Protector drones could augment Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft

I would agree. Acoustically it was harder for a submarine to detect an overflying Nimrod compared to a P3 Orion. The main advantage the Orion had was that the US would throw money at it to keep it updated. Whereas the UK didn’t really. We had a couple of big programs like MR1 to 2. But overall the systems didn’t get radially updated as per the Orion.

And before that, 40+ Nimrod MR1, then 30+ MR2.

A rather familiar procurement story….

Hello D. My concern is the expectation of 16 UAVs to perform their original primary mission and a potential expansion to include maritime ops.16 assets seems to soft to do both well . I know I bang on about it, but where is the redundancy factor.

We don’t have any.

Absolutely Daniele, it’s looking like the Protector fleet is going to be very busy…

For instance, how long is it going to be before we are also having to delouse our SSBN’s from Chinese as well as Russian SSN’s??

Certainly it’s a great buy, another 10 would be good to allow a good number to back up the P8 fleet for patrol missions and would hopefully keep the F.I on the P8’s under some sort of control.

With only 9 P8’s, the RAF fleet is going to have a utilisation rate ‘way’ higher than the US fleet!

It’s going to get its arse worked off, generating the required mission rate..

We absolutely need ‘at least’ another three P8’s for the current tasking requirement.

The PLAN have 9 SSN’s in total.
3 of which are so noisy the P-8’s could pick them up in the SCS from Lossiemouth…
In order for them to deply SSN’s in the Atlantic they’d need to use all 6 to keep 1 boat on station…

But as it’s based on a commercial airliner it will last at least 20 years+ sensors and data link tech will be outdated in 20 years and be replaced all together by loitering stratosphere airships…buy another 8 protectors Purley for Martine time use.
Also does the P8 have a designated crew rest facilities so can operate for extended patrols with refueling.

Which is why the RAF is lobbying hard for more…

One of the sqns is like a OCU. But the 9 aircraft are used as a fleet, rather than aircraft assigned to a particular sqn.

The fleet is pooled mate.

thx D

“The US Navy are funding the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray to primarily be their carrier based air to air refueler. Thereby, alleviating the FA-18 E/F Hornet from doing this role. The F18s are burning through their airframe hours performing the tanker role. They will throw money at the Stingray to make sure it succeeds, so F18s can do their primary task.
In that respects, one of the US Navy requirements for the Stingray is that it delivers around 15,000 pounds (6800kg) of fuel at 500 (926km) nautical miles from the carrier. This would give a FA-18 E/F an additional 300 to 400nmi combat radius depending on its load out.”

Yeah and if a carrier group is staying out of the reach of DF-26 or Kinzhal, this is nowhere near enough additional range. ALL current carrier aircraft suffer from this problem.

An MQ-25 can only fully refuel one F-35B and can’t even fully refuel an F-35C.

MQ-25s might be useful to refuel Valkyrie drones though, depending on how much fuel they carry. Do you happen to know this figure?

“The unmanned carrier based tanker’s requirements were written for the F18 and not the F35C.”

Well that’s as may be, but it’s not Super Hornets that are going to be flying into Russian or Chinese airspace, it’ll be F-35Cs (and F-35Bs). Well assuming they can be given enough range.

“The Stingray would allow a F35C to have a combat radius of around 1000nmi (1852km).”

Which is nowhere near enough. DF-26 has a range of between 3,000km and 5,000km depending on what source you read and Kinzhal has a range of between 2,000km and 3,000km depending on the launch aircraft (which are long-ranged themselves).

“So I guess the USN will be carrying at least 4 to 6 (maybe more) of these on a carrier.”

The number of MQ-25s a carrier can carry is irrelvant. What IS relevant is how much fuel they can carry and to what range.

“Against something like the Chinese DF-26 anti-ship ballistic missile. This may not sound great. But to help target the missile, it requires real time target location information.”

Well, yeah, but in that case it would be much more helpful if a carrier aircraft could carry a missile capable of shooting down DF-26 (or any other type of anti-ship missile for that matter).

“This means its a lot easier to disrupt the “kill chain” required to target the DF-26. Kill the reconnaissance aircraft as far away from the task group as possible, will prevent its targeted use.”

OK, but you yourself realise that there are numerous ways to locate a carrier group. Shooting down a recon aircraft removes just one of many methods.

“The Russian Kinzhal air launched ballistic missile is no different. It can only currently be fired from a Mig-31.”

No, it can be fired from the Tu-22 too.

“A barn door has a smaller radar cross section by comparison.”

Doesn’t matter if we have no way of shooting down the aircraft that are carrying Kinzhals. No carrier aircraft has the range to take out either aircraft before they fire Kinzhal from 2,000km or 3,000km away, even with MQ-25 refuelling.

“The MoD released a Request for Information (RFI) in March 2021 for a ship based catapult and arrested recovery system. The specifics were: “A max trap weight of 21,319kg (47000lbs) including an energy damping method and offer the potential for energy reclamation. The potential catapult would ideally launch aircraft of up to 24,948kg (55,000lbs).”
See link:
Royal Navy seeking information on cats and traps to launch drones – Naval Technology (naval-technology.com)
These figures are very specific they are below the maximum take-off weights of a F18, F35C, but just within the weights for a Rafale and a Hawkeye.”

The Hawkeye is too heavy at max take-off weight, but I’d never noticed this about the Rafale before. I’d noticed that a Gripen M (if it gets built) could operate from the QE and PoW with these proposed cats & traps, but not the Rafale. Presumably the Rafale M weighs more than a standard Rafale though because of the beefed up landing gear, but it may be doable.

But again why go to all this trouble, when it would make sense just to develop an AAM that F-35s can fire that’s capable of taking out ballistic and hypersonic missiles and that’s long-ranged enough to take out recon aircraft and/or recon drones?

“I honestly don’t believe these are the aircraft the RFI has in mind. But rather unmanned air vehicles”

I agree. Apart from Vixen, Valkyrie would be another option since AIUI it only needs a simple wheeled cat to be launched.

“The Stingray has a secondary ISTAR role.”

Which is only useful if it’s long ranged enough vs DF-26 and Kinzhal and it’s not.

“But the USN are being very quiet on that aspect. Although Boeing have said the aircraft is not a “stealth aircraft”, I would disagree. The aircraft’s shape has a very low radar cross section, especially seen from the front aspect. It may not be in same the league as a F35.”

