The Royal Air Force (RAF) has initiated aircrew training for the new Protector RG Mk1 Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (RPAS) in the United States.
The first pilots, sensor operators, and mission intelligence coordinators (MICs) will qualify to operate the Protector, with 16 units ordered to replace the RAF’s MQ-9A Reaper aircraft.
Training is being undertaken by 54 Squadron at the GA-ASI Flight Test & Training Center (FTTC) in Grand Forks, North Dakota.
Students will learn to fly and operate the aircraft, which boasts a 79-foot wingspan and will carry UK-made Paveway bombs and Brimstone missiles. This follows the graduation of the first RAF Protector Technicians earlier this year, who will be responsible for maintaining the aircraft and its systems.
The 12-week aircrew training programme includes both simulation and live flying, with a focus on operating the Protector and its equipment. Trainees will gain experience in real-time exploitation of intelligence using the Multi-Spectral Targeting System and Synthetic Aperture Radar. MICs, who will participate in a six-week course, will also learn to operate the Mission Intelligence Station (MIS).
Equipped with a suite of advanced technology and precision strike weapons, the Protector RG Mk1 will provide critical armed surveillance capabilities.
The aircraft is designed for deployment against potential adversaries worldwide and can fly in busy, unsegregated airspace, thanks to its ‘detect and avoid’ technology. With an impressive endurance of over 40 hours, the Protector marks a new era for the RAF in global operations.
Acquiring 16 units doesn’t sound very many. Is this the first tranche of orders or is that it?
I believe that’s it
There are options for 8 more…remember its persistence and role doesn’t demand large numbers
It’s more Reapers than we have, so it’s not a bad number considering it’s capabilities.
39 Sqn in Indian Springs has now disbanded.
Hi DM , so two operational sqns for the new Protector I believe? Imagine these will be based in the UK,RAF Waddington (no doubt).
Morning mate.
Yes, No 39 Sqn ( 1PRU, old Canberra unit ) disbands.
No 13 Sqn stands up. ( Another old Recc formation, had the Tornado GR1A )
Joined later by No 31 Sqn.
Both based at Waddington, though I heard they were going to renovate the eastern side to accommodate them and I see no sign of that on GE so unsure what is happening now re infrastructure.
With the Sentry gone wonder what they will put in the huge Sentry hangers at the northern end? Maybe Protector?
When we first got the initial 4 Predators we used the USAF facilities at Indian Springs ( quite close to Area 51 ) as the GC segment as we lacked our own, which was logical.
Quite a few years ago now one of the hangers at Waddington
( unsure which as they keep it quite hush hush ) gained the GC capability using trailers placed inside, and that has remained alongside the Indian Springs DET until we now no longer need to keep crew in Nevada.
It is interesting that in Afghan the Predator/ Reaper ops were located at an “undisclosed” location in the ME, ( quite well known where actually ) and never flew in UK airspace to my knowledge, due to the congested airspace and lack of sense and avoid tech. Protector has this so I will defo be going to see them operating when they finally arrive.
They were known as “Scavenger” before, a far more fitting name in my view until the PC elements of the RAF changed it.
Much obliged for the detail info DM. Re your point on the empty Sentry hangers, no doubt they’ll house these new additions there, makes sense.
They’re huge as well.
too true!
Secure too. You note the fencing on GE how the area can be sealed off from the rest of the station.
Great point Mate! Im actually quite happy with the numbers too, 16 seems workable. Enjoy the weekend Sir (Friday morning over here). 😎
For a change, yes. You too.
Since a standard competition Sailplane glider has a 82ft (25m) wingspan I hope some of the crews in training will get the chance to go for a demo flight. That’s very much encouraged at glider clubs in the UK, and given at least a winch sometimes a tug it’s possible to get an early sense of what these airframes can do…
Didn’t know that. Thanks.
So who will take all the photographs from Canberras now?
PR9 was our version of the U2.
They used to emphasise the civilian photo survey role to hide it’s own recc missions. At least they did in all the RAF books I had read from the mid 80s onwards.
They were deployed to Chile in the Falklands, fascinating subject all the clandestine stuff there.
Did they fly out of RAF Luton?
Shhhhhh! 😆
Original requirement was for 20 and then mysteriously dropped to 16….
Thought we were meant to be getting 20.
Has been 16 plus options for 5 years now
I suppose with the speed that technology is progressing by the time all 16 are operational there will be something more advanced on the market or in the works.
In a recent interview, a spokesperson remarked that drone development is not measured in years nor months but in some cases weeks! This is one area of defence that will grow exponentially in the coming years. In many ways the sooner we increase the number of unmanned systems in all three services the more efficient they could be. The ponderous development of Ajax would have been considerably quicker if the majority of vehicles had been designed to be operated remotely. If land, sea and air weapons can be remote then, more units could in principle, be purchased at much-reduced weight and costs than manned units. Okay, all such systems require people to operate them though, the rate at which AI is being developed, the human component could in some cases be redundant? One other factor is the likelihood that direct conflict could be stalled if only remote systems are initially lost in any exchanges. Once military personnel become victims the risk of escalation is raised exponentially.
