The Ministry of Defence has published a preliminary market engagement notice under Project VANQUISH, seeking industry views on a new “Fixed Wing Short Take Off and Landing Autonomous Collaborative Platform” (FW STOL ACP) for Royal Navy carriers.
The Find a Tender listing describes the effort as a technical demonstration intended to inform future procurement options for the UK’s “Hybrid Air Wing”.
The notice, identifier 2025/S 000-062294, sets out the requirement in stark terms: “Project VANQUISH seeks to deliver a technical demonstration at sea of an attritable (Tier 2) Fixed Wing Short Take Off and Landing Autonomous Collaborative Platform (FW STOL ACP); nominal target date by the end of 2026, with options for delivery within an 18 month window from the target date also considered.”
The MOD is explicit that the platform must be able to embark and operate autonomously from a Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carrier. It is to be jet turbine powered, capable of high subsonic speed, and launch and recover from carriers without catapults or arrested recovery systems.
The system is expected to carry a credible payload with sufficient endurance, with a clear exploitation path for roles such as ISR, strike, and air-to-air refuelling.
The RFI highlights that this effort should “complement F-35B Lightning, as part of QEC and its Carrier Air Wing”. Officials also stress that the work must be “aligned with the principles of Maritime Aviation Transformation (MATX) and build on previous trials and demonstrations of ACPs from QEC.”
The estimated contract value is £10 million excluding VAT (£12 million including VAT), with a potential period from April 2026 to December 2027. The MOD notes that successful completion will provide the data and evidence needed to support a prospective procurement of a carrier-capable autonomous strike aircraft in the early 2030s.
The notice makes clear this is not yet a formal procurement. “For the avoidance of doubt, this notice is not informing the market of an imminent procurement. All costs pertaining to the completion of this response are to be borne by the responders.” A formal tender is expected to follow in January 2026.
Industry is invited to respond by 14 November 2025 through an online submission form. Clarification questions must be submitted by 24 October.












Great news. Yet another project. Must be dozens of them by now. Not ordering anything obviously. Just talking about talking about talking about….yawn.
*writes “planning to plan” on whiteboard and goes home*
True, my friend, very true.
I’m considering an FOI on how Sydney Sweeney can be my girlfriend even though I have no money.
Sorry, you’ve got no chance. I’ve got loads of money, so she’s slam dunk going to be MY girlfriend.
She’s got the money Jim, but you have the talent!
Seems to be the navy’s plan for drone acquisition as well. 😀
You’d like them to order something that doesn’t exist?…
You are right to point that out. However what confuses me is I had thought there had been work, studies and calls for proposals more generally in this area for years and as such am somewhat confused about in what way this is different to what has been discussed or worked on in that time, is it a maturing of ideas, trouble is the way it’s phrased suggests not. Hopefully this is something different but an explanation of exactly how would be appreciated and that’s where the cynicism creeps in I think.
Have there actually?
They’ve tried launching Banshee drones from the QE class and flown off a Mojave and landed it again, but that’s all practically.
I know of one actual study where they actually talked about launching drones via an EMALS dedicated for the purpose (Project Ark Royal?) but aside from that I can’t think of any actual studies.
Sure there’s been huge number of calls by the defence press and the online community for drones to be deployed from the QE class. But actually hard studies, investigations, I’m not sure there’s been many/ any before. Which is gobsmacking given how many years the USN has been throwing money at this subject.
So this announcement is good news, but years way later than it should have been made and insufficiently funded too.
No. I would just like the government to order something instead of making sound bites and creating projects that will last for years whilst nothing is done to strengthen our armed forces.
Is there anything in particular that you would like HMG to order?
The next batch of F35’s would be nice. or Typhoons if they prefer; additional P8’s; another 2 Wedgetail; 2 or 3 more T26’s; The MRSS or a second batch of T31’s; a replacement AEW system for the carriers, a new medium lift helicopter, a decent ABM system. I could go on but I don’t want to get silly. These are just the things we could do with now.
So an unspecific list of hugely expensive stuff.
That response is no more serious than your original comment which was just criticism for the sake of criticism.
So many of the comments here are like that, and often just a repeat of previous comments.
You asked me a question. I answered it. I can’t help it if you don’t like the answer.
Anyone know what happened to that last lot of class A drugs that the Royal Navy seized a while back ?
So the Navy think GA-ASI can adapt Gambit to work without cats and traps? Or perhaps even Avenger-STOL?
I can’t think who else could develop a project over that aggressive a timeframe. Helsing with their new Europa? The BAE ACP concepts? Neither of those have the aerodynamics for STOL carrier operation.
I suspect blown flaps will be involved, and big ones too.
“I suspect blown flaps will be involved, and big ones too”
Boy, you got issues !
I’m racking my brains at the moment trying to work out which innuendo reference you are making, which is not helpful as I’m supposed to be doing ESAT prep!
😁
Goddammit, you made me google it.
Universities look at your internet history, you know!
😂😂😂
I was looking at a drone size comparison chart and the General Atomics MQ-20 Avenger is probably too large for our needs, bigger than Taranis for example. The Sea Avenger variant was designed to operate from a carrier with an arrester wire, so it had a tailhook. Also, it’s very expensive, at about $80 a throw, according to the internet.
That’s $80 million.
AH, shucks for a second there I was thinking I would buy a couple and donate ’em 🙂
Yeah… where’s the edit button when you need it… or the regret button!
Yeah… where’s the edit button when you need it? Or the regret button!
Damn I was going to order ten and sell them on at a profit, another get rich quick scheme foiled.
‘Blown flaps’ and $80 carrier drones… 😂
Good point that. I’d suggested it as a logical step up in power and speed from Protector STOL, but it is actually closer to GA-ASI’s competitor to Global Hawk, which I’d hazard a guess will never be a carrier aircraft.
The spec looks pretty impossible TBH.
Yup, if something comes out of this it will either be underwhelming or an engineering masterpiece. Or even both. The required flight envelope is ridiculous without vectored thrust, some very clever aerodynamics is going to be involved IMO.
Taranis wasn’t the full size aircraft, but a prototype. The full size one was going to be bigger, so that it could have a weapons bay that could hold Meteor. However, results from the trials showed it was better than expected.
Oh right. I didn’t realise that. Interesting. Sometimes I wonder if the project should have been continued, but I guess it was either Taranis or Tempest.
Their requirement for a decent payload plus STOL is a very tall order.
I guess that means all the work done to consider putting CATs and TRAPs on them has been skipped!!
IMHO they will live to regret not have CATO BAR on them if a shooting war starts. It will force them close to shore and therefore closer to any Carrier killing threat,
What they need is a tri-plane! 😆
Michael Gregor is thankful that finally we are seeing the light.
🤣
Serious head on !
Time to dust off the plans for the Saunders Roe SR.A/1.
Or perhaps a miniature Martin Seamaster, if greater performance is desired?
I’ve looked at unmanned seaplanes as an idea before, but never jet-powered ones!
I honestly think “We” are missing a trick or two here though. Seaplanes/Amphibs were a great success back in the day, no need for C’s & T’s, they can land anywhere and size is not a limiting factor. I’m sure 80 years on from the SR, tech will have solved many of the issues.
I can see a role for a seaplane fulfilling an ISTAR role, folding to fit in a T26 mission bay and maybe even with internal stowage of Brimstone type weapons. Those are slow enough that the slightly odd turboprop placement and hull shaping wouldn’t affect performance too much.