Even the F-35 isn’t a proper stealth aircraft in my book. It’s mainly stealthy from the front and its RCS from other angles is 10 times higher or more.

“But it certainly will be a magnitude better than an F18. Due to its relative size and having a decent power plant.”

Agreed. But range is still an issue.

“I’ve said that this could be a candidate for an remotely operated AEW platform. It is about the right size to mount the Saab Erieye radar array, as an off the shelf option.”

Possibly, although personally I think drone airships make far more sense for AEW (and ASW) because of their long endurance measured in days or weeks (possibly months).

Come to think of it, stick very long range and hypersonic AAMs on drone airships and you could take out MiG-31s and Tu-22s that way. Make the drones small and cheap enough that they’re attritable and it wouldn’t matter if they’re shot down (plus the Russian aircraft would have wasted an AAM missile on a cheap drone). Such a missile could presumably shoot down ballistic and hypersonic missiles too.

Cheers buddy, lots to digest!

To be brutally honest what can you expect from a carrier based tanker aircraft? The USN quoted that the aircraft must be able to be stationed 500nmi from a carrier and supply around 15,000lbs of fuel. Apart from the Stingray, their other option was to rebuild the Lockheed S3 Vikings kept in desert storage and turn them into tankers. A single aircraft had been converted back in the 1980’s. It could carry 16,000L (35,274lbs). Which is roughly over double that specified for the Stingray. This begs the question why didn’t they look at reusing the Vikings? Perhaps it was that they would still be manned and weren’t new and shiny enough! However, the Stingray will be enough to extend the range of a two ship CAP. Which I think is their priority.

The other option is to have a land based tanker, fly in support of a carrier group. This could be an option over the Atlantic and perhaps Mediterranean, but probably not the Pacific.

With regards to the catapult, the MoD have said they want to be looking at proposals by 2023. So they must already have something already in mind. But are probably just opening it up to everyone, due to the competition rules. When you look at the basic take-off weights of some of the aircraft listed. I think most if not all could use the catapult. But they would need to be close to minimum weight and fuel. Which is fine if you have a tanker nearby. I was actually quite surprised with how light the Rafale is, even at half war load, it could use the catapult as proposed. Though I would agree that the Valkarie/Vixen loyal wingman aircraft is the most likely focus. If they raised the limit slightly they could have included the Hawkeye at normal take-off weights, which would certainly made a great prospect for a long range AEW platform!

I really don’t think range will be an issue for the Stingray, with a surplus of 15,000lbs of fuel plus its normal usage fuel. The USN have said it has to be able to operate 500nmi from the carrier. They haven’t said how long it needs to remain on Station though! What I do find surprising is that there is no USN publicly announced loyal wingman program? The USAF have the Skyborg program, so unless they are watching that one closely, it’s a bit puzzling, as this looks to be the way ahead. The Boeing loyal wingman could I suppose be adapted for carrier work. I don’t believe Stingray would be a good candidate, although I could be wrong.

I am all in favour of the Hybrid airship. Even though they are slow and can’t fly too high. I think they would be perfect for long endurance maritime patrol, AEW, ISTAR and even ASW tasks. Something along the lines of the UK’s Airlander. But, I would have it manned. A couple of radars in the envelop, a large weapons bay containing both anti-air, anti-ship (land attack) and anti-sub, self-sealing gas bags and hybrid electric drive, etc. Plus a crew to operate and maintain it, for extended patrol periods of a week or more.

Following on from the DARPA trial, where a Hercules was used to capture a Gremlin drone in flight, then retrieve it in to the cabin. See link below:

C-130 Hercules Aircraft Catches DARPA Gremlins Drone Mid-Air – autoevolution

Perhaps the airship could be used in a similar fashion as a drone mothership. Where it can launch and recover drones that are used to extend its reach?

Although it has been successfully used against sea skimming and cruise missile drone targets. I don’t believe Meteor has been tested against a ballistic target, yet? In theory the missile should be up for the task. Though in the near future with the Japanese AESA fitted, it may be even better suited. I know the ground based AMRAAM air defense system has been tested against short range ballistic missiles, where it did ok. You could if needed, significantly extend the range of Meteor, with no changes to the actual missile itself. This can be done by fitting a much larger booster stage, that burns for longer. Similar to what the USAF’s long range engagement weapon (LREW) is proposing. Where they are asking for at least a 300km range, where it will be used against force multipliers such as AEW and tankers etc. A boosted Meteor should also be capable of similar ranges. Though with a much bigger/longer booster it will have to be fitted under the wing of a F35B!

I could write a thesis on how a F35 could or will be used operationally in a peer vs peer conflict. But I digress, suffice to say the current embedded RAM coating is projected to suffice for at least another 10 years, before something needs to be done. After which it will be upgraded, with likely additional external RAM coatings and most probably a modification program to replace panels and the skin, with a more up to date material. The main issue it will have will be contending with a radar’s effective radiated power (ERP). This is important, as the ERP in some ways dictates the threshold of the RAM’s effectiveness. As technology advances, ERP figures will be increasing. Therefore, if nothing is done the F35’s detection threshold gets pushed further away. The US will not allow this to happen. The F22 is currently going through a similar upgrade program.

I posted a long reply yesterday and it’s gone missing.
Sometimes they take a while to approve comments though.
I’ll wait a day or two and then try to repost my comment.

Well I tried to post my comment a second time and it’s gone missing again. Emailed UKDJ to ask what’s going on and got no reply. Chased up the email and again no reply. I’ve no idea why my comment won’t post.

I might try shortening it and posting again.

Hello, my apologies – I’ve not received any e-mails from you. Are you e-mailing [email protected]?
Thanks!

Hi thanks for your reply. No I emailed [email protected] and I used a different email address (that uses my real name and that I don’t want to give out here), not the email address you already have and that you use to inform me of replies to my comments and to inform me that my comments have been approved.

I sent my first email to the UKDJ address above on Monday, January 17th, 2022 at 18:51 and the follow-up email on Friday, January 21st, 2022 at 19:39.

It seems odd that neither email was forwarded to you.

Once you’ve located my original email, could you please reply to it? Thanks, HD.

