likely to be ‘solution’ driven, i.e. what can we achieve with this? Such an approach inevitably delivers a sub-optimal solution, but that does not necessarily mean that it is not an effective or capable piece of equipment. Nor does it necessarily mean it is the cheepest solution as additional capabilities may be needed to fill gaps;
    2. The 70% to 80% solution to identified requirements. This is a problem driven solution more likely to meet operational needs. The risk is that instead of aiming for a ‘good enough’ solution the pressure to build the ‘best’ lead to cost overruns and delays. If done right (i.e. with strong leadership focused on delivery) this option will deliver an effective capability that sufficiently meets the requirements. (Of course, the working assumption here is that the requirements are close enough to reality and stable enough to deliver against…);
    3. The ‘Best money can buy’ option. Usually gets cut as cost spiral out of control…

    I guess I am hopeing that the demonstrator is good enough so that option 1. and 2. are sufficiently close as to make little difference in terms of programme development. This could be the case given the work that is going on elsewhere, for example, in Australia to which I believe the UK has some sight of. Whatever the outcome it will be exciting to see something flying in the near (2023 for the demonstrator) future and could capture the imaginations of a wider interested group of people building support and momentum for the wider Loyal Wingman / Tempest programme as investment builds.

    Cheers CR

    • I remember seeing the P1127 at Filton going through its paces. Circa 1966 I think….few in the crowd had seen anything like it before!

    • Sums up the particular problems with very new u proven projects like Kestrel and now Mosquito doesn’t it. No one really knows what the end object is and at best it’s a moving target. Even the Americans are doing program after follow up program to almost pass time till they can decide on what exactly they need the Navy and Airforce already see it very differently it seems which is why like their new fighters have different programs and which to a degree has frustrated NG’s efforts in its drone work. It’s going to be tough getting Mosquito or whatever platform comes from I t right I think. Which makes me wonder if we will get your version 1 product while they spend years trying to determine what comes next, very possibly treading in treacle. Like Kestral and indeed Canberra it might just prove more useful with development than expected actually. And as all airframes are being produced digitally modular now developing it might be far easier than Kestral/Harrier and their proposed replacements ever proved to be. Interesting times.

  5. They’ve just had an ex-reaper pilot on 5Live Radio who has PTSD brought on by sitting in a shed at RAF Waddington watching the carnage of Islamic State day after day after day. Goes to show that you can remove the physical danger with UAVs but never the mental trauma of war. Really powerful testament which readers here might want to access on BBC sounds.

  6. Not meant to be a criticism at all, but that looks an awful lot like the Kratos system that the US tested a while back. The above image is just a bit “rrounder” in the fueselage. Only issue I recall with that particular aircraft being that it returned to earth via parachute rather than landing conventionally. Maybe that was just the model that the USAF were looking at though. The added (I hesitate to use the word) girth of the fueselage may be for undercarriage I suppose?
    Last sentence in tribute to the Carry On series of films!

    • Size appears to be somewhat similar to the hawk.

      It appears to have a highly loaded wing, suggesting a stable weapons platform, but not perhaps ‘extremely’ manoeuvrable.

      Cost constraints will have a bearing on engine choice and materials, so let’s say, transonic performance.

      I’m slightly sceptical on the apparent Air to Air capability, that suggests a very comprehensive sensor suite and means expensive, so I wonder what sort of unit price they are considering…..

      I

      • It’s interesting that the USN has opted to procure unmanned tankers rather than combat drones to extend the strike range of their F18/35s. Strike missions would seem to be more straightforward than air to air capability. On air to air missions, it is normal to deploy aircraft in pairs. Is the loyal wingman idea to allow a single aircraft accompanied by a drone to carry out the same missions? For this to work at an affordable price, the drone will presumably rely on the aircraft’s sensors.
        Cheers.

        • Yes I think the sensor fit will for complex missions very much work with other assets F35 for example for the foreseeable future with Typhoon with its improvements in the loop too.

          The US navy wants to use them as deep strike leaving the parent manned aircraft well away from danger Im sure the RN will want to as well considering the F35b’s limited range. That is what NG were indeed working on but have been frustrated by the navy or its Masters at least not being convinced that is ready for prime time yet (or scared to commit as it’s such a big technical/political/cost leap) and thus settling for a tanker with limited strike potential presently to instead allow greater use of its manned strike aircraft and sort of see how it goes.

          the US airforce wants that Air to Air priority you mention and that is very different to what NG originally produced for the Navy strike role and I believe they have pulled out of that Airforce proposal as it would mean a totally new airframe. Their AI platform might play a role mind as it’s so advanced, but presently they are frustrated on both Navy and Airforce fronts it seems.

        • I think unmanned refueling aircraft are much easier to develop right now that developing the AI for combat, ect.

  8. Can anyone remind me which British companies are members of Team Mosquito, as I can only seem to find US participants.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here