Carrier based ‘Vixen’ drones are being considered for a range of missions including combat, aerial refuelling and airborne early warning but what could they look like?
According to an official Royal Navy publication, titled Future Maritime Aviation Force, which was originally published in December 2020, the Royal Navy aims to replace its helicopter-based airborne early warning (AEW) platform, the Merlin HM2 Crowsnest, with a fixed-wing UAV, currently known as Vixen, by 2030.
This article is the opinion of the author and not necessarily that of the UK Defence Journal. If you would like to submit your own article on this topic or any other, please see our submission guidelines.
The Royal Navy also expects to utilise Vixen in surveillance, air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare and strike roles. A slide from the publication shows that Vixen could be used for airborne early warning, strike, aerial refuelling and more.
You can read more about the aerial surveillance side of things by clicking here and the aerial refuelling aspect by clicking here.
What will they look like?
Project Vixen also parallels the Mosquito project, part of the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative.
.@SpiritAero is delighted to be leading Phase 2 of Project Mosquito for UK Ministry of Defence @DefenceHQ – driving innovation through the development of sophisticated technologies and sustaining high-value engineering in Belfast. https://t.co/CbG0Rq1UtO
— Spirit AeroSystems (@SpiritAero) January 25, 2021
Naval Technology reported here that the Royal Navy and RAF are working together to study potential platforms for Mosquito and Vixen, suggesting that a common drone could be fielded fby both services.
We reported recently that the uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator for LANCA, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023.
Minister for Defence Procurement, Jeremy Quin, gave a keynote speech at the RUSI Combat Air Power conference outlining the plan.
“Our £30m contract to design and manufacture the prototype for an uncrewed fighter aircraft, known as Mosquito, is supporting more than 100 jobs in Belfast. In 2023 we will be looking to conduct a flight-test programme for the demonstrator.”
Known as a ‘loyal wingman’, these aircraft will be the first uncrewed platforms able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and intercept surface to air missiles.
“The uncrewed combat aircraft will be designed to fly at high-speed alongside fighter jets, armed with missiles, surveillance and electronic warfare technology to provide a battle-winning advantage over hostile forces. Known as a ‘loyal wingman’, these aircraft will be the UK’s first uncrewed platforms able to target and shoot down enemy aircraft and survive against surface to air missiles.”
Team MOSQUITO, which also includes Northrop Grumman UK, will mature the designs and manufacture a technology demonstrator to generate evidence for the LANCA programme.
If successful, Project Mosquito’s findings could lead to this revolutionary capability being deployed alongside the Typhoon and F-35 Lightning jets by the end of the decade.
“The Project will deliver a demonstration of a capability that the RAF may wish to develop further in the future,” a spokesperson from the RAF said.
“It is not intended to output an operational capability at this stage, but it will inform future decisions for the future UK combat air capability. We are exploring the optimum way in which such capabilities could complement platforms such as Typhoon, F-35, and Tempest.”
Most commentators believe that Vixen and Mosquito are likely to share a common platform.
How will the drones be launched?
Earlier, we reported that the Ministry of Defence is currently seeking information on the potential for industry provide assisted launch and arrested recover systems for a range of air vehicles, which would be suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 – 5 years.
The Ministry of Defence say that this request for information is to support the development of the Royal Navy’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (a presentation on which is where the slide above came from) with potential for use with both crewed and un-crewed air vehicles.
The Ministry of Defence add that it is looking to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.
While the Request for Information looks to assess the “availability of electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems to launch aircraft” from a ship, words associated with the previous effort to explore converting the vessels to ‘CATOBAR’ in order to launch carrier variant F-35Cs, it shouldn’t be taken as indication that the Royal Navy are abandoning the short take off and vertical landing F-35Bs and returning to catapult launched fighters. On the contrary, they’re looking to augment the F-35Bs.
In fact, the upper and lower weight limits of the catapult and recovery system outlined aren’t enough to launch or recover any variant of the F-35 in normal conditions.
The launch and recovery options mentioned would be utilised for larger uncrewed aircraft as the armed forces begin to rely on them more and more in place of crewed platforms.
Anyway, on to the Request for Information itself.
“Potential supplier and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.”
According to the Request for Information, the Ministry of Defence have set out the following requirements.
“Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21318Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation
Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24949Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.”