Hello,

Under the comment box, it says to e-mail me with any comment related queries:
Comments may automatically be held for moderation by our team, they will be approved as soon as possible in accordance with our Comment Moderation Policy. Please do not e-mail the team in order to speed this process up. If you have any concerns about comment moderation or any general questions relating to our comment section please send an e-mail to [email protected]. For corrections, please see our Correction Policy.

Can you please forward your e-mails to this address? Thank you.

OK, this is the shortened version of my long comment that won’t post.

“To be brutally honest what can you expect from a carrier based tanker aircraft?”

Well, precisely. To provide a meaningful amount of fuel you’d need to be able to get a large tanker airborne and that’s not currently possible from a carrier. And even if it was possible, a large tanker is an easy target.

But against Russia or China the MQ-25 doesn’t carry enough fuel to give F-35s enough range to reach land. Same goes for Vikings as you suggested. They might be OK for refuelling drones though, especially a long-ranged one like the Valkyrie.

To defend carrier groups (as well as air bases and naval bases) I think airships flying in the stratosphere, where AIUI there’s little moisture or wind, would be a good option. If fitted with a 1+ megawatt chemical laser, they could shoot down ballistic and manoeuvrable hypersonic missiles. Plus they’d also be able to defend themselves against AAMs and SAMs. Also fitting a scaled-down CT40 gun for example, some IRIS-T missiles, BriteCloud and a DIRCM system would provide additional layers of defence.

“The other option is to have a land based tanker, fly in support of a carrier group. This could be an option over the Atlantic and perhaps Mediterranean, but probably not the Pacific.”

Big lumbering tankers are easy to shoot down though. That said, I suppose modified B-2s operating as stealth tankers might work.

One idea I’ve had is to buy extremely long-range commercial aircraft like the Airbus A350 for example (range approx 16,000km), convert them into military aircraft, fit the Arexis EW pod and fit them with dozens of Tomahawk Block Va anti-ship missiles and JASSM-ER/JASSM-XR land attack missiles fired from beyond the range of enemy defences.

“With regards to the catapult, the MoD have said they want to be looking at proposals by 2023. So they must already have something already in mind.”

I think a large reason for this decision to fit cats & traps is the fact that one DOT&E report said that early model F-35Bs could be going out of service as early as 2026. If ALL F-35Bs have such a short airframe life, including even new builds, then buying more than 48 F-35Bs (which AIUI we’re contractually obliged to buy) makes absolutely no sense at all.

Plus even if this weren’t the case and the F-35Bs did have the same airframe hours as F-35As, the F-35B lacks range as far as Russia and China are concerned because of the inability to currently refuel them and even MQ-25s won’t give them enough range as covered above.

And F-35s could get taken out on the ground at Kadena and air bases in eastern Europe because these air bases either have woefully bad air defences or none at all.

“What I do find surprising is that there is no USN publicly announced loyal wingman program? The USAF have the Skyborg program, so unless they are watching that one closely, it’s a bit puzzling, as this looks to be the way ahead.”

Well Valkyrie is a US programme too.

“The Boeing loyal wingman could I suppose be adapted for carrier work.”

We already have a problem refuelling carrier aircraft. Adding drones will make that problem even worse.

I can see land-based Loyal Wingmen operating alongside F-35As (possibly Typhoons too?) where they have access to tankers, but operating from a carrier? Too many obstacles to overcome for little to no gain.

“I am all in favour of the Hybrid airship. Even though they are slow and can’t fly too high.”

From what I’ve read commercial airships can fly at up to 100 knots, which is far faster than a carrier group sails.

And airships can fly extremely high, far higher than any existing fighters. Google High-Altitude Airships (HAAs) and High-Altitude Pseudo-Satellites (HAPS).

“I think they would be perfect for long endurance maritime patrol, AEW, ISTAR and even ASW tasks.”

Yep, airships (whether manned or unmanned) could have endurance measured in days or weeks, possibly even months if they had solar panels.

“Something along the lines of the UK’s Airlander.”

Yep, made by HAV. They were working with the US military at one point, but that fell through and they’re now working on commercial drones. I don’t know why the DSTL isn’t all over this. Airships have so many potential military applications. Plus they don’t need a runway to operate and amphibious variants could also be made, making them inherently more survivable than any aircraft that requires a runway to operate.

Actually come to think of it, F-35Bs could probably fly slow enough to refuel from airships.

“But, I would have it manned.”

Depends on the mission I suppose. For the most dangerous missions in enemy airspace airship drones would make more sense imo.

“and anti-sub”

Yeah, an airship could carry dipping sonar, sonobuoys, torpedoes and depth charges just like an ASW helicopter, but it would have far greater endurance. And unlike an ASW helicopter it wouldn’t create downwash on the surface of the water created by the rotor blades and so would be immune to IDAS-type missiles.

That said modern quiet subs (especially diesel-electric AIP subs) are very hard to detect using sonar (both active and passive) and I think new detection methods are needed to complement sonar (e.g. LIDAR).

“self-sealing gas bags”

Makes sense.

If manned airships are made so they can dock in the air then they could refuel, rearm, replenish food and water and swap crews. Even drone airships could dock to refuel I’d have thought and possibly even rearm as well if an automated system was developed.

“Perhaps the airship could be used in a similar fashion as a drone mothership. Where it can launch and recover drones that are used to extend its reach?”

This is a good idea I think and especially if the mothership is stealthy and can carry stealthy drones that can carry stealthy ordnance.

“Although it has been successfully used against sea skimming and cruise missile drone targets. I don’t believe Meteor has been tested against a ballistic target, yet?”

Have you got a link about Meteor taking out sea-skimming and cruise missiles? First time I’ve heard that.

“Though with a much bigger/longer booster it will have to be fitted under the wing of a F35B!”

True. Over water I don’t think this is a huge issue though. It’s not like over land where you have to contend with a sophisticated networked IADS that’s highly redudant with multiple radars with overlapping areas of coverage.

“I could write a thesis on how a F35 could or will be used operationally in a peer vs peer conflict.”

I don’t think F-35Bs or F-35Cs will play any role at all against Russia or China because of their lack of range and our current inability to refuel them.

And F-35As operating from Kadena or eastern Europe could be taken out on the ground if air bases don’t seriously upgrade their air defences.

“The F-22 is currently going through a similar upgrade program.”

