Leonardo UK has revealed more about the Proteus technology demonstrator aircraft, developed for the Royal Navy which will undergo flight testing in mid-2025.
Leonardo has unveiled the Proteus technology demonstrator aircraft, developed in collaboration with the Royal Navy and the UK Ministry of Defence’s Defence Equipment and Support (DE&S) Future Capability Innovation (FCI) team. The approximately three-tonne uncrewed helicopter is designed to showcase advancements in autonomy, payload modularity, and interchangeability while pioneering new rotorcraft technologies and manufacturing processes. Its development aligns with the RN Maritime Aviation Transformation (MATx) strategy, which envisions the future of maritime aviation through 2040, emphasizing increased operational capacity at sea and supporting future anti-submarine warfare missions.
A key feature of Proteus RWUAS (Rotary Wing Uncrewed Aircraft System) is its innovative modular payload bay, enabling flexibility and adaptability. Leonardo has employed advanced digital design and manufacturing techniques, including the use of a digital twin for synthetic development, more than 40 components constructed with advanced composite materials, and AI-enhanced control software.
The Proteus programme is progressing rapidly, with the first flight of the new rotorcraft planned for mid-2025, following the contract award in June 2022. To accelerate development and reduce costs, the design leverages components from Leonardo’s existing helicopter portfolio and draws on expertise from its existing UAS programmes.
The Proteus design will demonstrate the feasibility of deploying large uncrewed aerial systems (UAS) in maritime environments, serving as a platform for developing and testing autonomous capabilities. This includes refining flight control laws and algorithms specifically for large autonomous Vertical Take-Off and Landing (VTOL) aircraft.
A standout feature of Proteus is its modular payload bay, which offers exceptional mission flexibility. This design allows for trade-offs between fuel capacity and mission payload, enabling the aircraft to be configured for a variety of operational roles. The ability to integrate mission-specific payloads provides field commanders with a versatile solution from a single aircraft type. This approach not only enhances operational adaptability but also delivers cost efficiency by reducing the need to procure and maintain multiple aircraft fleets.
As we reported in our earlier article, Proteus’ flexible payload bay will allow it to be configured for the Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASac) or Anti-Submarine missions. Proteus can also be ‘teamed’ with crewed aircraft such as the Wildcat (shown in the main image above).
So it is feasible Merlin AEW could be replaced in 2030
Maybe, when the merlin helicopter was originaly designed in the late 80s compute was way heavier and required onboard crew to monitor and manage. Now with much lighter compute and far better datalinks a much smaller unmanned vehicle might work. If the vehicle can handle the weather, range and loitering is sufficient, and if it can be complemented with a secondary weapon delivery platform, it might provide a mass deployable alternative.
Well the weapon platform is F35 being directed by the radar
Nah, don’t think will have ceiling, range and energy for a proper AEW
Neither does the Merlin really, at least this would release needed ASW choppers
Merlin is the largest western maritime focused helicopter, so has longer range and 3 engines for the power
Really? I guess that depends on how you define ‘maritime focused’ as one could argue that the CH-53/MH-53 especially the newest K-variant is the largest maritime focused helicopter
I wonder what an ASW MH53 would be like?
Or even AEW?
Its a cargo carrier. Doesnt do surface or subsurface warfare does it.
Does do MCM which is hilarious
No.
Super cool, I hear it is modeled off the aw109. If you keep payloads light you could augment the vehicle with much heavier fuel loads. When you remove the crew there is plenty of internal space. Really interested to see what loitering and range it could achieve. It wouldn’t carry torpedos, only dipping sonar, but it could call a strike from the ship if it found something. Rocket deployed anti submarine torpedo, or launch a mini cruise missile with a torpedo instead of 250kg bomb.
I’d heard it’s being based on the AW09 not the AW109. Both small rotaries, so either could be true, but the 09 is single engine whereas 109 is twin engine.
It should be AW-09
Yes. Its began as a Kopter SH09 from a Swiss startup with a clean sheet design of composite fuselage in the 2.5 tonne (MTOW ) class with a single turbine in 1000shp class
Its unique selling point was the cabin size of medium twin class to the light single engine market The Airbus H125 or Squirrel single is roughly the same weight class
Good news.