How much drone development is in the onboard electronics vs the engines vs the airframes though? I would hope that the electronics at least is quite modular so, although upgrade costs are troublesome, at least the practicalities could be well planned for. Or is radical new stuff happening with the aerodynamics and airframes?
Or to look at it from another angle, “drone” covers a wide range of stuff and I can well imagine that in the smaller quadcopter etc range of the market airframe and engine innovation really is moving at a very fast pace but perhaps the airframes of something like Protector/Predator etc are rather more stable with a large airframe almost taking a T31 frigate-like approach – build in plenty of room for future expansion and innovation?
“How much drone development is in the onboard electronics vs the engines vs the airframes though?”
Given that anything current or future will be digital, it’s already an established concept to separate the flight controls from navigation, defence or offence. Thus all these others can change fast without requiring the important but laborious repetition of type approval.
From memory, Saab Grippen an example.
Going back to your question more specifically the airframe design likely starts from 100 years of Sailplane development which with modern digital engineering means that small changes are quick and can be validated with Finite Element Analysis on strength and Computational Fluid Dynamics on aero before any parts are cut.
There should be a number of Sea Guardians to boost the 9 Poseidon.
Will they be integrating Spear3, that would be a real force multiplier, allowing SF to drop the hammer with Protector staying 50 miles away..
Does the addition of the centreline pod make a Protector a Sea Guardian, I wonder? Or is there more to it than that? I did wonder whether this article might mention the adoption of the pod but perhaps to simplify Requirements and not complicate delivery the MOD opted to buy the Protector spec first. Maybe the relevant mods for Sea Guardian could be added later? Agree that adding Sea Guardian would enhance maritime patrol ops significantly though, especially for surface search and search & rescue.
Has there been an article on a breakdown of all current drone projects?
Was consideration given to the fitting of a cheaper missile such as Martlet?
just a superficial thought, if drones flew in pairs both lightly armed it increases the risks for an opponent to take the piss.
We should keep the Reapers as well, could be used for fishery patrol assisting B1’s around UK, Falklands, shadowing ORC ships transiting and such like.
We should keep the reapers for uk and overseas territories to do fishery protection, drug and tracking orc ships etc
Maybe RAF should only have drones seeing how integrating weapons in aircraft is a disaster.
Hopefully these and other drones can be made easier to fly, take off, land so they don’t require a proper pilot.
I’m still thinking the tempest should perhaps be a 2 seat if it’s to work with drones, fly etc.
The future is single seat, ‘optionally manned’, the days of two seater fast air are firmly over with new developments.
I’ve noticed that the ‘optionally manned’ requirement seems to have gone rather quiet of late….
Do our Japanese partners not share the same vision I wonder, it certainly adds a good deal of complexity and cost.
You say that but Isreal campaigned really hard to get a two seater version of the F35, in their view there is too much to do for one pilot especially when using the F35 as a control node. When you think about it the more drone warfare develops the more likely it is that manned aircraft will need more command and control….
tempest seams to make less sense as drones will get better.
AI seems to be the answer.
“The Tempest future combat air system will use artificial intelligence (AI) systems to use new capabilities such as flying manned or unmanned or to use swarming technology to control drones.”
LINK
I bet the RAF will want their drone operators to receive flying pay!
Buy American…. Paveway???? Good Lord.
American drone. U.K. pave way 4 and brimstone missiles.
Sometimes it’s just better to get a proven drone than develop and certify a new aircraft for a small production run of 16 aircraft. The costs of doing so could be many times more.
Paveway IV produced by Raytheon UK in England.
We should keep Reapers for Fisheries protection (Uk and Overseas like Falklands) , monitoring ORC’s sailing past etc
Agree. They will probably call it another “sunset” capability. Keep them where they have always been in the ME and let Protector do the UK/NATO area side.
I am not sure that these large drones are the whole shilling: they cover many scenarios but will be very vulnerable in a contested air environment as recent experience demonstrates clearly.
Of course not, and the MoD know that.
For the like of the ME and Africa providing persistent surveillance and a SIGINT capability to boost they are ideal.
It would be worth keeping the MQ9A aircraft as well to be honest one thing the Russia Ukraine war has proven the drones are very useful even in peer conflicts and airs that are not permissive as losing a drone is far less of an issue than loosing a pilot…so actually having a supply of older expendable drones is probably very useful indeed.
Agree. If they are being retired, park them in a warehouse, stored properly.
Or even hand them over to boarder force/coast guard to operate for local sea boarder control, sea infrastructure protection and SAR..have all the operators/pilots and tech as reservists, then if it all kicks off you have a readymade reservist squadron who knows it’s kit like the back of its hand…
Totally logical, 100% support the idea. Form a RauxAF Sqn for them.
Far to sensible 😂😂😂
With these available, I’m wondering if it isn’t worth scrapping the AH-64E Apache and getting around 50 extra Protectors instead.
Well rotors do have the advantage of being able to hide behind hills and stuff and are not bound to 3500 feet of tarmac.
No, thank you. You won’t find Protector doing nap of the earth flying in close support of ground forces. These are more of a recc asset with teeth and over the FEBA would probably be shot down in short order. Apache is a different beast, and can hide and operate in the field.
Any addition is a plus.. Umh😚