Yeah, but what upgrades will the F-22 actually be getting? At the very least it needs an IRST system and a HMCS imo. But there are plenty of other improvements that could be made, especially fitting Meteor and IRIS-T.

Also rip out OBOGS and fit an oxygen system that works.

Hi Mate, let’s discuss.

During the winter firing trials in Sweden 2008 to 2011. Meteor was fired from the Gripen E/F. Initially they used the usual Banshee type of drones to represent both air and missile targets. However, later on in the trial they used old stock RBS15s. These were used to represent a sea skimming and a cruise missile (subsonic) threat. The engagements were done at various heights from near sea level to 35,000ft+. As published by Saab, the Meteor performed as expected.

I have been thinking more about the successor to Aster 30. I think Meteor could be a good candidate. Both missiles reach a terminal speed of around Mach 4.5, maybe faster that what has been published. However, Aster’s is determined by the burn time of the rocket booster and then its “sustainer” rocket. Its range will also be determined by the height of the target ands whether it can use a more efficient ballistic path to intercept it. Whereas, Meteor is pushed to MAch 3+ by the booster, where it is now going fast enough for the ramjet to operate, which then accelerates it further to Mach 4+. However, because it is throttleable, the missile can maintain a much higher cruise speed, whereas Aster’s is slowly degrading. It can still use a efficient ballistic path, but because it can modulate its thrust, it can go a lot further it should be able to go much higher.

There was an argument by the USAF against Meteor, being, at very high altitudes its ramjet couldn’t produce enough thrust, due to a lack of oxygen, so limits its operational altitude. Which is true, but only when the missile reaches some 131,000ft (40km). Which is significantly higher than any normal aircraft can operate. In truth, if the Meteor’s ramjet could max out nearer the theoretical ramjet limit of Mach 6, then the missile would be able to cruise climb to just over 151,000ft (46km). Based on published data from NASA on the Bomarc B ramjet powered missile, in 1961.

The Meteor with a body diameter of 178mm compares well with Aster’s at 180mm. If the Aster 30 Block 1NG rocket booster was attached, what would its theoretical range and altitude be? I would suggest it would be similar to the much larger SM6. With the Mitsubishi K-band AESA active radar fitted, it will have a much better target resolution than the modified AMRAAM radar that the SM6 uses. Therefore, it “should” be able to target stealthier targets and discriminate the target from decoys much easier. I suppose MBDA could also include the pif-paf mid-body reaction jets, to push up the pk value even higher?

To counter the perceived threat from multiple supersonic cruise missiles and semi ballistic hypersonic missiles. The ship’s radar horizon needs to be pushed much further back. This is where I believe ships will start to have their own unmanned air system (UAS) that are equipped with a decent AESA based search and tracking radar (eg Leonardo’s Osprey 50), basically an organic AEW. Having a UAS that can fly at least to 10,000ft, means the radar horizon for a target flying 5m above the ways is 228km (141 miles) away (depending on the radar’s operating frequency). Which is substantially further than the T45’s Sampson radar horizon of 26km (16 miles) for a similar target. This also means that a ship based Meteor surface to air missile, would be able to engage the target from a lot further away and beyond the ship’s horizon. Where its higher pk value means that it will have a better chance of a kill, plus it gives you time to counter multiple threats and send a second one if it fails.

The problem with High Altitude Airships, like those pushed forward for stratospheric pseudo satellite operations is their payload relative to their size. The Lockheed Martin one could only carry 2000lbs (907kg) to a height of 65,000ft, if built would measure some 480 ft (146.3m) long and 150ft (46m) in diameter. This compares with the Airlander 10 at 300ft (91m) long and 112ft (34m) wide, but can carry a payload of 10t to an altitude of 20,000ft. The bigger Airlander 50 measures 390ft (119m) long and 196ft (60m) wide, but can carry a payload of some 60t to 10,000ft altitude. Though Airlander are planning of developing this to a 200t payload capability.

The issue is the operating height and how winds in particular affect the airship. The higher the better, so 35,000ft is preferable, as the majority of the bad weather is below this. But for the airship to get to this height it must loose weight or get volumetrically bigger. The Airlander 50 is only just a bit smaller by volume than the Lockheed Martin HAA, although heavier, so it would interesting to see how high it could actually go? The Airlander is expected to cruise at 105kts (195kph), so will probably max out nearer 130kts (241kph) on a still day. Which I feel would be too slow for a F35B, if the airship was being used as a tanker. Would the trade off of using the lift fan and the increased fuel burn be enough to justify taking on a positive amount of fuel.

I still think there’s legs for looking at an Airlander type airship, as a multipurpose maritime patrol vessel. But rather the Airship descending and dropping a dipping sonar or sonar buoys. It would use its own unmanned air systems to do these tasks. Not quite along the lines of the Marvel heli-carrier, but of a similar concept. Still a mothership where the UAS would be recovered back to the airship. The Airlander, with a loiter speed of only 40kts, would make recovering both VTOL and fixed wing UAS much easier.

The published data on the internal fuel carried by the F35 variants is:

a. F35A = 18,250lbs (8,278kg)
b. F35B = 13,500lbs (6,123kg)
c. F35C = 19,750lbs (8,958kg)

I think we will have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of both the F35B and C variants. The fuel load will give both the A and C variants a combat radius of over 600nm, whilst the B is 450ish. Is this enough in today’s threat environment, possibly not? But the F35s very low visibility helps to mitigate this. As the F35 won’t be detectable at normal ranges for AEW platforms like the Russian Candid or Chinese KJ200, 500 and 2000 aircraft. Therefore, these very high value targets, will be very vulnerable to the F35, especially a Meteor armed one. Without these both Countries will need to rely on ground based radar and therefore be limited due to topography, but also mostly being static. Again making them easier to attack. The suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) will be the primary mission of the F35, as it will clear the way for the older generation aircraft.

In a way I am kind of disappointed that the S3 Viking was not resurrected for the tanker role. It would have been capable of carrying nearly twice the amount of fuel than the MQ-25 Stingray. But I guess it wasn’t shiny enough! I do think the wat ahead is with an unmanned tanker aircraft like the Stingray. As it reduces the number of crews and the inevitable fatigue needed to fly a manned aircraft on station for 6 hours plus. If as the USN are suggesting that it will be doing ISTAR as a secondary role, that’s great as reduces the need for F35s to do it.

