At the Farnborough Airshow this week, GA-ASI unveiled its GAMBIT 5 catapult-launched Uncrewed Combat Air Vehicle concept for aircraft carriers. Here we look briefly at the idea and its potential for use by the Royal Navy.
Background
As part of its Maritime Aviation Transformation effort, the RN is exploring various options for autonomous rotary and fixed-wing vehicles to equip the QEC carriers in the future.
The VIXEN fixed-wing UAS concept was first revealed by the RN in 2021, with a requirement for two 500kg modular payloads that would entail an air vehicle needing a catapult launch and arrested recovery from the carriers. It would be multi-role and could potentially support persistent wide-area surveillance, Electronic Warfare and ultimately armed strike missions. Initially, it was thought the VIXEN could be a derivative of the Mosquito UAS being developed by the RAF under the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) project but this had hardly begun before it was cancelled in June 2022.
Subsequent RN presentations have shown the MQ-28 Ghost Bat UAS, with an arrestor hook as a placeholder for VIXEN. Ghost Bat is being developed by Boeing for the Australian Airforce and is envisaged as a ‘loyal wingman’ for land-based strike/fighter aircraft. It is not beyond the realms of possibility that it could be adapted for carrier operations and such a project dovetail well with future AUKUS defence cooperation. It should be noted that VIXEN was absent from more recent briefings about the RN’s plans for carrier aviation development but remains an aspiration for the 2030s. The Gambit 5 UCAV proposed by GA-ASI could be a better solution for VIXEN, being cheaper and more versatile than Ghost Bat.
General Atomics Electromagnetic Systems division has developed the EMALS for the US Ford-class carriers and has been exploring how both electromagnetic launch and recovery mechanisms can be adapted for smaller vessels. EMLAS is an inherently scaleable technology and could be downsized for lighter UAS with reduced impact on the operation of conventional aircraft on a carrier. GA-ASI recently supported the trial of a Mojave RPAS on board HMS Prince of Wales. The Mojave is a rugged vehicle derived from the MQ-1C Gray Eagle, successfully landed and took off without catapults or arrestor gear.
Designed for slow-speed operation at medium altitude, the Mojave is very different to Gambit 5 which is jet-propelled, much faster, more nimble and potentially able to carry air-air weapons. This would allow Gambit to add mass to the carrier air group, act as a loyal wingman with F-35Bs or conduct its own offensive missions.
-
Mock-up showing QEC carrier with a mixed air group of the GSI MQ-9B UAS fitted with a short takeoff and landing (STOL) kit, Gambit 5 UCAVs and an F-35 (C variant shown in error). The RAF is taking delivery of a land-based RPAS, the GA-ASI MQ-9B called Protector RG Mk1 in UK service. GA has also developed the SeaGuardian derivative of the MQ-9B, a marinised version optimised for ASW and ISR tasks. There is an aspiration for the UK to acquire a carrier-based ‘Maritime Protector’. -
The 4 original Gabit UCAV variants. -
The Gambit series share a common fuselage core housing the engine and landing gear. -
Gambit 2.
Gambit
The Gambit UCAV concept is a family of five air vehicles that can perform different roles. They are based on a common core chassis which shares landing gear, baseline avionics and other essential functions. This core accounts for about 70% of the cost of each variant, providing an economy of scale, increased interoperability and reduced development time for each version.
Gambit 1 is a basic ISR platform, while Gambit 2 is a similar design but trades some of its endurance for air-to-air weapons. Gambit 3 is a representative target vehicle designed to provide a sophisticated adversary to train aircrew in combating UAS. Gambit 4 is a stealthy ISR platform designed to get very close to hostile forces without detection. Gambit 5 is based on Gambit 2 but with toughened landing gear and marinisation designed for carrier operations. This would inevitably entail some modifications to the core platform.