According to the Ministry of Defence, the intended outcomes of the Request for Information are as follows:
“a. Develop further MoD understanding of the different technologies and capabilities available in the market, both current and emerging.
b. Alignment of potential future MoD requirements with industry standards and processes for procurement of maritime un-crewed and autonomous capabilities; and,
c. Enable the Authority to develop a procurement strategy that will deliver best value for money for Defence.”
The Royal Navy say that the DEVELOP Directorate leads the development of the Royal Navy’s future warfighting capability and “acts as the platform for the through-life capability for all maritime capabilities in order to achieve the optimum mix of present and future warfighting technologies for a modern, global and ready Royal Navy”.
The Royal Navy is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles and to “give wider options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet”.
George, you might want to create an “Opinion” section on the home page, otherwise many may miss seeing these articles. I only knew these were posted because I saw the Crawford opinion piece on leasing Leopards in the popular posts section. You might also include such topics in the relevant Land, Sea and Air sections, so there are multiple paths for readers to find their way to an article, de[ending on how they use the site.
Yes. How come this does not readily appear on the headline list of comments when it’s dated yesterday. I saw it via a link at the front of my Google screen.
The concept behind the story is of course excellent.
Agree. This part of site is often the most informative. Especially about subjects that wouldn’t make headlines anywhere but actually really matter.
Those are incredibly short timescales for such an ambitious range of capabilities. Certainly with regard to the AEW function, now that Merlin has out of service extended to 2040 we are likely to see Crowsnest carrying on well beyond 2030.
Crowsnest may be delayed as you say, the extended OSD gives more wriggle room, but that’s certainly not the RN’s ambition. The text that went alongside the slide graphic in the article above states that by 2030 –
“We will have rejuvenated the Merlin fleet, to synchronise with replacement capabilities, transferring PWAS/AEW/Data Node to VIXEN and ASW FIND to medium RWUAS (PROTEUS).”
It then goes onto to say –
“In 2030, medium organic UAS will deliver most FIND in the Littoral and Maritime, teamed with crewed air for FIX/STRIKE, and complemented by Maritime Protector. ASW Merlin will regain mass with the transfer of AEW capability to an alternate platform. Together with enhanced FW in the Carrier Air Wing, Maritime Aviation will be reconstituted to match evolving peer threats.”
They may be dithering, initially at the defence review they were talking about acquiring an off the shelf helicopter replacement with an in service date before the 2030 target withdrawal of Merlin but they are now looking at the two parallel medium lift helicopter development programs which are spinning up (a NATO/EU one and rival US one) which would develop a completely new optionally manned medium lift helicopter for introduction 2030-2040 and considering industrial participation.
I don’t recall a Merlin replacement being discussed in the IR? Puma was for sure.
The Defence and Security Industrial Strategy document stated –
“To maintain this capability cost-effectively we aim to consolidate our fleet, initially through procuring a new Medium Helicopter by the middle of the decade to replace the Puma and in due course three other helicopter types. We anticipate that our other main helicopter platforms (Merlin, Wildcat, Chinook and latest Apache) will remain in-service until next generation technologies and unmanned systems start to augment or replace these more conventional systems.”
As the text above suggests, I suspect the Merlin OSD extension has been planned for some time. In July 2020 the UK signed an agreement with the US expressing interest in the Future Vertical Lift (FVL) FARA and FLRAA programs. Subsequently the UK has expressed interest in the European medium helicopter project. None of those would deliver before 2030, although FLRAA would be closest to that date if it holds to schedule, since both candidates are already flying demonstrators.
What a Merlin replacement will need to do by the time it comes into service may be less clear. For example the HM2 role may be performed by a UAS for dipping sonar and torpedo delivery. But the HC4 and any new army requirement may need something more like V-280 Valor or SB-1 Defiant.
The UK is currently leading the European project while it’s in the requirements definition phase. So a bit more than “expressing interest”
Thanks, I stand corrected as I see we’ve signed an LOI. Not sure how that didn’t register, must have confused it with the French/German MBT initiative … unless I’ve got that wrong too.
what will replace the merlins ASW role?
The ASW and AEW roll will probably be carried out by Vixen or a similar type of UCAV. operating from Carriers.
But Merlins or a similar type of helicopter will still be needed for troop deployment and logistics support.
to me rotary always seemed better then fixed wing for asw. so which is actually better at the job?