I think this is the reason why the USN are desperate to get the Stingray in to service. For the Chinese to use the DF21D, it must firstly be fed the location, bearing and speed of the carrier group. Once launched it will then need constant updates, as the carrier group could be changing bearing and speed. So in all likelihood they will require a reconnaissance aircraft to monitor the progress of the carrier group and fed back the information. This is where the Stingray comes in. By extending the reach of the combat air patrol (CAP), it means that reconnaissance aircraft won’t be able to get close enough for a good emissions or visual fix. Therefore, they will need another method of tracking the carrier, possibly by sub. Which puts them at the mercy of the Virginia class. Even the surveillance satellites they’ve put up will not be guaranteed to give a constant carrier track update. Their locations are tracked, so can be countered with laser blinding or killed with SM3.

Testing Meteor against subsonic Banshee drones and RBS-15 missiles are hardly stringent tests. What’s the fastest anti-ship missile that Meteor has been able to shoot down?

As for replacing Aster 30 with Meteor, I don’t recall us even discussing that. But why would one do that anyway? Meteor with its throttleable engine (and shortly an AESA radar) is an excellent BVR missile.

It might make sense though to fit Meteor with an IIR seeker that feeds that data back to the aircraft that fired the missile (and/or the nearest friendly manned aircraft) to (a) make it even harder to thwart than it is already and (b) to positively identify targets to avoid friendly fire incidents at extremely long ranges.

MBDA doesn’t give the range of Meteor on its website, but if there are Russian and Chinese missiles that now outrange it, it would make sense to increase Meteor’s range to rectify this.

Not sure that Meteor needs PIF-PAF against aircraft though, but as a missile to take out manoeuvrable ballistic, hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles that would certainly be something well worth looking into imo. Or else give Aster 30 a throttleable engine like Meteor. (I know that “manoeuvrable ballistic missile” is technically an oxymoron, but a ballistic missile fitted with a manoeuvrable MaRV is a hybrid missile.)

“To counter the perceived threat from multiple supersonic cruise missiles and semi ballistic hypersonic missiles. The ship’s radar horizon needs to be pushed much further back. This is where I believe ships will start to have their own unmanned air system (UAS) that are equipped with a decent AESA based search and tracking radar”

Yep I agree and again this is an application that airships would be ideally suited to because of their long endurance. In fact I don’t see why airships couldn’t carry missiles designed to take out ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles.

The problem with missiles though is that they’re finite (i.e. they can run out and run out quickly depending on the circumstances) and they’re ludicrously expensive. We’re not at the point yet where we can get rid of them completely, but I’d like to see all RN and RFA ships fitted with laser and microwave weapons.

1+ megawatt chemical lasers (like MIRACL and YAL-1) could take out ballistic and hypersonic missiles, weather permitting.

Current solid state lasers could blind or burn out the sensors on missiles, weather permitting, and once they exceed 500 kilowatts say should be powerful enough to shoot down ballistic, hypersonic and cruise missiles, again weather permitting.

Microwave weapons could burn out the electronics in missiles. Not sure how much the weather affects microwave weapons, but from what I’ve read they don’t appear to be as badly affected as laser weapons are.

As long as you have electricity, then you have infinite “ammo” with laser and microwave weapons. Plus there are several modern CIWS systems and other gun-based systems that are capable of shooting down missiles, meaning you can reserve your missiles for the fastest and manoeuvrable threats.

And one other important thing to consider is that Type 45s currently have no way to shoot down ballistic missiles. No Aster 30 Block 1NT or Aster 30 Block 2 BMD (although Block 2 appears to have been shelved). The European TWISTER project, which should be ready in a decade or so, would be ideal for the Type 45 replacements. And in addition to ballistic missiles, TWISTER should also be able to shoot down hypersonic missiles from what I’ve read.

Fitting laser and microwave weapons on airships flying in the stratosphere would be an excellent solution though, since AIUI there’s not much wind or moisture in the stratosphere, so these weapons would work optimally.

“The problem with High Altitude Airships, like those pushed forward for stratospheric pseudo satellite operations is their payload relative to their size.”

Well you say this, but then you continue:

“The bigger Airlander 50 measures 390ft (119m) long and 196ft (60m) wide, but can carry a payload of some 60t to 10,000ft altitude. Though Airlander are planning of developing this to a 200t payload capability.”

The question then is: How much do modern 1+ megawatt chemical lasers weigh? How much do modern microwave weapons weigh? What’s the low end to high end in terms of weight?

Over water I wouldn’t think using Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) would be an issue to power microwave weapons (and in the future more powerful electric lasers).

“The issue is the operating height and […] so it would interesting to see how high it could actually go”

Yep, definitely. If this concept could be made to work it would make carrier groups, air bases and naval bases MUCH more survivable than they are at present and so it makes sense to plough vast sums into R&D to get such a system working.

(Next fit all ships with anti-torpedo torpedoes and depth charges. Also invest in R&D to develop other ways to take out torpedoes or otherwise neutralise the torpedo threat. Also design ships in such a way that active sonar is reflected away from the ship and not back to the torpedo. Also look into lightweight ship armour, torpedo-resistent hull designs and build ships as quiet as possible like the Type 26 with CODLOG propulsion, rafted engines and an acoustically quiet hull.)

“The Airlander is expected to cruise at 105kts […] which I feel would be too slow for a F35B, if the airship was being used as a tanker. Would the trade off of using the lift fan and the increased fuel burn be enough to justify taking on a positive amount of fuel.”

Presumably a rhetorical question, but I have no idea. I just threw the idea out there.

“I still think there’s legs for looking at an Airlander type airship, as a multipurpose maritime patrol vessel.”

So do I, especially if fitted with stand-off anti-ship missiles and land attack missiles, which it could presumably carry dozens of.

I wonder if fitting an airship (manned or unmanned) with a very thick layer of RAM would enable it to get much closer to ships and land targets without being detected? It all depends on how much RAM is required in feet and how much it would weigh.

“But rather the Airship descending and dropping a dipping sonar or sonar buoys. It would use its own unmanned air systems to do these tasks.”

Oh OK, I didn’t realise this is what you meant. This is a good idea and would greatly increase the coverage area because of using multiple drones, although I do think better detection methods are required to detect modern quiet subs.

“I think we will have to agree to disagree on the usefulness of both the F35B and C variants.”