It should be noted that Gambit is not yet a programme of record in the US or elsewhere but is a contender in the UASF Collaborative Combat Aircraft (CCA) competition. Gambit is based on GA’s XQ-67A which first flew in February 2024 and will form the basis of the USAF Off-Board Sensing Station (OBSS) program. Range, speed and payload are not publicly available and significant development work would still be needed to make this a reality for the RN. The Gambit 5 concept on show at Farnborough is primarily a conversation starter for carrier-based operations with jet-powered UCAVs, recognising there is a gap in the market for mid-size affordable solutions.
GA-ASI can justifiably claim to be a world leader in uncrewed aircraft with many years of development experience and around 7.5 million flight hours accrued by its UAS products worldwide, mostly on combat operations. Allied with its EMALS experience and Protector already in UK service, GA is in pole position to provide UAS solutions for the QEC carriers. Whether there will be funding available to adapt HMS Prince of Wales and purchase a fixed-wing UAS for the RN will be a matter of priorities and a decision for the upcoming defence review.
Instead of spending a billion on ripping up the decks of the carriers and then a billion adding some drones, what we really need is more F35s and more Merlins.
The carriers are incredible, but every time one sails without aircraft, they become magnets for criticism from media and other commentators who really have no clue how incredible it is that Britain is one of just a few nations properly in the fixed wing naval aviation game.
Ok, so we instead we spend £1bn and get…about 10 more Lightnings and no other option for the future. In comparison, the average unit cost of an MQ-9 is less than £30m, possibly getting us 3 full squadrons of drones for the same money (hypothetically).
I’m certainly not saying buying more Lightnings is a bad idea, but the whole reason this is a discussion is because the RN is facing the reality that getting enough manned fighters to fully equip the carriers is unaffordable without a budget increase that isn’t likely to happen.
MQ9 is a useful addition, not an alternative to F35
The issue is we have no idea of whether these drones will work and tactics haven’t been worked through. It would make sense for the RAF to do that.
And yes, let’s say it’s £2bn for the changes to the carriers and the drones themselves including training, trials etc. that could buy us another 12 F35s – sounds not many but would be an increase of our current strength of 25% and would enable a third squadron to be stood up, and 20 Merlin’s, a close to 50% increase in our fleet. These are meaningful increases in numbers for proven and world class capabilities.
I would be inclined to wait and see how the F-35 programme pans out in the future with TR-3, BLK4, and the engines upgrades required before placing any further orders.
Just announced at FARNBOROUGH 2024
A full size Emals such as used on USS Ford is 91 m long , the scaled down type being talked about here is 35 m
The single EMALs the French have brought was $1.3bn. Even if each one is half that, for both ships it’s $1.3bn. So £1bn. Then fitting the things, another £300m, then the (unproven drones we have no tactical experience with) on top…
G agree, wait, before ripping deck for EMALs. suggest carriers can sail with minimum F35bs and surge when needed. drones will offer cheap & long endurance air cover saving F35b flying time and maintenance.
I don’t see why the RN couldn’t, at minimum, embark surveillance and air to air refueling drones while working to mature the actual combat capabilities for UAV’s.
It’s good to investigate and keep on top of the market.
BUT
It’s unlikely the MoD will have the budget for significant expenditure in this area till we’ll into the 2030’s.
What money the MoD does have will likely need to go into a combination of anti drone, ammunition so keep the mil in the fight for more than a couple of months and pay/housing to get/keep the people needed. This group of actions will be hard to achieve in a world where MoD expenditure only very slowly grows towards 2.5% GDP.
Cool concept and a fun talking point. EMALS are expensive I think we’ve got more pressing things to spend our limited money on. The Mojave loomsto be the best choice of carrier drone to get us started from my limited viewpoint.
If a small EMALS and arrestor gear are going to be fitted to the QE class then priority should be given to developing a UCAV based AWACS capability that can fly higher, faster and further than Merlin based Crowsnest. This would dramatically improve the radar horizon of the Carrier Strike Group. Most other roles can be carried out by F-35’s although they are absolutely crying out for stand off air to ground weaponry. I’m not sure if it might be possible to procure and integrate something like the Joint Strike Missile (it would have to be carried externally) ahead of the block 4 upgrade which unfortunately appears to be several years away?