Rotary drones is another option and could fulfil many tasks operating from carriers or other suitable ships , but i not sure it any have been considered
The helicopter that will emerge from the current European cross country project will replace Merlin ASW.
Who is involved in the current European cross country project.
France, Italy, Germany, Greece and UK
https://www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/2020/11/pdf/201111-ngrc.pdf
I wouldn’t be so sure here. Crows Nest is a bit of a ‘relatively’ safe Stopgap, a sensible solution to an immediate problem Patrick.
I’m sure a far more capable AEW/ electronic attack and jamming UCAV will be aloft onboard a QE Class Carrier 10-15 years from now.
There’s going to be consideble investment in this area pushing forward (already is behind the scenes), all part of the wider project Tempest technology drive.
I would expect a joint common airframe for the RAF / RN, it makes sense to have a large single fleet, deployed as needed.
A fully marinised and capable UCAV would work very well alongside our P7 fleet as a force multiplayer too.
If we get this right, it will have a transformative effect on our abilities.
The only problem is that they recently released that they did not plan to develop a Tempest variant for Carriers .
Morning Nic, by Tempest, I mean the technology that’s being developed around it, materials, 3d printing, advanced avionics etc.
Vixen / Mosquito is all part of this development drive and will directly draw on this development work.
A single and capable UCAV type is the way to go.
I have reservations regarding the mission set that’s being planned for the type.
It does suggest a highly capable type with advanced integrated avionics.
A good payload, ROA and the Air to Air capability (in particular), suggest a UCAV, far from cheap!
Air to Air suggests complex avionics, with capable excess thrust propulsion and airframe manoeuvrability.
That alone will come with quite the price tag.
I wouldn’t be surprised to see AtA quietly dropped from the mission set early on ( reduced to self defense perhaps) to keep the costs under control.
Hi John. I suspect Air-to-Air probably won’t focus on high manoeuvrability, even for the manned Tempest platform. The combination of engagements occurring at ever increasing BVR, along with missiles capable of 50g+ manoeuvres and off boresight over-the-shoulder targeting, all of which already exist, means there won’t be much if any ROI for including high manoeuvrability.
The UK ambition for unmanned systems is in sharp contrast to the USA. Apart from the MQ25 tanker programme, there appear to be no other plans in the latest service budget bids. The Defense News site has an article on the subject.
Sorry. The article is on Breaking Defense.
I would think they are all hidden in the black budget. RQ180 just one example.
Possibly, though the funding for the USN drone programmes was made public in previous rounds of bids.UK seems to be more committed to unmanned development than the US.
The main aim is to create low cost force multipliers. I can see how that might be achievable for a land based loyal wingman. I don’t see how a low cost option can be delivered to the aircraft carriers given the need to retrofit cats and traps.
I think it also has to be added that what we are trying to achieve as a demonstrator is only what the various US companies in particular Northrop Grumman already sit on, indeed probably lower in general to what they have achieved already. From what I understand there are Army, Airforce and Navy projects ongoing in some form or other on formulating their next stage beyond the present Navy MQ25 (with limited strike) project. Experience with the latter will no doubt feed into their decisions as to where to go next I think and exactly what capabilities to build into the various options. I think the various technologies are still being worked on be it by the companies or/and through a range of support funding that isn’t as yet tied to a specific airframe which one presumes is ultimately dictated by the former and already exist in various forms as demonstration vehicles going back twenty odd years. We on the other hand are pretty much starting much of this from scratch while mo doubt where possible (thus the ND links) plugging into what those programs have already achieved and admittedly aspects from our own less specific demonstrator technology drone vehicles
So I am sure in the period it takes us to catch up to where they are now (relatively speaking) we will see more about where the US are planning to go themselves.
You make a lot of good points. I have tried to dig out information on why the USN reduced the scope of their UCAV programme but without much success. One comment was that concentrating on an air tanker would be the most effective force multiplier, removing the need to use a third of the F18 fleet on buddy refuelling. It is not clear whether technical difficulties contributed to this decision.
The UK has the added problem and expense of needing to develop and retrofit a fairly powerful EMALS system. Within the constraints of current funding, I doubt this is achievable.
STOVL was the only realistic option for the UK to develop a 2 carrier fleet. Despite the delays and current high costs of the F35, I think we made the right choice. If the tanker and AEW roles could be delivered by a tilt rotor, we might achieve much of the aim at lower cost and risk.