I was speaking specifically in the context of a war against Russia or China.

I based my comments on the range of the DF-26 and Kinzhal.

The DF-26 has a range of 3,000 to 5,000km, depending on what source you read. Kinzhal has a range of 2,000+ to 3,000km depending on the aircraft that launches it (and those aircraft are pretty long-ranged themselves).

If a carrier group is staying out of the range of these missiles (which it would if it has any sense), then the F-35B and F-35C couldn’t reach land. And MQ-25s won’t change that. Nor will Vikings.

“As the F35 won’t be detectable at normal ranges for AEW platforms like the Russian Candid or Chinese KJ200, 500 and 2000 aircraft.”

Well firstly the F-35 is only optimised against X-band radar. If these AEW aircraft can use a range of radar frequencies that the F-35 isn’t optimised against, then it will be detected and almost certainly at considerable range. And if these aircraft also have ELINT capability that means that F-35s will also be detected if they turn on their radars.

Secondly these aircraft could be accompanied by tankers and fighters. If an F-35 (without AEW support) is facing up against an Su-57 or J-20 (with AEW support), who sees who first? Who gets the first shot? Who has the better missiles?

Thirdly AIM-120 can be easily thwarted just by using evasive manoeuvres, because unlike Meteor it doesn’t have a throttleable engine.

Fourthly, the MiG-31, which can carry Kinzhal, can also carry the R-77, which is said to be able to shoot down the AIM-120.

Also AEW aircraft aren’t the only way to detect a carrier group. I expect carrier groups are tracked from the moment they leave port by using a combination of:

• Orbiting satellites
• Geostationary satellites with telescopes, radar, SAR and IR/ELINT/COMINT capability
• Ground-based OTH radars
• Subs
• Extremely long-range stealthy AEW drones (Do Russia and China have such drones? I don’t know, but it would be logical to develop some.)

Also extremely long-range missiles fired from land or aircraft aren’t the only threats ships in a carrier group would face.

Subs are an ever-present threat with their torpedoes and anti-ship missiles.

“The suppression of enemy air defences (SEAD) will be the primary mission of the F35, as it will clear the way for the older generation aircraft.”

That’s the theory, but as I said F-35Bs and F-35Cs won’t have the range to reach land against Russia and China.

And as I said in my other comment, F-35As could be taken out on the ground or would be unable to take off because the runway has been cratered.

And I seriously doubt the ability of F-35s to survive in Russian or Chinese airspace anyway.

And even if they could, they couldn’t penetrate far into either country’s airspace without tanker support, they’d need F-22s to protect them from enemy fighters and they couldn’t cause much damage on the ground. Both SDBs and JDAMs are subsonic and unstealthy so easy to shoot down. When AARGM-ER comes into service it will have speed on its side, but again it’s unstealthy and how many can F-35s carry anyway?

The F-35 can’t carry Storm Shadow, KEPD-350, JASSM, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR or LRASM internally. These missiles are arguably the most useful ordnance the F-35 could carry because they’re all stealthy, but the inability to carry them internally is a huge missed opportunity.

Frankly I don’t see the point of the F-35 at all.

B-2s (and B-21s in the future) can carry far more ordnance than the F-35, can carry it all internally and have the range to reach targets the F-35 could never reach. Plus with their flying wing designs they’re far harder to detect using low-frequency early warning radars.

4th gen fighters and unstealthy bombers (and possibly Poseidons) could carry the stealthy stand-off ordnance I just mentioned and fire it from beyond the range of enemy defences.

Valkyries will be stealthy, cheap, attritable, very long-ranged, able to carry 2 SDBs internally, won’t require a runway to take off and could be launched from a carrier using a simple wheeled catapult. At $2 million a pop, you could buy approx 40 Valkyries for the (alleged) price of an F-35A.

Transport aircraft using the Rapid Dragon system could fire JASSM-ERs from beyond the range of enemy defences. Presumably they could also fire JASSM-XRs in the future as well as LRASMs too with a few tweaks.

Why are F-35s even needed? And when the CPS, LRHW and ARRW missiles come into service they’ll make the F-35 even more pointless than it already is.

“In a way I am kind of disappointed that the S3 Viking was not resurrected for the tanker role.”

It’s a good idea for countries other than China or Russia, but for those two countries we’d need a way to give F-35Bs and F-35Cs a range of THOUSANDS of kilometres. And I don’t see how that’s doable. Or more to the point, why it’s even something worth trying to achieve.

“[…] This is where the Stingray comes in. By extending the reach of the combat air patrol (CAP), it means that reconnaissance aircraft won’t be able to get close enough for a good emissions or visual fix.”

Possibly, but as I said recon aircraft aren’t the only way to track a carrier group for countries like Russia and China.

“Even the surveillance satellites they’ve put up will not be guaranteed to give a constant carrier track update. Their locations are tracked, so can be countered with laser blinding or killed with SM3.”

Firstly the RN doesn’t use SM3, only the US, Japan and South Korea currently use it.

Secondly it’s ridiculously expensive, nearly $12 million a pop, so ships don’t carry many of them.

And thirdly shooting satellites is a really bad idea because of the Kessler syndrome. It’s shooting yourself in the foot as you could damage or destroy your own satellites as well as your enemy’s.

Blinding satellites’ EO/IR sensors is possible with lasers though (MIRACL did this), although there are a lot of satellites up there that would need blinding. And how long could they be blinded for? I’d imagine it’s only feasible for short periods of time because of the risk of damaging the laser system itself.

Hey HD, that’s a lot to go through (again).

I’m not going to go over the F35s usefulness as we could be here all day!

There have been several anti-aircraft missiles with dual sensors, several MANPADS have this like Stinger, which uses an infrared (IR) and a UV sensor. Combining a radar and an infrared sensor has been done in the lab, but hasn’t been fielded until recently. I believe China are the first to allegedly field such a missile, with the PL21, followed by Israel with their Stunner missile, France the USA and the UK have experimented in the past with dual sensors, but they did not get past the prototype stage. Both Russia and France have historically favored using the same type of missile with either a radar or an IR sensor fitted and then firing them in pairs, e.g. Russian AA-10 Alamo.