I would have thought the MQ-9B, which is also in the pictures above, would be the candidate for that role.
Probably preferable to a jet for that long endurance role.
The two questions for me are:
Does MQ-9B with STOL fit produce sufficient power to run a good enough radar set to be useful?
Normally, there’s a level of data processing and analysis carried out on AWACS aircraft (E-3, E-7, Hawkeye, Merlin) prior to / in parallel with sending the data back to the carrier; this won’t be possible for an unmanned system. Do our data links have the robustness and bandwidth to send all of that data back raw, or are we happy that automated processing is good enough for some of it to happen on board the drone?
I’d like to think that there are positive answers to both, but both need answering.
Isn’t the whole idea for the drone to launch the missile and have it guided by the sensors on the much closer F-35 in full stealth mode?
Sorry, we may be at cross purposes here?
I was thinking specifically of an AEW/AWACs replacement for merlin with Crowsnest; what you suggest is pretty much exactly what I’d be looking for in a Loyal wingman / strike drone, but I see those as two roles (potentially the same core airframe though).
Personally, I get that the F-35 has amazing sensor fusion, etc. But you don’t want your combat airframes constantly up running some hybrid AEW/CAP mission all the time- they don’t have the endurance for it in the same way that Hawkeye or an AEW drone does. You’d be recovering them to deck and turning them around all the time, putting a lot of hours and landings on the airframe. Better let a cheaper drone do that.
If Merlin could carry and power 2 x AN/APG-81 with the proposed Vigilance AEW fit for Crowsnest then I suspect Protector could. If it needed an additional power boost you could fit a small turbine in a pod to provide the additional power necessary (suspect a Ram air turbine would give too much drag).
Merlin has 3 x 1500kW turbines while Protector has a single 675 kW engine. Those are max output which is only used for short periods.
But no theres no comparison, and wont use a ram air turbine – check out what sensor pods I mention below they do carry with this mythical ‘ram air’
I think MQ-9B is marginal but possible. Does it produce enough power? Probably not, but an auxilary power unit can be added. Can it house S-band or L-Band radar? Not L-band, but a small S-Band, maybe. Looking at the Elta radar on the Embrear P600, something that size might fit. GA have said they are working with someone else on AEW underwing pods. If not S-Band then maybe higher power X-Band. Are our data links robust enough? I’d say yes. Do they have the bandwidth, probably no. I think we will learn a lot from Tempest that the Americans may have already learned from the F-35. We didn’t pay for the use of the MADL links on our carriers. Perhaps they will be put in place for they AEW to talk to the F-35s and the QE.
I suppose we’ll have to wait and see what spec GA offer. Then take it or leave it, and not mess about with it, because we think we know better, missing out on all subsequent manfacturers updates. (A small gripe from past behaviours in other services.)
What’s the size of the AESA array on the new Bizjet AWACS that Sweden are buying, is that an option? Was thinking, we already buy Swedish radars in the form of the giraffe for Sky Sabre if I recall- probably the same outfit.
Interesting about us not going for MADL on the carriers, or should I say baffling and frustrating. I seem to remember a quote from someone senior saying that data sharing was going to be a key tenet of improving the lethality of the military going forward- so hopefully that will be rectified soon.
Agreed on not messing with what GA propose- ultimately it’ll be better than Crowsnest, so why fiddle around with it? We’re operating STOVL carriers, lightweight CATOBAR if we’re lucky, our margins on improvement are going to be so fine it’s not worth it.
Sweden use GlobalEye with the Erieye radar. That’s significantly bigger than the Elta (around 7m long, housed in a 9m long structure). I can’t see MQ-9B managing anything that big.
See the Merlin Crowsnest with Vigilance pods from 2011….
2 x AN/APG-81 radars for 360 deg coverage (same radar as F-35)…
If Merlin can lift that then Protector definitely can…
Merlin 3 x 1500kW engines. Protector 1 x 650kW engine
Its roughly a 10x power differential
Good questions, to which I don’t have the answers, I’m afraid!