If you wanted to go faster then maybe the fancy new electric fans would allow a wider range of engine placements? Making the propulsion fully hybrid you could even take off under battery power and open the generator air inlet doors in flight, which would make things easier still WRT water spray.
But I think trying to go much faster, with the requirements of water launch, is not going to be feasible.
Seaplanes and almost certainly still are very vulnerable to sea state and so lack the n necessary all-weather capability.
Luckily they can fly too.
🤣 British eccentricity at its best.
Yeh, this is where that crane on the Rivers comes into its own. 😊
This falls into line with a previous prediction of mine that around 50% of aircraft aboard our carriers will be autonomous by 2040. All supply and refuelling should be primarily conducted by FWSTOL APCs as soon as possible, along with anti-submarine and early warning capabilities, which should have a profound impact on manning levels.
A BIG ask, however I am always drawn to using rota tilt wing whatever the yanks look like they will be using. Could we not adapt it for our carriers and other f35b navies?
tbh while it’s not as futuristic looking I’d say a compound helicopter is the way to go: the downwash is more spread out and it can still autorotate if there’s any trouble.
OK suggestion. Compound meaning 2 sets rotating blades on top in counter rotation ? With pushing blades at the back. Unless it’s something already being produced, how will uk justify cost of building exquisite drone for our 2 carriers. It’s a shame nothing is really obvious solution we desperately need more appropriate airborne AEW.
Intriguing.
Procurement, perish the thought, HMT would need to have a nice lie down, and they’ll be gone before any serious money is spent.
In all seriousness, will be interesting if industry can come up with anything.
My bet is a Banshee derivitive for this particular excercise.
With a 10 million budget what are they expecting.
How can a Banshee derivative accompany an F35?
It looks like a toy, do they just double its size and put a bigger jet engine in it?
Banshee drones have been evolving for 40 years, there are twin engined versions that fly at over 400mph so a Derivitive (solely for this excersise) might just be a logical step. The RN tested one of these a few years ago from memory but not sure which model.
I think the key here is “Blown Flaps”.
(christ, I’ll never go to heven !)
They tested Banshee 80+ for about two years before retiring them early this year. I think they were being trialled for Project Vampire as well as for target drones off the carrier, but I never saw what became of that. The Navy basically said they wouldn’t be used operationally, but they’d learned important lessons. (I’m growing to hate that phrase.)
“Banshee has given us invaluable knowledge in how to operate high-speed drones. It’s also allowed us to assist with force generation for the carrier strike group. We are ready now for whatever the next capability will be.”
So another Banshee derivitive might just fit this particular new requirement ?
Banshee NG (Next Generation) has a 6.5ft wingspan and is 11ft long. So no not Banshee.
Having said that QinetiQ could use their experience to develop something bigger, perhaps teaming with a smaller drone builder… It would depend on whether the management though they could effectively get into what is an already crowded market place…
Cheers CR
Which makes me wonder what if any of that gained knowledge will feed into this new proposal, doesn’t seem an obvious direct link discernible or is it just that in theory the navy will be better placed to know what it wants when it sees it, which seems a bit ‘hit and hope’ rather than logical progression. Maybe the full proposal is more informative on these fronts.
They might actually be using the experience derived from the Banshee and Mojave trials, certainly they need to get a bloody move on or the experience they generated will dissipate completely.
If they do get something in 2 to 3 years I’ll be very relieved and it will be a big improvement on past procurement programs even if it is only a demonstrator, after all the Harrier started life as a demonstrator!
Cheers CR
Go big enough (say, Trent engined) and we’d have a pretty decent Vulcan replacement.
Not a patch on 4-engine Tempest, however ;).
No, I think this is a genuine attempt at a deployable system, or at least looking for alternatives to chopping up the carriers. There are lots of STOL UCAVs, and a heck of a lot of jet-powered high subsonic ones, we just need a clever enough design to bridge between the two.
I think I might have got just the Ideal combination.
How about we use a Jet engined, remote controlled, Hovering, Hoover with Blown Flaps ?
It ticks most of the boxes I think.
You are obsessed with blown flaps…. So very old.😂
Fluidic flight controls. Isn’t that what they renamed blown flaps?
A high-subsonic jet drone with ultra low stall speed, at a knock-down price and in production in less than three years. I think he’s right. Blown flaps or something similar would have to figure. A full-sized BAE Demon, perhaps, with a powerful engine? Although BAE and knock-down price aren’t normally found together.
I’m at risk of provoking Halfwit here, but as you asked:
Blown flaps are physically the same as conventional ones, but spill air from the engine is blown over the upper surface of the flap itself. This has lower pressure due to the Bernoulli effect, and so the airflow over the wing is sucked down onto the flap rather than detaching and becoming turbulent The whole effect with the surface to be sucked onto is called the Coanda effect, if you want to look into it further. The effect is to redirect the air downwards through a much tighter corner than is possible with conventional flaps, which produces a huge amount of lift. That invention has been around for quite a while; TSR2 and the Blackburn Buccaneer used blown flaps.
Fluidic flight control systems use the same blown effect IIRC, but because the physical surfaces do not move the effect is less and so they are used for control instead of high lift.
Thank you for clarifying.
Halfwit’s reply will probably take some time, he is otherwise disposed having read that I suspect.
“Fanny Farts”.
Well TorpedoJ started it !!!!
I looked up the Gambit you mentioned earlier.
What’s wrong with that?
Needs a catapult.
Ahh, oops!
Was there not something similar a few years ago? Project Mosquito? Also got canned before there was any danger of procurement happening, as apparently there was plenty of ‘existing alternatives ‘ that surprisingly also weren’t purchased.
Hi PC.
Yes, which was part of the RCOs Project Lanca.
It’s hard to get excited by any of this as we know where it’s ended up over the last 2 decades.
Maybe one day!
” ..inform future procurement options…”
Keep your bingo card handy for this one……
Tick…
I’ve just Googled and found “what killed Mosquito and what next for the UKs loyal wingman”
The website is “Morson projects”
The explanation given by the Air Commodore in charge of the RCO is an absolute peach.
Plenty of material for your card there.
The only jet drone that would fit the bill would be a very expensive, large and ground up blended wing design.
It would require one or two smaller lift fans and powerful flap blow for STOL operations, dropping the landing speed to about 50 knots, with the ship going
25knots into the wind.
In my opinion, it would still require an angled deck for safe deck operations, especially if we aren’t bothering with traps.
An angled deck would have the benefit of allowing the F35B to carry out higher speed rolling Vertical Landings too.
One things for sure, if you want it to carry a useful fuel/ weapons/ avionics load and have good range, it will need to be large!
Sounds like we’ll end up spending a fortune for a handful, which isn’t what they want if I’m understanding correctly.
This is Tier 2, so attritible.
Hi Mate, if they want transonic performance and range, big enough for a ‘meaningful’ AAR, weapons loads etc, it will neither be cheap or attritable.
It will likely be cheaper in the long run, over the next 30 plus years, so convert the carriers with cats and traps.
Now they have worked the gremlins out out of the EML’s.
They might just have to bite the bullet and convert them.
Designing the bespoke and capable autonomous systems for exclusively UK needs will be very expensive.