I’d like to see at least one non-trivial capability identified as something the RN will trial, perhaps ASW: the killer-app if you will. Too often “flexible” solutions are not understood. If it’s just trialled as heavy lift or IST, Proteus could be seen as an expensive version of other solutions and won’t be progressed.
I wonder if the use of ASaC, the same acronym as the Searchwater ASaC radar in Crowsnest, and the direct comparison with the Crowsnest bags might mean that Leonardo are pitching for the Crowsnest replacement. I wouldn’t have thought Proteus would develop the power needed.
The aw109 has a 750kw turbine, how many kws does crowsnest need.
Maybe a more modern radar will need less power, but there is still need datalink power. But since these are small many can be build maybe even with bistatic radar for anti stealth.
One emits the other receives and vice versa.
I think th biggest problem is altitude. Maybe with some wings?
Two issues.
Firstly with the datalink. Looking at the images above, it looks like a standard Link-16 omni-directional antenna is being used. Which means when it broadcasts, everyone within a certain range could potentially detect it. For a more secure datalink, you really need to use either a Yagi style directional antenna or preferably an electronically beam formed array. This would take it down the same route as the F35, with its highly secure multifunction advanced datalink (MADL).
The second is the size and shape of the radar housing. By its size, the radar is likely to be a X-band (8 to 12 GHz) radar. There is no shame in this, so long as it is recognised the maximum detection range is a compromise. This is partially down to the higher atmospheric attenuation that X-band suffers with. But also the size and shape of the antenna. I would fully expect the radar to be an active electronically scanned array (AESA). As this means the antenna can have a smaller footprint within the fairing, plus no flexible waveguides are needed, minimizing losses.
Crucially the shape of the radar housing does not have depth, it is quite shallow. So the expectation would be the radar uses a rectangular array. For electronic beamforming you really need a near circular array. As this gives the same number of transmitter-receiver modules (TRMS) in the vertical and horizontal plane. Therefore with the same number in X and Y, the beam becomes much narrower and circular. A rectangular array will give you a wider but flattened beam. This kind of beam does mean the overall detection range is shorter by comparison.
The US Navy did have the MQ-8C Firescout, that mounted Leonardo’s Osprey 30 AESA radar. The total radar “system” package weighed 50kg, where each of the three antenna arrays weighed 11kg. The Firescout came in two versions, the MQ-8B based on the Schweizer 330 and MQ-8C which is an unmanned version of the Bell 407. The Proteus looks like it fits in between these two. The MQ-8C could carry three Osprey AESA panels, giving it a 360 view, whilst the 8B carried a single mechanically rotating AN/ZPY-4(V)1 X-band radar. that gave it a surface detection range of about 70 nautical miles (depending on the size of the target!), but used less than 1kw of power. By comparison, some of the Osprey variants have a published detection range of 200 nautical miles (370km). Meaning its effective radiated power (ERP) must also be in the Kw range. To get this detection range and ERP, the input power must also be in the Kw range. The MQ-8C’s RR engine produced 606Kw (813shp). The Proteus would require a similar engine if it was to power three Osprey panels.
The Proteus with three Osprey AESA panels, would still produce a better radar than the current X-band Searchwater 2000 mechanically scanned radar used by Crowsnest. It would certainly be more robust and maintenance free. By the fact of using electronic beam forming, it should be able to generate better detection range than the Searchwater, even if it transmitted the same ERP as the Searchwater, the Searchwater beam is a lot wider.
It would be a very good pairing with the T45, as it’ll help detect sea skimmers a lot further away and thereby allow much earlier over the horizon interception. However, it would not really be suitable for a carrier strike group (CSG). As you want at least a minimum of 300nm (555/6km) detection range against a fighter sized target. Even with a number of these flying simultaneously, The radar’s detection range means a very long range air to air missile like the Russian R37, could be launched before the parent aircraft is detected.