On the first one, perhaps the radar set could be powered by an air ram turbine, like the aerial refueling pods on tankers?
No worries- it’s GA and the RN who I’m looking to for the calcs!
Honestly I’ve no idea how much power one of those turbines can make; running a fuel pump needs a fair amount, but not sure how that compares to an AESA radar. Jon above made a good point about APUs, which are small generators that come as part of the ISR package to run the electrics- that could also be a solution.
Dont need a ram air turbine. They already have power generation from the compressed air bleed in turbo prop
Leonardo Seaspray 7500E V2 multi-mode radar pod , its only needed at low engine power cruise , not used on high engine power when takeoff
Or a jamming pod
Aha, didn’t know that, thanks.
Worth reading. LINK
I believe JSM is being brought online prior to Block IV based upon Norwegian funding. It would certainly make sense to get some in my view, as I believe integration is also ongoing for P-8A.
In my view, we should also be rather aggressively beating LM and the JPO around the head until they allow Spear3 to be bumped up the integration queue (free of additional charge, of course) to pre-Block IV also. They’re wrapping themselves in knots with TR-3, Block IV and particularly this engine issue, and have a huge pile of aircraft waiting to be delivered; no reason why they can’t sort Spear 3.
I agree 100%. The elephant in the room where the F-35 is concerned is that it has a horribly limited A2G capability unless and until something like JSM or Spear 3 (preferably both) is fitted. The Paveway IV is a great weapon but lack of range means it’s only really useful in non contested airspace. That’s fine in Afghanistan type situations but no use at all against peer level opposition with an effective IADS. Getting these weapons integrated and deployed would have a transformative effect on the F-35 fleet and, by extension, the whole Carrier strike concept. I really hope this is done as a priority, or “at pace” as the current political buzzword seems to be.
Or buy US military A2G weapons.
When RAF bought P-8, they included the USN torpedo rather than the RN type
https://theaviationist.com/2024/04/10/lockheed-martin-unveils-new-mako-hypersonic-missile-which-can-be-carried-internally-by-the-f-35/
I have just discovered that the P-8 is to have the RN Stingray after all. The Mk54 from the USN got a roasting from DOT&E who found it wasnt all that effective , especially against quiet conventional subs in littoral waters
The Mk54 ? Apparently that will have to be upgraded…
Mk.54 has been known to be a sub-par weapon for an age…its the homing head from the Mk.50 (the US equivalent to Stingray) but allied with the propulsion from Mk.46…a weapon we stopped using 30+ years ago…
What air to ground munitions though?
US is in the same boat as us on F-35….everyone is. We’re all waiting on Block IV now…
Current list of integrated weapons on F-35 is…
Integrated 25mm gun (F-35A only)
Podded 25mm gun (F-35B and C only)
Asraam
AIM-9X
Amraam
SDB1
GBU12
Paveway IV
JDAM and LJDAM (1,000lb and 2,000lb)
JSOW-C
B-61/12 – Nuclear bomb
Thats it….the only powered munitions are the air to air weapons, and arguably with Asraam we’ve got a better set than other nations. As to air to ground munitions GBU-12 and Paveway IV are essentially duplicates of each other.
I’ve long been a fan of a one off UK buy of SDB1 and JDAM because they’re as cheap as bombs get, increase our munitions holdings quickly plus give us a small gliding munition and larger bombs than Paveway IV…and they are integrated on F-35 AND Typhoon (thanks to the Germans and Italians), but they don’t add a huge amount over Paveway IV. The proposed UK MRUSW weapon should give us SDB1 capability (small, gliding and cheap) in the near term.
Obviously B-61/12 is a non starter….
The only munition that really gives you a big improvement over Paveway IV is, arguably, JSOW-C. But that isn’t cheap…and also arguably costs too much for what it delivers…
I’ve recently been impressed with the utility of wing kits for JDAM, and understand that there are designs for Paveway too. I know that it’s not the ultimate solution to the problem, but also mindful of quite how many munitions we would need to expend in a proper war. Extending the range of our cheapest and most numerous munition out to ~70 km (depending on flight profile) seems a no brainer to me. Sure, we’d have to do some physical separation testing on an F-35, but at least we’d not need to do anything with the software…
JSM is part of Block IV I’m afraid. It might be one of the first weapons that arrives as Block IV capability is delivered incrementally…but don’t expect it before 2028…
We won’t see any new weapons being added before Block IV updates arrive…B-61/12 was the last before then.