The obvious candidate would be the Turkish Bayraktar Kızılelma, which has an MTOW of 6000kg, of which the payload is 1500kg. It’s been designed to operate from their LHD without catapults. Obviously as a tanker, that’s a very small amount of fuel, but it’s one of the very few options out there.
The most sensible thing would be to add arrestor gear to the carriers, which would instantly increase their flexibility, even without adding catapults. It would enable cross decking when necessary with both French and American carriers, since both Rafales and Super Hornets could potentially take off from the ski jump, albeit at a reduced takeoff weight. It would potentially also enable heavier UAVs like the MQ-25 Stingray to cross deck. Adding arrestor gear would be a fairly cheap way to dramatically improve capability, at a relatively modest cost.
Hello Ed, I read this as being able to be re-fueled rather than to re-fuel. In which case your suggestion sounds good.
It wasn’t how I read it, and I hope you’re right, because there are no attritable aircraft in the world capable of tanking and nor will there be in the near future. Even the V-22 was deemed to small to bother with as a tanker (and you don’t get many of those for £10m).
Yes, I’m now seeing that too. Can’t see this being affordable though. There are a lot of requirements for this particular airframe.
Do you know what they normally use for attritable tanking? A drop tank. So let’s get some of those and move on.
Thumbs up.
Yes I was thinking the same, an attributable aircraft that can be used (adapted) as a tanker amongst many other things, jet powered high subsonic speed but doesn’t need cats and traps. Good luck with that one. Surely some of these capabilities are best employed by very different concepts and airframes for the foreseeable future, they are just too compromised in each function or too big and/or costly to be attributable however they define that factor. It’s concerning to me that after years of trying to define what might best be exploited on the carriers and how, including role, capability, function etc this new request just seems like it’s still unfocused fishing for ideas and over ambitious expectations when tests done so far show apparent limitations to even focused end usage for such platforms certainly unless traps are retrofitted. .
It probably does, though being able to at least do a buddy refuelling type top up would be a big plus. I seem to remember the Royal Navy had originally wanted a buddy refuelling capability for the F-35B!
Yes, you are right, I re-read it but still think it’s a big ask.
Kizilelma needs arrested recovery, doesn’t it, using a tail hook? I agree that it should be tested, but I don’t think it will fufil the requirements as stated in the article. Right now it hasn’t even proven it can take off from a ramp, has it? They are reportedly going into full production, but I’d like to see what it can do with a better engine. Maybe Rolls Royce have something.
It does, but other than STOVL systems, I’m not convinced you’ll find any jet UAV that doesn’t require arrestor gear. In terms of engines, the closest match would be the RR/Turbomeca Adour. However, we know that they’ve had a lot of issues with the Adour!
This might be bonkers but would it be worth widening the skin ramp to assist with any of these requirements? It seems very narrow as it is.
The actual wheel base of almost all of these aircraft fits on the ramp. Wings of larger drones will probably stick over the edge sometimes considerably but so long as the wheels are all narrow enough it doesn’t really matter.
It would also allow a small fighter like the Sea Gripen to operate in the A-A role (flying CAP etc) & leaving the F35B for strike.
This is one area, that I’m surprised hasn’t been fitted to our carriers to begin with. At the very least there should be a crash barrier. If for instance the carrier is operating far out in to the ocean and one of its F35Bs has a malfunctioning door, that when open allows the aircraft to do vertical landings. What if the door can’t open, what then? The aircraft is too far away from land to divert, there is no carrier based tanker aircraft or a Voyager is not available. Will the aircraft then need to ditch in the Ocean? At least having a crash barrier will allow the aircraft and pilot to be recovered on the ship. Even if the jet does suffer from some damage. Far better than trying to recover it from the sea floor.
They should always have been built with the angled deck to begin with, even if they are STOVL carriers.
Sounds like something a harrier could’ve done or be convereted for.
Stop that right away Frank.😁
Talking of the “Harrier”, can an evolved version be brought back to life again? Anything still in the sheds….air museums?
Some countries are still flying them operationally, though not for much longer. US, Italy, and Spain, I think. I’d guess you could buy a few as they are retired from service. Not sure why.
🤣
I always fancied a “Double-Harrier.”
Sort of a cross-flow twin-Pegasus-engined thing with a big central payload/fuel tank. I thought more as a manned long-range strike (Buccaneer) concept or F35 refueler, but save on the bacon sandwiches and make it a drone if you want.
Aren’t you describing some of the P.1154 designs?
Nope. I’m on about a twin engined design with a big central payload/or refueling tank area and large fold-out wing. Could also be cannard. Just something that uses the vectored thrust Pegasus (or similar) but has much more power, payload and range/endurance. OK, sort out plenum chamber burning for supersonic if you really must, but it could be something much simpler.
How are you supposed to cross-flow if there’s a giant payload area in the middle? If you look up ‘twin-Spey P.1154’, some of the designs are side by side but don’t share nozzles, but the ones that do have a Lightning-style over under engine arrangement.
Not describing the performance, just the engine arrangement. British designers have already come up with just about every possible layout for VTOL engines, so if you ever think “why hasn’t someone done that” just google it and someone probably has.
OK, I can see the twin-Spey thing now, and see they could not get a shared chamber to work. I was thinking of something much simpler with just using existing/uprated Pegasusi(?) with both hot outlets joined before the nozzles, and cool outlets joined so that an engine-out would still give a fighting chance of controllability and landing. Join pipes going over the central payload bay if needed.
£10M will get a PowerPoint slide or two. No chance any real capability in 20 years, let alone a demo in 24 months
QE class are a white elephant. Too large for ASW carriwr qith fighters to defend task group. No cats & traps to host a secent strike capability.
Need EMALS and Arrestors if we are serious.
🤣
Oh, look! It’s another super-duper drone that’ll fix everything.
The RN made a huge mistake with the QE2-class, a mistake that will last decades to come.
A couple of cats and traps would solve a lot of problems.
Umm why the mistake.. every other medium size navy is going the same way.. it’s only china and the US which are going cats and traps.. France has cats and traps but as a medium size navy has screwed itself over trying to keep in that game.. the french carrier is great but their enemy simply has to wait until it’s in bits…and they have exactly no carrier…
Cats provide the ability to launch not just fighters, but also aircraft for AEW, EW, tankers, and ASW. Which means you can project much power further away.
The RN would have been better off building something akin to the CdG, which can carry about the same number of aircraft as the QE2s, which, in addition to operating a proper carrier wing, would have given the RN full interoperability with the French and US navies. In a war, that would be priceless.
The Queen Elizabeth class carries 70 aircraft, the CDG 40 aircraft. They do not carry the same number of aircraft as each other. Now we haven’t even half filled one of our carriers which is an issue, but that is different to the carrier not being able to fit 70 aircraft.
The Queen Elizabeth class carries 70 aircraft, . . .”
In theory, but, in practice, it has been far, far less. I think the RN has topped out at about 32-34 aircraft so far. And, if the UK buys a significant number of F-35As, the RN might end up with 60 or so F-35Bs. Factoring in readiness, the RN might 40 or so available to deploy.
I think 24 F-35Bs is the standard number deployed with 36 in a surge capacity.
Yup, It can, We had this discussion a while back and this is a figure quoted as a possible maximum mixed load. You can find this figure on the net.
Some still laugh at this though.
They laughed at the swordfish once, who’s laughing now eh. 🤪
It’s also on the net that the standard wing is 12-24 with a surge capacity to 36 aircraft.
