UK seeking strike and refuelling drone for aircraft carriers

Great news. Yet another project. Must be dozens of them by now. Not ordering anything obviously. Just talking about talking about talking about….yawn.

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.

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,

Serious head on !
Time to dust off the plans for the Saunders Roe SR.A/1.

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?

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.

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.

Sounds like something a harrier could’ve done or be convereted for.

£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.

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).

I see the “Drive by shooting” posts are back from posters who never comment, slagging off the Carriers.

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.

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.

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.

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