Of course,without cats and traps, the plan for a combat UCAV looks impossible.
Current UCAVS generally have low power and unstressed airframes. They are expensive to buy but cheap to operate. Whether or not fully stealthy, a loyal wingman UCAV, capable of operating alongside supersonic manned aircraft, will need a far more powerful engine and a highly stressed airframe. It’s operating costs will probably be more like those of its manned counterpart.
Yet the RAF project is to be lightweight and affordable. I remain very sceptical.
Understanding the requirements and what can be realistically delivered, will be key to seeing if the LANCA (Mosquito/Vixen) program produces a usable product or remains a pipe dream. So what are the roles and requirements that the unmanned air systems (UAS) are expected to deliver:
1. Loyal Wingman – a UAS that supports a Typhoon/F35B in air superiority and strike roles.
2. Airborne early warning (AEW) – using a short to medium range radar to expand the radar horizon.
3. Airborne Tanker – a critical asset that can extend the reach and duration of manned/unmanned aircraft.
1. What is a Loyal Wingman aircraft expected to do? Will it be purely be an expendable asset that roams in front of the manned aircraft to search out threats and act as a threat countermeasure, clearing the way for the manned aircraft? Will it act as a simple “bomb truck” increasing the available payload that a manned aircraft can deploy? Will it act in concert with the manned aircraft, detecting threats and acting on decisions based on its artificial intelligence where the manned aircraft makes the Go/No Go decision?
There is an old adage of “Keep It Simple Stupid”. However, the MoD and its various branches often forget this (did I say Ajax). Initially, it would better to build an airframe that has a simple job of flying in concert with a manned aircraft, acting as a bomb truck and perhaps a protective countermeasure. Then as the AI technology matures, expand it roles and capabilities. The airframe is the simple bit, the AI is not!
Will the UAS need to be able to match the speed and range of the manned fighter? In most respects yes, but if we look at the QRA role in particular, undertaken currently by the Typhoon, there is a fair amount of time the aircraft goes supersonic (over the sea) to get to the intercept point quickly. If the UAS is required to go supersonic at Mach 2+, this will push up the costs significantly. In a strike role the majority, if not all of the flight, is flown at high subsonic speeds. Boeing and the RAAF are being very tight lipped regarding the performance of their Loyal Wingman aircraft, although they have said it has a range over 2000nm. For instance, there are no direct images of the intakes without the blanks fitted. This would be an indicator of its performance. If it has a diverter-less intakes, then its likely it can go supersonic, probably Mach 1.2+.
This will be the quandary the MoD will face. Do they go with the baby step strike version first, then look at an air defence variant later, or will they try to go all in? As a variant that can keep up with a Typhoon will be a lot more expensive. From past experience, I think I know which route they will chose.
2. Airborne Early Warning (AEW) is a fundamental requirement for both the defence of the UK and any Naval fleet/vessel we deploy. The ability to see beyond the fixed horizon that plagues all ground based radar (over the horizon radars notwithstanding) is a physical problem that “enemies” have exploited since the advent of radar, cruise missiles being a prime example. By placing a radar in an aircraft flying orbits at 30,000ft, extends the radar horizon significantly. For example an average target flying at 50ft above mean sea level (AMSL) will be detected at 394km (213nm) compared to 28km (15nm) for a ground based radar that is 50ft AMSL. At 45,000ft the radar detection range increases to 483km (261nm)(although flat Earthers may deny this!).
Fundamentally, an unmanned AEW aircraft that can carry a radar which can detect a target at 394km or 483km will need certain inescapable factors. The radar operating frequency will dictate the antenna size which will then dictate the placement on the aircraft and thereby the aircraft’s size. Also the electrical power requirements will probably necessitate a hefty jet engine that can power a decent sized generator or two. 400km (216nm) is about the published limit of most X-band (8 to 12GHz) radars that can be fitted to a fighter sized aircraft. You can generate more range, but you will need to ramp up the amplifier power and electrical supply significantly, cooling will then become an issue. 400km is about the maximum effective range from ground level and rises up as an inward leaning arc, a lot will depend on the receiver’s sensitivity, ability to filter very small targets from clutter and its overall signal processing capability.