And, if the talk about buying the F-35As is correct, the RN might not even end up 70 F-35Bs.
I used the Net example to confirm the 70 figure is an official figure stated at max mixed load. “Mixed Load” not just F35B’s
This is often dismissed as not true by some here because they wrongly assume that figure is F35B when in fact it’s “Aircraft” including F35B
Realistically We have no hope of ever achieving that figure though as we have too few “Mixed Aircraft”.
The Reality is that after nearly 10 years, we have yet to embark even the 24 F35B’s often mentioned.
Two massive Assets that sucked up a fair proportion of funds that maybe might have helped elsewhere.
@dimwit
We had this discussion before. The 70 figure is pure hogwash and it’s far from being an “official” number.
Try taking off your foil hat and reading what the designers of the carriers say.
You still Ignoring facts I see. UKDJ posted an article shortly after your last bunch of angry words which showed this figure and more. It’s out there If you know how to find it.
I can’t help you if you choose to ignore the Information that is freely and easily found.
But It’s nice I’m not the only Halfwit on here. 😂😂😂
Oh and just to help you find it, Search HMS Queen Elizabeth Carrier on Wiki, you will see the figures very clearly and easily (not too much brain work). This is also the source of Info that the UKDJ article used.
Let us know how you get on, OK ?
To a large extent, i agree with you, but this isn’t a numbers game. My basic point was that had the RN had built a couple of CTOL carriers they would have full interoperability with the US and French navies today.
Imagine what a RN carrier wing of 16 F/A-18E/Fs, 16 F-35Cs, 3-4 Hawkeyes, and few Growlers could do. Or, substitute the Rafales for the Super Hornets. Yes, it would be a smaller version of a US carrier wing, but far more capable compared to what the RN has today.
The figures confirmed are
– 62 F-35B
– 12.F-35A
62 aircraft will provide 30 frontline,.with the remaining 30 in routine maintenance, withdraen for major upgrades, trials, tests, training and reserve.
What it will commonly carry is a different thing to what it can carry. US super carriers can fit up to about 90 aircraft but far more commonly only carry 60 or 70, that doesn’t mean that they can’t fit 90 if desired however. Similarly the initial plans, before we didn’t bother buying many aircraft, was for the Queen Elizabeth class to carry 40 aircraft at times of peace and only actually carry 70 during war.
And then that is 70 aircraft not 70 F-35, obviously some helicopters will be needed as well as proper fixed wing AWACs which we will finally be getting in the MQ-9 in a few years time.
I don’t think the RAF really needs lots of F-35A, the B is still good enough for their purposes, Tempest will fill in the range and payload gap that the B variant can’t. But all B variants increases the number we can stick on a carrier, and the reasoning for the A doesn’t really make that much sense. Yes, it can carry tactical nuclear weapons but seeing as all we are doing is sticking some of the NATO shared weapons in them anyway it’s not actually increasing any of NATO’s capacity as they already have enough delivery systems for the shared tactical nuclear weapons and nobody is building any more for our F-35A.
🤣
Of course it has to be said in that comparison you are ignoring the disadvantages of operating a non stealth strike aircraft on the current French carrier. The same number of operable aircraft is also simply wrong, indeed conspiracy theory-esque. Building up F-35B numbers is certainly tough thanks mostly to the Americans but then back when the Charles DeGaulle was ‘new’ it sat inoperable for years because of nuclear health and safety issues preventing it actually sailing, though it did mean they had plenty of time to build up the numbers of naval Rafales to fly off of it once it did belatedly enter service, (thanks to lowering safety rigs). So debarcles tend to exist far and wide in reality.
Except, fghters, stealthy or not, don’t operate by themselves, but as part of a team. The French Navy has two advantages over the RN. One, they have eyes in the sky with the Hawkeye with its long-range radar that can control the battle space. Two, unlike the F-35Bs, the Rafales can act as tankers to extend their range and the range/duration of their Hawkeyes too.
This is all hindsight of course, but if the RN had built a couple of CTOL carriers, they would be enjoying full interoperability with the US and French navies today.
And yet French Navy is in better shape with a bigger size than RN.
In not taking about the escort fleet, I’m specifically taking about each nations carrier battle group.
But each the la royale and RN each have their weaknesses.. this is not a your navy is rubbish spitting contest it’s a analysis of the strength and weaknesses of the only European navies that matters in a global strategic consideration ( I’m leaving the very find Italian navy out of this because its although it’s a true blue water navy it’s primary focus is Euro Atlantic not global).
La Royale weakness
1 carrier.. this is profoundly important as for years at a time France is unable to generate a carrier battle group
2) SSN.. bigger issues than even the RN only 3 peer SSNs and 2 essentially duff very only compromised SSNs that are without a shadow way below the enemy they face and only build 6 good SSNs in total.. that is 6 less than needed.
3) lack of focused AAW in its escort fleet simply put 2 top end AAW escorts and 2 focused AAW escorts it’s not enough. If it was sticking with only 2 AAW destroyers it should have done what the Italian navy did and ensured it’s had long ranged air defence diffused across all its FREMMs.. the focus on land attack and penny pinching with sensors left a weakness in long range air defence.
4) the aim for 15 major surface combatants is to few. 2 horizon, 8 FREM and 5 FDI is way to small a fleet and falls well short of even the RNs limited ambition of 6 T45, 8 T26 and 5 T31.. and at preset the La Royale has 12 modern escorts worth the name.
5) mine warfare vessels are very small and designed only really for management of mine warfare in local waters.
strengths
1) amphibious fleet
2) diffuse and plentiful ASW across escort fleet.
3) huge number of constabulary vessels..
RN weakness
1) not yet fully exploited the possible airwing for its carriers and cannot fully generate a maximum potential airwing.
2) only has 6 modern SSNs will be 7 needs 12.
3) total major surface combatant fleet to small at preset 13.. build plan of 19 to limited and to far behind loss of ships from fleet.
4) ASW numbers of ASW ships to limited and not diffused across whole fleet.
5) amphibious capability not adequate
Strengths
1) specialist AAW fleet is adequate to cover CBG ( but nothing else)..
2) two carriers
3) very significant major warship building programmes
In effect both navies are suffering from to few modern SSNs ( France more than UK) and to few modern young escorts ( UK more than France ) both have building programmes but neither is adequate UK total 7 SSN France 6, UK total 19 escorts France total 15.
Bigger size what ? Aircraft Carriers ? No.SSBN’s ? No . SSNs ? No , massively inferior in size and weapons carried . First rate Frigates & Destroyers ? No . Patrol vessels ? Yes , but there again they’ve got that huge EEZ ,that they never cease to mention , to patrol, artificially created by a multitude of islets in the middle of nowhere .
🤣
Yes Wally but due to timing would have encountered all the problems the US has had with the Bush’s. I dread to think what the media would have made of that, would they even be in operation now? Plus we got into tier 1 on F-35 to a great extent because we committed to the B version so there is a political and industrial element to be considered. Sadly such things are not made in isolation whatever the desirable ideal might be.