JSM on P-8 Poseidon was proposed a long time ago by the Australian’s, but has since gone very quiet, I don’t believe it is funded at present by anyone. The Australian’s have since ordered LRASM, which is being integrated on P-8.
Block 4 is a spiral update …various capabilities over time not all at once.
as for JSM…. its ordered so could be be done in the first tranche of Blk 4 ?
https://www.airforce-technology.com/news/us-air-force-orders-first-jsm-lot-for-f-35a-fighters/?cf-view
the bigger decision is the mini EMALS. are we tied to usa drones only
There is a sound argument with the occasion of the defence review to bite the bullet and covert one of the carriers for cats and traps using EMALS as on the USS Ford. Then dedicate your scarce funds to a few squadrons of super hornets. Fantastic interoperability. Britain has to get out of the business of going for just a few top drawer platforms with no real redundancy. I think it unreasonable that the UK will ever get more than another squadron or so of F-35.
Less than Zero chance of us buying super hornets. All you’re doing there is getting one if the carriers scrapped.
That’s exactly why they abandoned the 2010 emal plan
Zero chance and zero logic to buying Super Hornets. Introducing a new aircraft type adds further operating costs for training aircrews, ground crews, parts supply and logistics, weapons compatibility/ integration, etc, etc.
The Super Hornet would give us interoperability with the USN, Australia and Kuwait. Whereas the F35B gives us interoperability with USMC, Italy, Japan, South Korea, Singapore.
You mention redundancy… well STOVL jets can take-off and land in higher sea states than an aircraft that depends on cat and traps. Not to mention that if the EMALS breaks down or is incapacitated by enemy action then all aircraft are grounded.
That is if you have more than 20 deployable aircraft. That’s the fundamental problem.
SuperHornet is also leaving production as we speak…
No its not …through to 2027
https://www.navair.navy.mil/news/New-contract-award-deliver-17-new-Block-III-Super-Hornet-aircraft-and-critical-technical-data
Mar 2024 “The U.S. Navy awarded The Boeing Company a $1.3 billion contract March 19 for the purchase of 17 F/A-18 Super Hornets and delivery of a technical data package..’
“I think it unreasonable that the UK will ever get more than another squadron or so of F-35”
But you think we can afford to massively retrofit a carrier and buy a few squadrons of super hornets?
They would be far better off talking to South Korea if they still intend to go down this route as a joint project and look at the KF-21N rather than the Super Hornet. LINK
Internal weapons carriage is next on the list I believe.
The belly of the aircraft is already recessed and had its first firing of Meteor this year and IRIS-T
METEOR
It’s a shame that the UK’s EMKIT was canned. It might be worth resurrecting it.
We are at one of those Fisher Beresford moments.
I think by the time the base technology is practical the need for a platform as such will have diminished: munition is platform. I can see something larger than an SM-6 actually carrying smaller missiles towards a target. And either returning to mother or being recovered from the sea, probably by a drone, to fight another day.
We are where we are with VSTOL, but the main thrust for this work remains still with the USN CTOL fleet.
I just don’t like pretending that all this is the RN being future looking and proactive when it is in reality the RN not being able to afford things. We are followers now not leaders.
Given General Sir Roland Walker‘s recent comments about the army needing to prepare for war in 3 years I suspect those projects that can be realised within that time frame will be prioritised – eg the Sea Protector which Air Commodore Alex Hicks wants. It’s clearly not just the army that is thinking this way, as witnessed by the RN deciding to reverse decision and to equip existing ships with the NSM, etc.