A lower frequency radar such as S-band (2 to 4GHz), will necessitate a larger radar antenna, thus needing a larger aircraft to carry it. It does have a much more efficient electrical power to effective detection range ratio, so will “see” much further on comparable electrical power and transmitted power than a X-band radar. But due to the longer wavelength the radar uses, it will have a worse target resolution and is more effected by surface clutter. As the frequency increases so does the relative target resolution. However, this can be mitigated by lower frequency radar to a certain extent by increasing the signal processing. This will therefore mean the aircraft will be transmitting huge chunks of data. So a very large bandwidth data-link will be required, especially if the majority of the signal processing is to be done on the ship.
There are a number of commercial off the shelf radars, that would meet the Navy’s requirements. One of these is Leonardo’s Osprey 50 radar. It operates in the X-band and is a newer digital active electronically scanned array radar. The AESA units have what Leonardo call a low size, weight and power (SWaP) requirement. The Italian Navy are looking to equip all their EH101s with 3 units each, which will give a 360 degree view. This is to specifically upgrade their maritime surface search. But also to replace their AEW EH101s, equipped with the HEW-784 radar, which has had nothing but problems.
3. Airborne Tanker – The Boeing MQ-25 Stingray is based on the fallout from the unmanned strike program the US Navy cancelled. The airframe has a low radar cross section, which has been simplified (cost reduction) by being built using “normal” materials rather than embedded radar absorbent materials (ERAM). It is a different aircraft to the proposed strike aircraft (X-47) that was the unmanned carrier-launched airborne surveillance and strike (UCLASS) project. Why was the unmanned strike program cancelled? I think it was a case of learning to walk before you can run. The aircraft was going to be used as a strike aircraft operating in and around dense air defence systems. It was going to need a great deal of autonomy. It was this that that the US Navy believed was too immature. The X-47 did however prove that large fighter sized unmanned aircraft could operate to and from a carrier.
The Boeing MQ-25 Stingray is a stepping stone in developing unmanned carrier aircraft. Using it as a tanker aircraft is an obvious choice. As the aircraft will be spending the majority of its flight conducting circuits around way points. Therefore, the autonomy that it requires is relatively basic. It also means a number of F18s are freed up from doing buddy refuels and that the backup plan of reactivating the S3 Vikings as tankers is not needed, along with the associated crews and maintenance, that would take up more space on the carrier.
Our fledgling F35B carrier strike requires airborne tanker support, but also better AEW. The Crowsnest is OK, but it is not brilliant, being installed on a helicopter restricts the Searchwater’s radar horizon, it could see further if it flew higher. Plus, the front end of the radar is pretty old and dated now even if the back end has been updated. A fixed wing or tilt-rotor aircraft can operate at a higher altitude, thus extending the radar horizon. However, a Merlin can operate from the back of a Frigate or Destroyer, which opens up more operational flexibility. The Merlin is in no way capable of refuelling a F35B in the air, as it simply can’t fly fast enough. Again a fixed wing or tilt-rotor aircraft is needed to allow the F35B to cruise at an efficient speed (250kts+) whilst taking on fuel.
The QE class are currently limited to operating short/vertical take-off and vertical landing aircraft. Which means a tilt-rotor such as the V22 Osprey may be a good bet, as it can do airborne refuelling and could be fitted with a 360 view radar, such as Leonardo’s Osprey. However, the MODs recent RFI opens up new possibilities. The maximum catapult and arrested landing weights are in the ballpark of the MQ-25 Stingray. If the US Navy (who are desperate to get the aircraft in production) prove that the UAS can operate safely from a carrier, should we look at getting the aircraft? I think it all depends on how our own Lanca program develops.
There have only been computer generated images of a single proposed design, which is comparable in size to a BAe Hawk. If this is the case, it will be somewhat smaller than the Stingray, which is nearly the same size as an F18. Therefore, it may not be able hold a useful fuel load for tanking. The stated role of Lanca (Mosquito) does not include aerial tanking, rather it is a loyal wingman aircraft, that does strike missions and can help defend the parent aircraft. Therefore, if Vixen and Mosquito are one and the same, the Navy will need a different UAS for the AEW and tanker role. From what has been stated by the Navy, I would like to believe Vixen is a different and larger aircraft, as they have included a aerial tanker role. But so far the only imagery released is the official “Lanca” image. If its not, then the Stingray would be a better alternative as a tanker and AEW aircraft.