There is no obvious off-the-shelf and dirt cheap contender for the FW STOL ACP, and certainly none that could developed in to a credible operational platform within a few years, e.g. able to deliver a useful amount of fuel to F-35B’s. The continuing desperation to avoid fitting cat(s) and traps to the QEC is crazy given all the advantages that would accrue. Back in 2002 the RN unfortunately refused to demand that CVF was CTOL rather than STOVL for fear that this would turn the RAF’s lukewarm support in to active opposition of the project (they wanted a STOVL replacement for the Harrier). Apparently, when a unnamed middle ranking civil servant spotted that BAE and Thales were estimating that a CTOL carrier would cost about £200m more to build than a STOVL carrier (probably a bit on the low side to be fair), he added to an analysis of options report going to the MOD’s Investment Approvals Board a recommendation that the UK buy the STOVL rather than CV version of the then Joint Strike Fighter. The recommendation was approved and we have been stuck with that decision ever since (albeit with a near reversal in 2010-12).
The great irony being that with the price difference between the B and C variance of the F-35 we would already have made our money back if we stuck catapults on the QE’s. But forwards thinking, we don’t do that in this country.
I can’t answer this at the moment without research, but even after the US made EMALS fully operational on the Bush’s after much Well publicised and much criticised delays (Trump first Presidency even threatened to dump them), when did they do so actually for the F-35C, as for some time they only operated F-18s using EMALS actively. Whatever the answer the time frame would have looked very bad for our carriers managing to get them into service.
The F35C is still not cleared to be launched by EMALS from the USS Gerald.F.Ford. It has been launched by the land based EMALS test facility, but that was back in 2011. I have yet to see any updates or forecasted sea trials. I fully expect this to be expedited, as the Chinese Fujian has used its EMALS to launch the KJ600, J15 and the J35.
The question of a CTOL QE carrier with EMALS and F35C seems a bit moot, as the carrier wouldn’t be able to launch them, i.e. a carrier with no jets, unless we leased F18s.
Tosh! The difference in price between a B and a C is around £5m these days. I assume we’ve already paid for 48. The catapults and arrestors were said to have cost us £2bn on HMS Prince of Wales alone. You’d need the price difference to be £4bn divided by 48 or over £88m a plane, not £5m. And that’s just the purchase cost. The real heavy extra costs are the operational and training costs over 50 years. Assuming we could keep up with pilot certification.
The difference wasn’t always a mere five million though. And from what I have seen catapults were about a billion per ship not two billion
A set of two catapults and arrestors are still around a £1bn, to judge from the French PANG. It was another billion to rip the carrier apart, install the catapults and make good, including redesigning it so it works like a catapult-based carrier — more people perhaps, with all that entails. I always thought that the price was driven up by vested interests, but I also suspect the carriers were not really designed to be as compatible with catapult use as had been advertised. It was claimed at the time that the mounting projected installation costs were the final nail in the coffin of the POW conversion.
I take your point about the historic difference in price not always being £5m. Using historic exchange rates, £5.5m was the biggest ever differential in that direction, for Lot 14 in 2019. Have you ever looked at the historic differences, Lot by Lot? For example in Lot 6 the price of the F-35C was £7m higher than the F-35B. By Lot 10 (2017), the price differential was about £750K the other way around, growing to the Lot 14 high in 2019 and remaining fairly steady through this decade.
Your soundbite is wrong by at least one order of magnitude, and a million quid here or there isn’t going to change that.
Sorry, I was talking as if we had made it with catapults from the start. My apologies if I wasn’t that clear about it and gave off the impression of modifying the ships.
Agreed. Even if you get rid of the outrageous requirement to deliver fuel, it’s still unlikely given cost and timescale. I mentioned in a thread last month that we need something that sits between the Banshees and Kizilelma.
There was the issue of maintaining pilot landing skills if cats & traps and the planes would probably be dedicated to the carrier rather than sharing with raf. Think emals when we know it works is game changer, steam cats would have been abit retro to put into QE carriers at time of build
Barely relevant. 60 years ago highly skilled pilots were needed to safely launch and recover to a carrier a Sea Vixen or a Buccaneer. Read any Commission Book for a 1960’s RN aircraft carrier and it will end with a depressing In Memoriam that includes aircrew who lost their lives in accidents during the 2-3 years period. These days, an F-35 pilot barely touch’s the controls except in an emergency – launches and landings are automated, be it a F-35B or F-35C. As a result, fatal crashes and accidents are rare indeed.
Hi RB, agree, seen great you tube footage of ark royal take off and landings, it looked very hairy and greasy. F35 B still looks a softer physical impact operation of take off and land over the F35C deck operation. Health & safety has improved over decades, my unqualified opinion.
There was the issue of maintaining pilot landing skills if cats & traps and the planes would probably be dedicated to the carrier rather than sharing with raf. Think emals when we know it works is game changer, steam cats would have been abit retro to put into QE carriers at time of build
…and that is the problem in this discussion, if we had tried to install EMALS it would have been a debarcle at the time the Daily Mail would have had an emotional breakdown that would make Halfwit’s addiction to blown flaps look like a momentary itch. Steam would have been laughed at with obsolescence being the Mail’s word of the year no doubt. All about timing, if we were launching them now a different perspective would apply other than the political one however covering our commitment to the F-35B substantially getting us tier 1 entry to the programme.
As mentioned to Daniele above, the only way you can put a large and capable airframe (transonic with capable mission load of fuel or weapons) on our carrier decks without cats and traps would be a large blended wing design, generating plenty of lift and providing ample internal volume.
It would require a couple of small lift fans to give it safe STOL performance and powerful wing blowing.
Minimum carrier mods, would consist of an angled deck with the deck extension, emergency traps would probably be advisable too….
As also suggested above, an angled deck would allow higher speed RVLs by the F35Bs, that would be very useful…
Or we could use B25 Mitchell’s or even Hercs !
Everyone forgets that an entire World War was fought with Carriers and Aircraft before C&T’s were fitted. It was Jet Aircraft that drove this requirement but Sea Fury’s were a rather fast aircraft too.
Not entirely true. WW2 carriers had hydraulic catapults- powerful enough for prop aircraft but not much heavier jets. Arrestor gear was also routinely used.
I see the “Drive by shooting” posts are back from posters who never comment, slagging off the Carriers.
Well the Russians are even more annoyed about us having them now that their lone carrier is finally going to the scrapyard without replacement.
Morning Spock.
It is quite possible. There is nothing wrong with our QEC as a vessel, unlike theirs.
It is the airgroup and the weapons used by those assets that needs work.
Definitely the airgroup and weapons need work, but this should be a continual process too to ensure maximum effectiveness.
Morning M8, Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with our QE’s as vessels, what is massively wrong with them is the operational concept of Fast Jet STOL / STOVL, it’s a Technical dead end and what’s worse is it’s time limited.
It’s fine for adding some extra punch to a smallish Light Carrier or LPH (think Invincible, America or Cavour), but a full on CVA ! Technically it’s a complete nonsense because no one can design anything that flys off one that’s as capable as an Aircraft designed for CATOBAR or even STOBAR.
Back in the 1950’s RR spent years working on Jet powered STOL and STOVL, and they concluded that yes it can be done but at a cost in both financial and capability terms.
Bottom line is if you use lift jets / fans or advanced wing designs (such as blown flaps etc etc) they are all expensive and more importantly they impact weight, range, speed compared to a land based or CATOBAR design.
To get round the limitations you need enablers such as Airborne Tankers, MPA and effective AEW, but just like the F35B they will be hampered by the needs of STOL or STOVL.