There are several issues with using a combined sensor.  you must be careful with the placement of the IR sensor in relation to the radar, otherwise you could cause a radar blind spot. Though MBDA have managed to do this on Brimstone, but with a laser designator sensor. The Israeli Stunner has a small window in the radar array, to allow the IR sensor to look out. From what I’ve read on the Chinese one, it has an asymmetric nose, where the IR sensor is mounted adjacent to the radar. Which must be crap for its aerodynamics and stability. Though I have also read that the PL21 only uses an active AESA radar and not a dual sensor. The other issue is to sort out the logic between the two sensors. For example, if an aircraft uses an active RF jammer and fires off a flare. Which sensor takes precedence? You can solve the issues through moving target indication algorithms and spectro-analysis, but that pushes up the complexity and therefore the cost of the missile.

Meteor is getting a development of the Ka-band AESA radar made by Mitsubishi that is used in their AAM4B missile. The Ka band has a frequency range from 27 to 40GHz with a wavelength of 11.1 to 7.5mm. At these wavelengths atmospheric attenuation plays a big part in the radar’s ability to transmit to any distance, without using a ton of oomph through a power amp! However, at these wavelengths, it does mean that the target resolution is very good and can be used to make a pretty decent image of the target. It also means that smaller irregularities on an aircraft can be used as reflectors, such as the panel gap lines and the gaps between flight control surfaces, etc. This makes it much harder for an aircraft’s jammer to spoof, due to the type of data the return signal can contain. Though they can still be blinded by white noise generation. In essence it means we can still get away with using a single sensor such as an active radar for beyond visual range (BVR) engagements. I know the RAF/FAA Meteors have a two-way data-link. I am not sure on the level of target resolution data that is transmitted back to the launch or controlling aircraft is?

How the embedded radar absorbent material (eRAM) works against radar is no great mystery. However, the range of frequencies it works against is highly classified (on pain of death, I was told by one pilot!). It is well known that it can counter X band radar, as that is where most of the missile tracking radars operate. Lockheed Martin have stated that the eRAM can defeat newer tracking radars, from which I interpret are Ku and Ka band radars. But they have also said it can defeat some search radars. Which I presume are the C band ones, possibly even the top end of the S band.

All RAM works on the same principle in that it absorbs the RF and converts it to heat. The heat delta over the whole airframe is infinitesimally small. Where the temperature rise will be in 1/100’s of a degree C. However, there is a thing called the absorption threshold. This is like a line in the sand, whereby the RAM can no longer absorb the RF and convert it quickly enough to heat, so some is then reflected back to the receiver. The absorption threshold is dependent on the operating wavelength and the effective radiated power (ERP) of the radar. The further past this line, the more is reflected. In the past, aircraft RAM was based on a paint containing ferrite particles, that was applied to a surface. Therefore, its surface depth was a couple of microns thick, perhaps a millimeter at best. This meant that the absorption layer was quite thin, but also that the ferrites only worked over a narrow wavelength. As they were sized according to the expected radar threat.

Here’s the novel thing about the eRAM, because the whole panel is now RAM, it has more volume to absorb the RF. But also, as there’s more depth, the RF frequency range it can counter is considerably broadened. Therefore, the absorption threshold is significantly higher, even against very powerful radars. Thereby allowing it to get a lot closer, before it can be detected. Both F35 and the F22 (in particular), uses radar cavities in the leading/trailing edges and nose area, which contain a large amount of RAM.
In essence this means the F35 has a much broader range of radar stealth against a wider range of frequency bands. As the radar frequency drops so will the detection threshold. It will be a gradual drop off until it gets some way into the S band. At which point the aircraft’s shaping will be the main deterrent.

Against a HF to UHF radar, the resonance issue is well known. But that must rely on the aircraft being in a position where the radar signal intercepts a straight edge that matches the criteria for resonance. If the aircraft is weaving about and changing height regularly. The reflections will be coming and going. But also consider due to the wavelength, the actual beam angle is huge. Which is why these kinds of radars can only say the aircraft is somewhere over there, they cannot give a precise height or location. China have been developing radar that they have said can “easily” detect a F35 over a 400km away. This is the YLC-8E, which is an active phased array operating in the UHF band. There is a bit of information on it, but by reading between the lines, it seems to actually be a dual frequency radar. Where it transmits in both the upper UHF and lower S bands. Basically, it uses the UHF-band to get an inkling that a stealthy aircraft is out there and then relies on the S-band radar to get a better fix on it when it gets closer. How are China validating their claim, that says they can detect a F35? They have said the radar detected F22s when operating in Korea. Which is no great surprise, as like the F35 they use radar augmenters (Luneburg lenses) to increase their radar cross section (RCS) during peacetime operations.

Upper UHF-band radars can be fitted to aircraft, as per the E2D Hawkeye. However, there is an issue with it, in the shape of the beam it transmits. Because the array is not arranged in a circular pattern, but in a wide and limited in height flat pattern. The transmitted beam can be made narrow, but it will be fan shaped, in the case of the E2D, it is a vertical fan shape. You will need a lot of data processing to sort out target capture and their exact heights. But it will give you a decent detection range against most targets. Against small stealthy sea skimming missiles and drones, it might struggle.

I agree that a B2 and sometime in the future the B21 will be the better aircraft for 1st day strikes, especially for SEAD. A large flying wing aircraft or a blended wing and body aircraft. Will have a significantly better chance at avoiding detection by HF to UHF radars. If the smallest straight edge matches the operating wavelength or is greater than ½ wavelength, then that takes care of the resonance effect. But, the aircraft will be huge, as the tips of the wing will need to be much greater than 1m for UHF and nearly 10m for the bottom end of VHF. It’s probably not feasibly for HF where it is down to 100m. Methods can be done to counter the effectiveness of HF and VHF radars, through electronic countermeasures, by deliberately spoofing the return signal.

With regards to the airship, the majority of the envelop I believe is made from mylar. Mylar is transparent to most radar frequencies; I will need to check on all of them, but it definitely is for frequencies below and including the X band. Items that need to be considered for covering with RAM would be the power source (diesel generator), electric generators and motors, electrical cabling and the cabin (gondola). If the airship was being used as a mother ship, then the “hangar” would need covering. Again, if it was carrying deployable weapons, these would need it as well.