With AUKUS effectively ring fenced and Tempest formally agreed with international partners, there won’t be funding for this. But Crowsnest is still stated to have an out of service date of 12/29, so 5+ years to develop a successor. AEW has to take priority over other ambitions to beef up the carriers. At present, the RN can barely provide adequate escorts for a single carrier operation. Unless the surface fleet is increased, the rule of 3 will typically give us 6/7 escorts available for all tasks.
The RN needs to get real.
https://www.navylookout.com/crowsnest-airborne-surveillance-and-control-due-to-achieve-initial-operating-capability-in-2023/
It’s clearly just an accounting trick , and will be reversed in due course
Just a standard OSD. Lots of kit has a near term OSD even if it will clearly be in service far longer, purely because the business case for its retention hasn’t ben drafted and agreed yet…but will in due course…
We need a carrier AEW aircraft, there is no way around this. We also need it by 2028 for when Merlin AEW goes out of service, we could delay the out of service date slighly but Merlin AEW was always a halfway house solution and desperately needs replacing.
What form this new aircraft takes is debatable bit, the requirment for it is not.
Personally, I believe the quickest and cheapest solution would be a navalised STOL MQ-9B. The concept has already been pushed by general atomics and we already have bought 16 of the normal MQ-9B for the RAF (called Protector RG MK 1). This idea hinges on that system being able to carry and power a capable enough radar of course.
If it does work then it would provide us with the capability we need without having to do costly and time consuming retrofits to the carriers.
The 2028 date is just a planning date. The AEW version could stay in service as long as the ASW version (early 2040’s currently)
AEW / ASaC for me should have been perhaps the main driver of the carrier’s design even before the ‘bomb truck’.
The RN needs to be able to control long range BVR AAM missiles. F35b doesn’t carry enough missiles internally and the early stages of a fight might require ordnance to be placed on external pylons.
F35 is a highly capable AEW capability built in, plus can fire missiles and drop bombs…plus shot down one of those lumbering propeller ‘old style’ AEW designed for the 1970s
https://www.baesystems.com/en/multimedia/advanced-electronic-protection-for-the-f-35
An E-2 Hawkeye has an endurance of 6 hours while the F-35B has an endurance of a couple of hours at best without refueling, and ski-jump limit even more on the payload of fuel or weapon.
You can only google but not think, your posts are nonsense.
You get 160 flight hours per E2 flight per month. That’s 4 aircraft BTW.
To get the same number of hours from F35b you would need 40 aircraft.
EDIT: That’s about 5.7 hours of E2 flight per day.
Every time an F-35B goes up for any reason it can create the 350 deg EW picture – which it can send back to the carrier.(MADL fetures)
No need to have separate planes doing the same job and with 4 crew to analyse the information
The aircraft carrier cycle is something like 60 -90 mins. Even when the planes are coming back to the carrier it refreshed the EW environment
Thats the flaw in your argument- F35 doesnt need to do stand alone EW patrol along side normal flying duties.
In the US carrier scenario they are doing F-18 CAP alongside E-2D EW patrol , even more planes, as the F-35 does CAP as well as EW
Theres some capabilities that E-2 has- that massive radar beam for instance- but why not make the most of stealth
Loren Thompson, a paid Shill for LM overhypes it but for those who lack any information its a good background
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2019/05/13/how-a-super-agile-electronic-warfare-system-makes-f-35-the-most-invincible-combat-aircraft-ever/
How many F-18s are required to do CAP along with E-2 ?
Why not get rid of the middlemen ( 5 crew) and do a stealthy EW CAP instead
Long ago they combined the fighter and attack missions in a single airframe…its called progress. Your ideas are 1970s-centric . Do you still drive a Ford Escort too ?
I completely agree
Getting three squadrons or so of the navalised MQ9B would be a really useful force multiplier for a whole host of jobs.
ASW using sonobuoys and Stingray
Anti-shipping using centerline surface scan radar and Spear (or 1 FC/ASW on the Centreline, like a modern torpedo bomber)
AEW using a centerline generator pod and two AESA side looking radars under the wings.
They would work like the Fairy swordfish to the F35’s Seafire- leave the flashy stuff alone and become the long-range workhorse.