“For example an average target flying at 50ft above mean sea level (AMSL)
will be detected at 394km (213nm) compared to 28km (15nm) for a ground
based radar that is 50ft AMSL”
Not quite correct. The radar horizon from 30k feet is 394km but as your target is flying at 50 feet, it can been seen from a further distance i.e. 410km.
Similarly, the ground station at 50 feet can see the target at 32km.
BTW, “bomb truck” ?? The RAF left that notion behind eons ago.
Nice, I like debate. Like I said an average target and in an ideal world. If you want to get specific on effective radar detection range using real world experience, the target’s detection range will depend upon the RCS of the target, the radar’s operating frequency, effective radiated power, antenna gain, receiver sensitivity, type of and number of noise filters used to remove background clutter, the type and size of the computer used to analyze the signal data, not forgetting the memory it has available. Then there’s atmospherics to consider between the target and receiver. Not to mention the latitude of the target relative to the equator, as the Earth is not a perfect sphere. Once all those are factored in, the radar’s ability to detect an average sized target will be a hell of lot less than the ideal theoretical slant range from the radar to the target, irrespective of what google says.
The RAF statement of intent for Mosquito clearly states that it will be operating under the command of a manned aircraft. It will employ kinetic and non-kinetic effectors to achieve mission success. From that you can deduce that the Mosquito will be carrying weapons, either air to air or air to ground. So if the aircraft is under the control from a manned aircraft is it not a “bomb truck”? As it is carrying additional weapons for the manned aircraft? A tomato is still a tomato no matter where you’re from.
No debate. Just correcting a basic mistake in your post. Which still remains a mistake despite all your rigmarole about RCS etc.
As for “bomb truck”. That term is usually reserved for aircraft that “trucked” as many dumb bombs as possible over the target before “dumping” them out. Has zero to do with the platform being manned or otherwise.
Nice outline of options.
As a precursor to my thoughts, its perhaps worth observing that we are tending to think in terms of one airframe when perhaps the barriers to supporting two may be significantly lower than would have been the case in the past. The major manufacturing and support costs are likely to be in the common-to-all-platforms avionics, sensors, engine and software, especially if we are successful implementing highly automated assembly and leveraging additive manufacturing.
I have a hard time seeing Mosquito/Vixen as a supersonic solution, let alone Mach 2+ capable. If we want that in an unmanned platform then the optionally manned Tempest variant seems to be the solution. Or in a hot war we maintain domestic air patrols with high sub-sonic/low supersonic capable Mosquito/Vixen, which we might be deploying anyway in the AEW role, if implemented in the same platform. That would remove the QRA fast deployment speed requirement, just leaving whether we think we will be needing to chase down Russia’s supersonic bombers, versus firing Meteor at them. Or sending up a manned Tempest aircraft for peacetime QRA escort or wartime intercept. In any event, as you say, the gating item of AI software development for an autonomous armed Mosquito/Vixen capable of taking its own decisions is a long way off. Firing on command from another manned platform as a loyal wingman bomb/missile truck is possible much earlier, so a high sub-sonic/low supersonic capable strike platform UAS seems more practical. LANCA is also supposed to be a lightweight affordable platform after all.
Large body jets for AEW and forward tanking for strike aircraft are coming under increasing threat, whether we deploy fighters from ship or land. So a low observable platform form factor similar to MQ-25 or Taranis seems an appropriate fit. With a good sized weapons bay it would also be a good fit for loyal wingman roles, although that’s clearly not what is being illustrated to date for Mosquito/Vixen. It would also seem to run counter to the LANCA lightweight affordable platform requirements. MQ-25 would avoid the development cost and risk but it isn’t cheap.
The elephant in the room is whether the RN can get an affordable cats and traps solution for our unmanned platforms. Affordable as in acquisition as well as time and cost to fit and integrate to the carriers. If that turns out not to be the case, then perhaps we will need to consider solutions similar to Samad Aerospace’s E-Starling and/or Starling Jet as unmanned VTOL platforms. However, both these examples are targeted to operate at far slower than Mach 1 speed, which wouldn’t matter for AAR and AEW but probably would for a strike role. V-22 seems like an expensive legacy solution with implementation risk for AEW, so it seems to make more sense to take that risk on a forward looking new solution.
https://www.samadaerospace.com/timeline-2/
The primary advantage of a wingman is his or her additional set of eyes and sensors. Similarly the main aim of Vixen & Mosquito is to provide addition sensors & sensor range to the prime. Any other wingman capability is very much secondary.