However all that money spent by the WO funding RR to develop the impossible dream wasn’t wasted as it’s why we are the F35 Tier 1 partner, the U.K are the worlds leading experts on Jet VTOL. As an aside it also turbo charged lightweight but powerful military Jet knowledge and advanced materials a lot of that was leveraged into production RR Aero engines.
As for time limited the fact is that we have 2 huge carriers and not even the Yanks are thinking about an eventual replacement for the F35B ! So then what do we do ?
Now back to this project, I’ve read the document and I just think it’s completely brilliant and may not cost us a penny but may force the reality check that’s really needed. They have issued a request for industry’s thoughts on how it can achieved, set a very tight timeline for info and industry bears the costs.
I can pretty well guarantee that anything that industry suggests is going to require huge investment and years to develop !
Anyone who has a Cynical viewpoint of U.K Defence Politics will probably see this as either hair brained or a very good way to prove that sticking to what we have is a very shortsighted move as no one can build what they need to make the original concept work fully.
I actually think this a is MOD trying to justify Project Ark Royal, which is very workable, by adding an angled Flight Deck with AAG and a couple of EMALS you can operate any CATOBAR aircraft or drones you want.
I’m not aware what the QE’s surplus generating capacity is like but they may need extra DG capacity, new switch rooms etc to provide the required Electrical power !
I know you are really critical of the MOD decision to get rid of our C130J Hercules, well most of them are still at Marshals awaiting sale.
Interestingly the C130 is probably the only Aircraft around that could land and takeoff a QE with a load, only 2 issues are you can’t get it in the hanger and it isn’t jet powered but I’d love to watch it trialled. 🤪
I wonder what difference it would have made if instead of going full VSTOL, with the technical limitations they throw up and instead went for small lift fans to enable STOL performance, far less limiting and would have worked just fine on our 70,000 ton QE Class.
Perhaps ( unlikely) in the future, we ‘ might’ see somthing coming from the GCAP camp along these lines to replace F35B.
I think GCAP as it stands would be too big for carrier ops anyway, but, a smaller airframe using GCAP avionics, power generation and propulsion, perhaps with small electric lift fans to simplify things substantially.
Hi mate.
Thanks for all that. So method in the madness, even if we end up with nothing.
Seen the Herc on a US Carrier, very impressive.
ABCR thankyou for interesting post. like ‘ MOD trying to justify Project Ark Royal. ‘ The small budget, short timeline and ambition of what is required, would support the argument. The other F35 A proposed buy comes to mind as political war faring going on at the ministry.
Mate, don’t knock artificial reefs, they do an important marine wildlife job!!!
And more the merrier!
As a passionate supporter of all wildlife, I agree.
Perhaps they can ask the Ukranians to build them another one.
Going with the idea of seaplanes, i think a modified fuel tanker around 50,000 tons with a well deck that enables sea planes like the Canadian CL-415 (or improved CL515) with folding wings (for entrance and storage in the tanker the well deck) to enter and leave the vessel would be probably the cheapest solution. A modification of existing commercial tankers to accommodate the aircraft and fuel it in the well deck is possible. Once seaplane is ready for a sortie, it is pushed back out of the flooded well deck and once out in the open, the sea planes opens its wings, does it takeoff and go meet the F35Bs and refuels them on their way to and from their sorties. The CL-415 as currently configured can carry 6 tons of water for firefighting, a little bit more than the full fuel load capacity of the F35B. The Alternative is to the modified tanker is a special built twin hulled LPD type vessel, but this is going to be expensive as a new type vessel has to be designed and built as opposed to modifying an existing commercial vessel.
The modified tanker solution avoids the need for winches, cats and traps etc. implementation on the carrier. The CSG is going to be accompanied by a tanker anyway, so why not have one that can also support the aerial refueling and medium range maritime patrol role for the CSG while it is underway. A tanker that can house 2 to 4 such aircraft at a time would be ideal. The larger Japanese US2 capacity would be ideal but I suspect its size would call for a much larger mother ship.
The best carrier based solution is a V-22 Osprey which already has been certified to refuel the F35B by the US Marines.
Morning, interesting post, I just mentioned Seaplanes as to my mind they can tick a lot of the boxes of this particular requirement added to the fact It’s a totally Ignored avenue with enormous potential.
But I’m just a Halfwit.
If you could fold the wings the mothership wouldn’t even need to have a well dock. If there was a large enough crane on the Points, for example, or even an OSV type ship, you could lift the flying boats off the deck and into the water. In fact, some of the WW2 seaplane tenders look a lot like OSVs (look up the Akitsushima class).
I’m not sure what the actual practicality would be, but a modern seaplane tender and its aircraft would be a wonderful design exercise!
The Sunderland flying boat was a thing of beauty. There is one in RAF Hendon museum north London.
Hopefully it’s not just talk has it is good news ? While thanking about QE Carriers air wings may be worth while having some idea’s on theses Ships own self defence systems 🕵 🚀
Isnt this an acknowledgement that the RN has abandoned the idea of an EMALs system? Nothing has been revealed about the responses to the 2021 RFI but even if technically feasible, the costs would have been high.
It is entirely logical to look for a STOVL alternative- no alterations to the carrier itself, no interference with F35 operation – and in theory safer to operate with either vertical or rolling landing. But that requires a complex and expensive propulsion system hardly compatible with the need for an attritable platform. In the whole history of aviation, only Harrier and F35B have met these requirements.
Mmm it can actually be done by STOL see C130 trials on USS Forestal for details and with a 13 ton payload. It’s just a shame they specified it has to be jet powered as a C27J could probably do the same.
I just read your comments and yes, I said the same too. Hercs and B25’s are classic examples of what can be done.
Hell the USS Intrepid has a SR 71 Blackbird on deck and Concorde waiting on the dock.
Nothing turboprop can keep up with the speed requirement and Hercs aren’t attritable (nor are C-27J). Wouldn’t a new one cost north of £50m? Any drone based on a military transport concept would have the same issues. We need something smaller and cheaper that’s complementary to the F-35s, not something that would require substantially cleared decks, disrupting F-35 launches.
I agree that specifying jet wasn’t right, because there may be some inventor looking into propfans or something in their garden shed who shouldn’t be excluded. The reality is that the timescales would exclude novel propulsion methods anyway.
Requirements include tier 2, so not throwaway but cheap enough to afford losses.
The timescale is crazy. It took LM 5years from winning the JSR competition to redesign the F35B so it could actually take off and land with a payload
General Atomics Mojave presumably?
Given that the 1SL seems happy to buy into auxilary missile ships so the ASMs don’t bump into each other, why wouldn’t he buy into auxilary drone carriers to maintain sortie rates and avoid the need to take the carriers out of service to build angled decks? A commercial construction through-deck might cost £250m (the multi-role through deck for Portugal cost £110m, but we’d want to store/operate many more drones.)
Reading through the RFI, this is a massive ask, if the MoD want this ASAP and on the cheap! Project Vanquish requires a Tier 2 (can be used attritibly if required) autonomous collaborative platform (ACP), which can partner the F35B on taskings. Included in the RFI are some basic requirements, in that it has a high subsonic speed via jet propulsion, short take-off and landing (STOL) performance without needing arrestor wire recovery and a “credible” payload.