My thoughts exactly and a better enhancement to the fleet with the option of them working shore side too if required.
If we were to get these drones with the STOL kit I’d hope they get used as a dedicated naval air wing. The carriers need numbers and the RAF has a claim on the F35s
Why not think about this a bit differently? Why put these aboard the carriers? Use the spare space on the carriers for Amphibious lift instead and put the drones on MRSS instead. If they were similar to a ‘San Giorgio plus’, there’s plenty of room for a 35m EMALS. Drone carriers are going to be far more useful going forward and do we really need 6 company size raiding ships?
I am more puzzled why use tiny craft that need catapults when we could have bigger craft and fly them from the sea? An amphibious version of something like Triton could carry decent size missiles over vast distances or loft a sizeable ASaC / AEW radar over a task group that could direct naval SAM’s, F35b BVR missiles, and long range OTH AShM.
It was looked at making the QE’s conventional carriers and was seen as way to costly as you effectively needed a new ship up top as the deck was NEVER designed to be changed over and that is from the team that built them. Cameron’s lots wanted it and they got the rebuff. There is also the practical effect of location as that big ramp really does screw up the airflow over the forward deck making such launches near impossible with the hardware likely to end up in the drink. A real waste and takes up deck space needed for the real aircraft onboard.
A further buy to give us 4 x full (12 aircraft per) squadrons of F35B’s more Merlins for ASW a real threat to any Fleet. The Big Drone already tested (went up the ramp easily and landed on easily too) but with upgrades could provide persistent ASW, surface adding to the punch of the CAG onboard at no major change to the Ships and long term once sored an improved AEW as they can fly over the horizon enhancing the air picture. The Ships would be out of commission whilst such mods were undertaken too (years not months)
Stop all this silly high tech dreams as they will never deliver what is needed, they are just after the limited monies available and the MOD has wasted so much over the years which could have ensured a larger Force all round if had been spent on real hardware and the people that keep us all safe..
This seems a good idea & just using the under utilised space next to the Ski Jump could potentially mean a lot less interruption to carrier operations & eventually greatly increase capability.
It maybe best to restrict/delay any other larger changes suggested by project ark royal to a large MLU package for the carriers.
We should be looking at Mojave, still keep an eye on AW609/uncrewed version & to bring something like this capability on deck.
Potentially a bomb/missile truck type UAV maybe of use? Something like Akinci but possibly jet powered?
None of this should distract from F35B development nor lobbying for better access to it by MBDA – ideally we need a group to explore & produces effects delivered from within the Bs weapons bay – not just Spear of Paveway.
Airbus Wingman on display at Farnborough 2024. Looks promising.
It’s worth noting how the USMC intends to fight future wars and the equipment they seem to be selecting to do it. The MQ-9A appears to be one of the items at the top of their shopping list.
Mojave Aircraft Carrier Takeoff and Landing
?
Though interesting from the point of view of drones and unmanned systems Force Design 2030 isn’t too popular with many serving and ex-serving US Marines.
Top of their List ?
They are still buying F35C and F35B
They seem to be ,like the RN, still at the evaluation stage for the carrier MQ-9 despite what General Atomics advertorial may say
The MQ-9A “appears to be “one of the items” at the top of their shopping list
Need 2 look into all cheap forms of Irwing to conpliment more fighter with different jobs awacks, re fuel ,scout planes it’s the future make these brilliant carriers better allao need blo k cells 4 defence can’t av a toothless tiger
Jesus, what planet are some of you people on!!! The carriers are the single biggest mistake we have made in years. We cant afford them, the manning problems they have caused are just incredible and i say that as someone who is still in the mob. This desperation to stay at the top table has got to stop and at some point we need to be realistic about where we sit in the Naval pecking order.
Why are some many other countries building them as well. Even Japan is back in the Carrier business
Basically we really did our own legs years ago when we decided to try to develop our own EMALS rather than buy American. Costs ballooned and we cancelled it leaving us where we are now.