Personally, I think that, despite the RAF/RN’s slides, the eventual product of the Vixen/Mosquito programs will not be of much use of air tanking because it will have to be small to be a) affordable and b) capable of carrier launch.
Not sure I have much faith in its AEW role either. Unmanned AEW has a bunch of hard/expensive challenges to solve.
I agree. The 3 roles- combat, AEW and refuel- suggest very different airframe designs. For AEW, range, altitude and time on station imply a large wing, fuel efficient low power engines. Refuel would need to be fairly large to carry a meaningful load. Combat would need to be at least high subsonic, maneouverable and stealthy.
It isn’t clear what the priority is. For the USN, operating in the Pacific, extending range is seen as crucial. Is it for the RN? Helicopter borne AEW is not ideal but is replacing it a necessity? At present, and for the next few years at least, we will be very low on combat aircraft numbers. Eking these out with UCAVS seems to be the most pressing need. But even if the aircraft can be developed affordably, can the already stretched budget also absorb the cost of converting the carriers?
Excellent comment
Perhaps what makes replacing Crowsnest more of a priority is less about the capability of helicopter AEW and more about freeing up Merlin platforms for ASW. This might also reduce flight hours across the Merlin fleet, so they last until replaced by a new platform that ideally happens 2035-40. But a new Euro helicopter project could be delayed based on past project track record, providing further incentive to take Merlin out of the AEW role earlier rather than later.
Good thought. Makes a lot of sense.
We could certainly do with more ASW capability and you’re right that Crowsnest takes away Merlin from that essential role.
The problem is really that anything other than a rotary wing replacement will require cats and traps. The equipment budget is stretched to the limit. So even if a lightweight affordable UCAV can be delivered, the costs of adapting the carriers to operate it might be unaffordable.
Of course, a STOVL drone could solve the problem!
I think you captured it all there. It seems to me the RN is at a pivotal point, which might explain the relatively tight timeline in the RFI, i.e. they need to know a solution is real and not some PowerPoint project. If cats and traps are affordable then fixed wing Vixen (Strike/AEW) and AAR are options; if not then its STOVL platforms, with a challenge to meet probable requirements for Vixen, since AEW and AAR wouldn’t drive the same performance requirements IMO. Samad Aerospace e-Starling and Starling Jet concepts are my placeholders for the type of platform that would be needed for a STOVL Vixen albeit with higher performance.
I hadn’t realised when I commented above how seriously the USMC is looking at an unmanned platform to operate from their assault carriers. Their priority seems to be AEW, currently provided from USN carriers. With their own AEW they could operate more independently. The favourite design seems to be a tilt rotor with 300knot speed. Air to air and air to ground capabilities are also in the mix.
This wouldn’t deliver the loyal wingman role.
But we might face a choice between EMALS retrofit plus new UCAV or a further purchase of F35. I would favour the latter- less risky and doesn’t complicate the deck operations. The RAF really only needs a force multiplier for the combat air fleet. So it’s hard to see how a single platform will deliver both services needs.
Interesting times!
Just to observe that if the USMC project you are referencing is MUX, which was potentially looking to use the V-247 Vigilant, at least from Bell’s perspective, then that USMC program seems to have crashed and burned. The USMC may still have an organic AEW interest for their assault carriers and/or San Antonio-class but I don’t recall seeing any solutions and/or programs proposed since.
That’s correct the USMC/Navy wanted to make a multi-role platform using just one airframe. This proved undoable, hence why it got canned. The Bell V247 Vigilant was originally designed for beachhead close air support. However, when the US Navy were looking at using the America class as Lightning carriers, the trial they did in the South China Sea 2019 proved that the ship must have organic AEW. The US Navy provided a couple of E2Cs flying out of the Philippines as AEW support, but the transit times significantly shortened their time on station. But also bad weather in the Philippines also prevented them from tasking.
Following the trial Bell started to produce slides and info on using the V247 as an AEW and ISTAR platform. This did gather strength, but then the USMC/Navy cancelled the program as it was getting too complex and costly. They haven’t cancelled the idea, instead breaking the one size fits all into a number of unmanned aircraft programs. The USMC Commandant has also recently commented on the MQ-25 Stingray. Where he was talking about a spin-off program of using it from their amphibious assault ships. However, that would require some form of catapult assistance and arrested recovery being fitted to the ships.