The first question is what do they really want, a strike capable aircraft, or one that can be used to mid-air refuel F35B? As the first requirement is a lot easier to design quickly and cheaply than the second requirement. Especially if the strike package is only say 4 Spear-3s and a couple of ASRAAMS, which weigh about 90kg each. Whereas a F35B holds nearly 6000kg of fuel. Meaning the tanker aircraft will need to hold the equivalent to have any usefulness, especially if it’s required to refuel more than one aircraft. Thereby making it a much larger aircraft, requiring more thought in the design.
Another question would be, what is high subsonic speed? Are we talking up to and including transonic speeds, i.e. just below Mach 1 or below transonic speeds, i.e. below Mach 0.8. As this has implications on the wing design and how powerful the engine needs to be. The trapezoidal wing shape used by the F35 is a good compromise for this flight regime. But even with leading and trailing edge flaps, won’t make it a STOL wing. As the wing profile is required for high subsonic cruising to keep up with the F35. A traditional thicker STOL wing won’t be able to keep up, as it reduces the critical Mach number to well below 400mph. However, there is the cruise efficient short take off and landing (CESTOL) concept.
CESTOL expands on the blown flap concept. Where air is taken from the engine or a high pressure air generator, that is then fed by pipes to the leading edge flaps, sometimes the mid chord point on the wing’s upper surface and the trailing edge flap. This was called powered lift, but is becoming more known as a circulation control wing (CCW). As lift is proportional to the local airspeed over the top of the wing. Using high pressure air blown over the curved surface causes significantly more lift to be generated. Which in this case will help lower the landing speed and shorten the take-off distance, thereby enabling STOL.
However, as experienced by the Buccaneer, at least 30% of the engine’s power is used to generate the blown air over the flap to make it work. The Buccaneer used two engines to enable high pressure air to be generated, but also to have sufficient power to enable the aircraft to bolt if it missed the wire. If we are to give the aircraft CESTOL performance, it will benefit from the using the ski ramp. Though the engine will need to put out a power to weight ratio of 0.8, for it to take-off and carry any useful load. When this is scaled against the power needed to lift say 6000kg of fuel along with the airframe weight. The engine may need to be in the EJ200 class, which won’t be cheap. Unless we go for a mid to high bypass turbofan, those these don’t have the acceleration performance of a low bypass turbofan like the EJ200.
Landing without being arrested by a wire is going to be tricky. Wheel brakes alone won’t be capable of stopping say the tanker aircraft if partially loaded, in that short a distance. Plus there’s always the chance the aircraft will skid on slippery surfaces. Which may make it hit parked aircraft etc. You could use a parachute system, which can slow it down fairly rapidly and be more controlled than using brakes alone. But parachutes on an operational deck trailing behind the aircraft, is probably not great for safety either. Then there’s the rocket assisted braking method. Which in the past has been more miss than hit. The final option would be to erect a barrier, for the aircraft to be collected in. But there’s always a chance of it being damaged whilst been wrapped in the net/barrier. You can also incorporate reverse thrust as part of the engine’s exhaust, which could further aid slowing the aircraft down when it lands on the deck.
Could this requirement be met with a tilt-rotor. Possibly. but unlikely, when you consider an Osprey maxes out at 565kmh (350mph). Though the latest concept from Bell, with the folding prop-rotors may be worth watching. As that is expected to cruise at 460mph with the prop-rotors folded, so a possible dash speed closer to 500mph. To partner the F35 you really need to be cruising about 500 mph, with the ability to reach 600 to 650mph for a a quick sprint. In an ideal world, you really want your ACP to be capable of accelerating to Mach 1.3/4. As that means if its carrying an air to air missile, in particular beyond visual range air to air missiles (BVRAAMs). Then if the platform is supersonic, the missile doesn’t have to try to accelerate through the sound barrier to become supersonic. The platform is already adding its kinetic energy to it, therefore the missile isn’t wasting a ton of fuel accelerating through the barrier.
If the MoD want to go down this route. There are two possible paths a quick and dirty option to meet the strike and ISTAR requirements. Then a more expensive but capable option, which will take longer to develop, to meet the larger tanker requirement. For the first option, you could easily scale up a Banshee from 3m long to 9m long, that incorporates retractable undercarriage and under wing hardpoints. You could look at doing a weapons bay, but it would delay time to flight trials. Then power it with something like the RR Adour. For landing on the carrier, it will need a thrust reverser bucket adding to the engine’s exhaust. along with blown flaps.
The more complex requirement will need to be something more exotic. If the MoD want to use it as a tanker, ISTAR and strike. Then it wont be small or cheap. The Bell folding prop-rotor could be an option, but there is a better and perhaps less complex way, which is the CESTOL route. However, the problem is still the take-off at max all up weight, without the aid of a catapult. If the aircraft being used as a tanker, is expected to carry at least 6000kg of additional fuel for its tanker role. The aircraft wont be any smaller than the Boeing MQ25 Stingray, which is said to carry 6800kg of additional fuel. It uses the RR AE3007N mid-bypass ratio turbofan, pumping out a stated >10,000lbf of thrust. But it is also catapult launched, as the engine alone will not be able to accelerate it to take off speeds in that short a distance. From a QE carrier without a catapult, the aircraft’s engine will have to make up the deficit, but could also be aided by the ski ramp. If the CESTOL design is similar to the max take off weight of the Stingray at 44,500lbs (20,200kg). The engine not only has to have a power to weight ratio of 0.8 in thrust, but additionally will have to power the high pressure blown air system for the powered wing lift, so it would need to be closer to 1:1. A single EJ200, minus the upgrades, puts out 60kN (13,500lbf) / (6123kg) of dry thrust and 90kN (20,200lbf) / (9162kg) in reheat. Therefore, with only one EJ200 it will have a power to weight ratio of 0.45, which is not enough even with the ski ramp assistance for take off. With two engines at max chat it’s 0.9, which along with the powered lift wings should be doable. The next problem is the wing shape. Do you keep them for efficient cruising and a long endurance, which is served by a higher aspect ratio wing (long and straight as per the MQ25), or something to match the speed and manoeuvrability of the F35, e.g. trapezoidal? With the MQ25 like wings, the speed will be limited to below Mach 0.9, but with the trapezoidal wings, over Mach 1.
I am hoping that this RFI is a plan B option. Where the MoD identify the problems and disadvantages of designing an aircraft that has to be STOL capable along with the other requirements. But has to be capable of operating from our carriers with the ski ramp. Which builds a business case to go down the easier CTOL design options. Even if there is a higher up front cost to modify the carriers in line with Project Ark Royal.
Superb, considered article as usual DaveyB.
However, if it were my money, I would go for something simple and basic that levered some existing tech that we know basically would work. See my reply to Frank62 above, where I suggest some sort of “Double-Harrier” using twin vectored thrust Pegasus engines (or similar) that are cross-flowed together for safety, providing space and CofG for a large central payload bay, and folding wing. Could be a canard design, but something that would give un-aided take-off and landing, and good range/endurance.
I don’t think the refuelling requirement is a serious proposal, which is why it sits down at Priority 3 on the RFI below Offensive Counter Air (presumably anti-AWACS). So you could drop down to the lower bounds of your size brackets.
I think realistically what the MoD think they want is something very similar to Kizilelma, but using the high lift devices you mentioned to achieve carrier STOL performance. They may well end up with something a lot simpler, but that will be what was in the mind’s eye of the DE&S guy who wrote the requirements.