Looking at the proposed Airlander 50. It has the volumetric capacity for housing a couple of radars in the envelop, along with the lift (60t) capacity for a large power set to power them. It would probably have enough surplus electrical generation for a 600kW class laser for CIWS. It will definitely have the capacity for carrying a shed load of weapons along with UAVs plus all the baggage needed to maintain them.
Looking at the radar suite. You could in theory use three S-band AESAs panels to give it 360-degree volume searching. Whilst also having 8 X-band arrays to also give you 360 horizontal, along with the full 180 degree elevation coverage. By using a combination of operating frequencies means that the radars can work in combination to give you a much better situational picture. As X-band is very good at looking for very small targets in highly cluttered environments, such as over choppy seas. For self defence, I think Sea Ceptor would be a good choice. Can it be fired sideways I wonder?

I have looked at the Twister program and only found a vague set of requirements. From what I gather, it will be an endo-atmospheric missile. Though those are generally classed as anything below 100,00ft. From what I’ve read, the Aster Block 2 BMD has been quietly shelved and its looking like Twister is not replacing it. Which I find strange, unless I’m missing something in the small print. Being a European led project (predominantly France), will the UK get involved? I think if things do kick off in Ukraine and Russia start using Iskander in numbers, there will be a sudden interest in ballistic missile defence for both ships and land.

I think it was last year or the year before, I need to check, MBDA released a press statement on the upgrades the Aster missile. In it they said that it was getting a new INS along with some other bits. But the big news is they are replacing the current active radar with a Ka-band one. It will still be a standard planar array pulse doppler radar and not an AESA. I think this is down to conflicting interests within the 3 Nation group. I know France will be updating their Mica AAM with an AESA in the near future. Yet Meteor is getting a Japanese AESA installed? As I know each of the partner MBDA Nations can design and build their own AESA for fitting to a missile without too much difficulty. Why did they go down the Japanese route? The other bit of news within the statement was that they said the RN was getting Aster Block 1NT along with the Aster 15 upgrade to 30s. This along with the other update news with the upgrades to Sampson and the S1850M, means it will have a short to medium range anti-ballistic missile capability.

Although the Banshee and RBS15 do not represent “supersonic” cruise missiles. They were both probably chosen, as they represent either very small and stealthy targets, in the Banshee’s case or actual sea skimming missiles, in the RBS15’s case. The Meteor has been used against supersonic targets. Qinetiq’s Rattler has been used, but also the GQM-163 Coyote. I seem to remember QF-16 target drones have been used. The only types of targets I don’t think it has been used against are ballistic and hypersonic?

I agree whole heartedly on the F35 and the Storm Shadow issue. The only stand-off weapon that will be cleared for the UK’s F35s will the SPEAR-3. This is simply not good enough! Looking at the stand-off weapons that are qualified for the F35, such as the AGM-158 JASSM, AGM-88 AARGM-ER and NSM. All these can in theory be used by the F35B (externally), as the release and codification software are the same and shared throughout the whole fleet. It would be interesting to see the weapons the USMC bring to our carriers for their use. From what I understand both the F35A and C, can carry a pair of AARGMs per bay along with an AMRAAM. I would be pretty sure that our pilots when flying the sims, have used some of these weapons during their training missions.

Kinetically hitting a satellite would I hope to be a last resort. Though both China and Russia have shown that some of their satellites have a “space gun” installed for self-defence. They would never use it for offense, surely? Blinding optics on satellites has been done in the past for both geosynchronous and geostationary. At the time they did not have the power to permanently damage the satellite. I think today, it could be done. I suppose the easiest method is to damage the solar array and make the satellite rely on its battery. This will soon drain, thereby mission killing the satellite without creating a debris cloud. For some of the nuclear-powered satellites, that would be trickier. I wouldn’t put it past the US to have developed a space tug, that could capture a satellite and then move it out of its orbit.

The use of microwave frequencies as weapons is an interesting one. I know what RF can do to unshielded electronics. In the past a Tornado GR1 crashed when flying at low level. It flew too close to a radio and television transmitter. It caused an interrupt in the digital flight controls along with a spike in the engines fuel supply. Something similar happened to a Lynx flying off Portland when a T45 was doing radar trials. Qinetiq were testing the radar’s performance and a Lynx got caught in the beam’s sweep. The Lynx momentary lost power, its instrument panel went haywire, all the cockpit lighting bloomed. The Pilot called Mayday, whereby the ship realised what was going on and put the radar into standby. Whereby the Lynx regained power and the pilot recovered control. They never said which of the ship’s two primary radars caused the problem. The Tornado F3’s Ai24 Foxhunter radar, once it had all the bugs fixed, turned out to be a very capable radar. So capable it could white out a good proportion of TVs in St. Andrews.

To be effective, you must induce a very large electrical current into unshielded electronics. The amount of power that is required to do permanent damage is much larger than what people believe. Which means you either must transmit with an extraordinary amount of power or the target has to be pretty close. Of all the demonstrations I have seen, the target has always been within visual range. An active electronically scanned array definitely makes it a lot easier, by getting the transmitted power onto a relatively small spot and then having the ability to track the target whilst being illuminated. We must also consider the type of frequencies being used to illuminate the target. As the frequency increases so does atmospheric attenuation. Therefore, less of the transmitted power will reach the target due to the free space losses. Which must mean for these weapons to be effective over a given distance with a set amount of power, they need to be operating in the upper metric to lower centimetric range, i.e. S, C and the lower X bands.

“I’m not going to go over the F35s usefulness as we could be here all day!”

Why do you keep ignoring this elephant in the room?

If a carrier group is staying out of the range of DF-21, DF-26 or Kinzhal then F-35Bs and F-35Cs won’t have the range to reach land.

MQ-25s won’t change that nor will Vikings.

In a war against Russia or China, both the F-35B and F-35C would be useless unless we can find a way to give them a range of thousands of miles. Maybe use B-2s as stealthy tankers? Maybe use amphibious AC-130s (that US SOCOM is looking into), especially if fitted with the Arexis EW pod? Maybe use both?

I’ll reply to your other comments later, although I will say that trying to give the F-35Bs and F-35Cs enough range against Russia or China is a pretty pointless endeavour imo.

There are far better alternatives: airships, B-2s/B-21s, non-stealthy fighters and bombers firing stand-off ordnance (Storm Shadow, KEPD-350, JASSM-ER, JASSM-XR), transport aircraft firing JASSM-ERs using the Rapid Dragon concept.