I don’t think that cats and traps which anMQ Stingray type would require are an option for the America class. The MUX termination seems to have been made because of a combination of concerns about range and the power required forAEW plus the likely cost. What they’re left with is reliance for the high end mission on a land based aircraft and some smaller platform that can operate from the assault carriers.
Given how long the USMC and USN have spent looking at unmanned options, it doesn’t suggest the UKs project is going to be easy.
I must admit I don’t fully understand why, if UK can have enough power in a Merlin to operate AEW, a larger, more powerful tilt rotor couldn’t deliver more.
A couple of US defense sites have suggested the termination was a mistake.
I wonder if the traditional definition of the wingman role holds up for the unmanned Vixen/Mosquito platforms though? It seems that if the UAS is anywhere close to the manned platform then the latter’s sensors would see whatever the loyal wingman UAS sensors do? If the aircraft are separated by a significant distance then of course that might no longer be the case. So it probably depends on what we define the “loyal wingman” role as in CONOPS and perhaps we shouldn’t focus on/read too much into the “loyal wingman” label.
I agree that combining Strike, AEW and AAR into a single platform would compromise one or other of the roles. Strike and AEW (as illustrated for Vixen) or AEW and AAR might allow a two platform solution, which is what prompted my initial observation about how this might still be affordable. Vixen shown as Strike and AEW seems to be the direction we’re going, with AAR as a separate platform.
AEW is an interesting topic. There’s a world of difference between an X-band Crowsnest radar and an E-2D UHF radar, so it will be interesting to see what the RN plan to implement. My guess is they’ll stick with X-band, given Leonardo Scotland’s world leading expertise in X-band aviation surveillance radar.
I’m thinking the Vixen/Mosquito would be quite some distance away to extend sensor range, given the excellent sensors on both the F-35 and Typhoon. Even more in the future with the Typhoons new radar.
If the loyal wingman requirement needs to compliment the F35 and Typhoon as you say by being an additional sensor platform, then you don’t want to fit it with something basic, that would be too easy to detect. But then if you are looking at installing a low probability of intercept (LPI) radar then the costs will start ramping up. Conversely, if you fit it with just a couple of infrared search and track sensors (IRST), then the F35/Typhoon will still be doing all the long range searching. The RAF have stated that the Mosquito will be a cheap and easily replaceable asset, but I can pretty much guarantee that the end product will be expensive, as they will inevitably loose control by adding more functionality requirements to it.
Great article George:
So it looks llke in the short term on FAA front (before 2030)
Beyond 2030
.
Good grief, not sure what to admire most: your imagination or your optimism 😀
Not really James’ imagination as all of that comes from the RN slide in the article. Granted, whether the RN can get it all by 2030 is another matter though.
Leonardo Yeovil are developing a 3 tonne UAS prototype/demonstrator at their cost, not just re-purposing an existing manned helicopter platform. So a Fire Scout level platform may be available for the RN, whether they buy it is another matter. Although looking at what they want Proteus to do, i.e. deploy sonarbouys and surface surveillance to augment Wildcat, it seems they’ll want/need a platform of this size.
I would think the EMALS would be installed on the starboard side of the CVF bow, next to the ski ramp. If that was the case it may limit the max wingspan of the drone (the MQ25 has quite a large wingspan) but would not interfere with F35b ops. For recovery one could put arrester wires on the current runway as one does not need an angled deck on such a wide flight deck.
I dont think they will be able to launch and recover the vixen any other way unless they install the EMALS on the main flight deck and use the ski jump.
Problem there, I think, would be if the EMALS goes wrong, the main runway would be blocked for the F-35’s.
Port side of the ski jump surely? i.e. waist
Is that area not normally used for storage of on deck vehicles and equipment. and aircraft at times.
You’re thinking of the “graveyard” which is to the starboard of the ramp. I’m thinking further aft on the other side in front of the helicopter landing/parking spots where waist cats usually live.
I think the carriers will be the ship that will be able to accommodate the Vixen , Because they will require space for storage of the vixen ,spare parts ,additional fuel ,armaments and handling crews/ maintenance crew.
Totally agree.