Had we bought EMALS before the carriers were built we could run a hi-low mix of Super Hornets and F35Cs, as well as being future proofed for any number of UAS solutions for the future. We’d also be able to run proper fixed with AWACS.
Comical that we’re now talking about retrofitting EMALS all these years later.
Spot on and crazy buying 2 aircraft carriers and having to get the US marines fly their jets on it because you refuse to buy more then 10 planes for a 40 plane carrier.f35c and awacs would be so much better with latest drones for ground attack and some naval mq9sr for sub hunting.
According the Navy Lookout, the choice to go American was based on risk. I can’t find anyone saying costs on EMCAT ballooned, although I have no doubt they would have eventually, just as EMALS costs did.
I did find this:
Grand Logistics Blogspot 11 July 2011
In the same year Navy Lookout says MOD signed a contract for with GA for around £123m for a full ship set of catapults and arrestors (but no ground test rig). Can that possibly be right in light of subsequent numbers? Internet history seems to have mostly faded away. If these numbers are right, there wasn’t a lot to choose from on tech cost. If I recall correctly from the time, the biggest issue was ballooning installation costs rather than the cost of the tech itself.
An option that doesn’t require Emals may be more attractive.
Bell Unveils New High-Speed Vertical Take-Off and Landing Design Concepts for Military Application – Bell (news) (bellflight.com)
Yeah. A tiltrotor jet is a really cool idea and I’d love it for a loyal wingman. MOD is a bit conservative and this might be seen as a little faffy until the concept beds in. I’m not sure we’d want to skip a standard tiltrotor and jump straight to this.
At some time in the future there won’t be a STOVL fighter available for these carriers.
It’s possible that non arrester drones – with AI – may be available to outfight manned aircraft but dropping heavy bombs will still be impossible.
So really it comes down to needing EMALS on these carriers. With those in place, the choice of planes/ drones becomes a lot wider.
The questions are: when will they get installed? and can the RN afford it?
Personally I would rather have one carrier that is flexible and working than two that really don’t. But the defence review is really the only view that counts at the moment.
F-35B is going to be around a long time
F-18E/F has been in production since 1995 and will be to 2027 or later
Thats 30 plus years and those last production planes could be in service for 20-25 years and carrier cat and trap is very very hard on airframes . No so for the F-35B
Thats the 50 year life of the STOVL carrier
Your arguments have two big holes in. You say that at some point there won’t be a STOVL fighter, which as Duker has pointed out won’t be for many decades, yet you imply that means we need EMALS now. Why not wait until an out of date timeframe is announced for F-35B, maybe in 2060s? Second you claim that the choice of fighters will be wider with EMALs. Not really. We could run F/A-18s or Rafales even without catapults as we saw with the Indian bids. However, we don’t want to. They are nowhere near as good as the F-35. Why spend money on arrestors to downgrade our fighters?
We could almost certainly run F-35Cs STOBAR too. That doesn’t change a lot though. If you are speculating that F-35B is gone, F-35C will probably be gone at the same time. So what good is this notional flexibility? We have the manned fighter we want.
With drones (and AEW) you may have more of a point. However, I’m not sure what big bombs you want to drop. The RAF can already drop bigger bombs from the F-35s and Typhoons yet chooses not to. Why would the FAA choose to drop them from drones? Let’s wait to see what we can run without catapults and arrestors before splashing out billions to convert one of the carriers. Leonardo is expected to pitch a tiltrotor as the new NATO rotary (timescale 2035). Moving to tiltrotors could tilt the equation against catapults.
People have a bad habit of arguing for the cancellation/decomissioning of capability in order to pay for something better, but while the cancellation/decomissioning happens immediately, the replacement capability at best leaves a gap of many years, and is often not delivered at all.
Here is an update regarding the EMCAT (Electro Magnetic CATapult) launch track system.
https://www.ge.com/news/press-releases/ge-power-conversion-completes-trials-advanced-linear-induction-machine-core
Interesting to note the Turks fly their drone off the ski jump.
Bayraktar TB3 Takes off and land aboard Turkish carrier – Naval News