The Turkish Kizilelma is certainly an interesting proposition. I’ve yet to hear when the trials will begin to take-off from the Juan Carlos derived carrier. But I know they have fitted an arrestor wire. I wonder how much of the flight deck will be needed for the take-off run?
For a single engine you might be better off with a RR Pearl 700 at 18,250 lbf pushing maybe an 8 ton MTOW drone with 3 ton payload. It would take two to tankoh.
Yeah the RR RBR700 engines are nice, have to factor in the fan diameter though. But on a larger aircraft this shouldn’t be a problem, plus they could always be mounted externally.
MoD want this to fail to be able to go back to cats & traps but there wont be the £ ?
Been having a think about this statment
“The engine not only has to have a power to weight ratio of 0.8 in thrust, but additionally will have to power the high pressure blown air system for the powered wing lift, so it would need to be closer to 1:1.”
and I don’t get it. If you need 0.8 ratio to take off using a ramp without blown air, and the blown air isn’t increasing lift enough to help, why would the solution be increasing your thrust? Just don’t use blown air on take-off. It’s the shortest landing we’d need to optimise for the carrier, which is about landing speed and how effective your brakes are. I think the extra lift you’d get on take off would be hugely significantly and you could reduce that 0.8 given to forward thrust with no issue at all, but my back of an envelope calculations petered out and I’m only guessing.
Ok to give a better explanation. If you were using a single EJ200 to power your drone. Which is producing 60kN dry and 90kN in reheat. Then 30% of this thrust is either used to provide high power air directly to the blown wing, or is generating the electrical power to power a high pressure air generator. Then the available power in reheat is reduced to 67kN or 6832kg of thrust. If the aircraft has a power to weight ratio of 0.8 after power the blown wing, then it’s max take off weight will be 8540kg. At least half of this weight will be the static weight made up from the airframe, engine, wiring etc. The remaining weight is the fuel and any weapons it can carry. However, to give it range to match the F35, it will require a larger portion of the weight used as fuel. Leaving perhaps less than 1000kg for armament. It all depends on how much range and speed the aircraft is expected to have to match the F35, more fuel equals less payload.
The problem with having a 0.8 power to weight ratio, is that is on the limit of safety. As the aircraft hasn’t any additional margin of thrust the engine can produce to overcome say a surge, or an air updraft as it takes-off from the ramp. When you watch Mig-29Ks take off from the Indian carriers, they have to use a minimum weight fraction, i.e. partial fuel load and/or less weapons carried, to give them a slightly better power to weight ratio. Otherwise, at their max take-off weight they’d also be at 0.8. Hence why for safety reasons you need 0.9 or better for ski ramp take-offs. The F35B at max take-off weight has a power to weight ratio of 0.87, but compared to traditional non-STOVL aircraft, it uses the lift fan and articulated exhaust nozzle in additional to the ski ramp to push it into the air.
Using a blown wing, will shorten you take-off distance. The blown air kick starts the wing in producing lift. The aim is by the time your at the start of the ski ramp the wing is producing as much or more lift than the aircraft’s weight. So as it leaves the ramp, the wing generated lift is supporting the aircraft. If you have surplus engine thrust, then this also helps as the thrust is being used to supplement the lift. The blown wing is also hugely beneficial when landing, as it lowers the wings stall speed, i.e. the how much the local airspeed neds to be over the wing to generate lift. Which then lowers the speed the aircraft can land at. It will also help shorten the stopping distance, as the brakes won’t have to work so hard for as x amount of time. Using a thrust reverser will help.
Another comparison is to look at the USMC F35Bs taking of from their LHDs. They have to use the full length of the flight deck when at full load. Whereas, when operating from the QE carriers, at full load they start half way down the flight deck. The ski ramp makes the difference. The ramp helps the wing to generate lift.
Yes, you can certainly get the aircraft off the ramp using a 0.8 power to weight ratio, but….
I thought the ramp was so that the wing doesn’t have to generate lift equal to the weight for the first few seconds of flight, because it has the time until it has fallen back down to the level of the flight deck to continue accelerating?
The ramp also increases the angle of attack, creating more lift for a given forward speed and wing configuration. The lift coefficient increases significantly. DavyB is right that you don’t see much of a drop following a ramp take-off on videos, and I can understand navies not wanting to be too reliant on a few seconds of ballistic opportunity to get up to speed. Instead videos typically show them climbing, keeping the high angle of attack until they are up to speed.
That might just be for lightly loaded take-offs you see on YouTube. Unsurprisingly, I can’t find a video of a Mig or a Rafale doing a fully loaded ramp launch where they are really pushing it. And obviously it’s not the same for an F-35B that uses vectored thrust. I can also see that for an attritable drone, navies might be okay with a larger take-off dip.
A blown wing would increase lift still further during take off, but blown flaps, less so. To me the question of how much a blown wing can increase lift and whether the power would be better channelled to increasing speed over the first few seconds is still open. And I don’t know that it’s even that important for these drones. The big issue is the landing, not the take off.
I personally think there is much value in exploring the benefits of a fully blown wing. In principle the blown wing can generate at least 3 times as much lift over the standard wings lift coefficient. Experiments have shown that some advanced designs can be above 20 times more efficient, giving the rise to ultra short take of and landing (USTOL) wings. Furthermore, with a blown wing, you can remove some of the need for mechanical flight control surfaces such as ailerons. As you use differential lift between the two wings to control roll. It could also be used for yaw and pitch control thinking about it.
What does this mean for landing. The Gripen for example when landing and using its traditional flaps at 150 knots, has a stopping distance of 500m, when applying brakes, angling its canards and deploying its air brakes. It’s landing speed is around 120kts. The Buccaneer when landing without the blown flaps has a speed of 175 knots and took 3000ft to come to a stop. With the blown flaps the landing speed decreased to 90 knots. Which was enough for the carrier’s arrestor wires to cope with the aircraft’s weight. This almost halving in landing speed was achieved through air blown over the flaps, ailerons and elevator, i.e. the trailing edge portion of the main wing and the T-tail elevators to balance the lift. By blowing over the leading edge and mid-chord positions. I’d predict the landing speed of the Buccaneer could be lowered by another 25 to 30 knots. As more of the wing is being used to generate lift.
For a Project Vanquish drone. A fully blown wing would be a major advantage, for landing on a STOVL carrier without arrestor wires etc. For example the F35B when conducting a shipborne rolling vertical landing (SRVL), approaches the ship at 57 knots. After touching down the F35B’s brakes stop the aircraft in 175ft. A drone using a cruise efficient short take-off and landing (CESTOL) wing that incorporates circulation control, should be able to land at roughly a similar speed, but also stop in a similar distance.
The downside to a fully blown wing, is the additional weight from the pipework and possible high pressure air generator (rather than a tap off from the engine). Along with the added mechanical valve control complexity. But some of this can be compensated for with using differential lift for flight controls. Which could make the aircraft more responsive at slower speeds. But can also reduce the aircraft’s radar cross section, as you’re not deploying the mechanical flight control surfaces as much during flight.
Five tyres, at the cost of some payload, could better that Bravo comparison.
is this drone a cunning way to get round the delays in integrating UK weapons onto F35? Put the weapons on the drone, then the F35 only needs to communicate target info to the drone. So you could for instance have an F35/ drone combo capable of firing Meteor and Spear. Just without the weapons needing to be carried by the F35