Therefore you really require for an airborne radar for CSG that uses either Upper UHF (0.5 to 1 GHz), L (1 to 2 Ghz), S (2 to 4 GHz ) or C (4 to 8 Ghz). As these frequencies suffer less atmospheric attenuation than X-band. So for the same ERP these radar beams will reach further, with the UHF reaching the furthest. The lower the frequency the less effect the atmosphere has on the beam. But for these frequency bands, you need to better match the wavelength to the antenna, otherwise you will suffer significant internal losses. Therefore, the radar antenna array is going to be much larger. For example look at the Saab Erieye S-band AESA radar. Which is mounted in a 9m long box on top of the aircraft’s fuselage. This gives a published detection range of 450km (243nm). Again Erieye’s beam isn’t greatly efficient, especially when compared to the E7 Wedgetail’s. But I’d expect compromises had to be made to get the array to fit and not be too top heavy for the aircraft.
Fantastic Analysis Davey, thank you!
I don’t know. I’ve read that AEW radars require orders of magitude more power than ISR.
I think the whole effort comes under the auspices of a very broad “ASW Spearhead” programme, with the aim to have an uncrewed dipper / sonobouy delivery capability. All other modules are a boon.
Is it merely coincidence that the new RFA is also called Proteus?
It’s interesting that a) they are not showing a Stingray torpedo-equipped version, which it should have the weight for and b) they aren’t comfortable showing it being used to ferry people between ships.
Well yeh I wouldn’t want to be in an unmanned Helo being flown around with no control
Also we already have an auxiliary torpedo deliver with the Wildcat
I think that’s the point – it’s the same nervousness about self-driving cars – it’s not a technical problem.
Wildcat can deliver Stingray but the RN has been looking at torpedo delivery UAVs (unmanned Wasp!). Seems odd that if the RN is looking for an unmanned torpedo delivery platform that they aren’t even presenting it as a concept here.
Well BAE have tested one with Stingray
See Gareth Jennings tweet for Stingray carriage and ‘wings’…
https://x.com/GarethJennings3/status/1876613722812153923
Apparently a torpedo/weapon wing module has been shown in concept form, but nothing concrete.
I’d be surprised if they didn’t have a plan to deliver torpedoes from it- they’ve trialled much smaller drones firing Martlet already. In fact, Martlet would be another good option for this platform.
As far as moving people around, it is a very small helicopter- not sure how many it could carry aside from anything else. Bearing in mind much larger wildcat can only move 6 (?), it may not be worth the cost of developing a module just for the capability to move 2-4 people from a to b.
For people transport:
Looks from the Leonardo video like there’s about as much space inside (slightly more height and width, same length) as a London taxi, so 4 people facing each other.
That probably also leaves room for quite a bit of extra fuel in the module and in the rest of the airframe, so a very large ferry range with a light, hollow payload.
I think as a VIP transport for the carrier group it might have some appeal. Make a couple of modules with a really swish interior and keep them in a corner of the hangar until needed.
Then you can fly out to the destination and impress everyone with how drone based the modern RN is, that they even use them for moving people around.
Safety measures might be tricky, but for the fun factor?
I don’t think the operating model necessitates Stingray deployment or personnel transport, both jobs can be done by the crewed helis, and these are there to help the crewed helis, not replace them. Weapons carriage and passenger transport are very expensive things to certify, and in the case of passenger transfer unprecedented, at least in the UK. I can foresee a useful role that’s not covered might be as an armed escort for Wildcats and Merlins during boarding operations
Competent Googler
I would have to say “agree to disagree” with your comment about this unmanned helicoptor breing inherently suitable as an armed escort during boarding operations
Any type of boarding operation is inherently risky = simply because one is boarding not knowing what to expect.
Thus the human boarding party usually has to make a few split-second decsions – often based on what they see and, quite often, instinct = so as to be able to distingish between the “innocent fisherman” and the “weapons smuggler”
Thus that is precisely the situation where one wants a manned helicoptor – and a Wildcat is ideal
HOWEVER
Moving that decision making process out to a remote workstion dozens (or even hundreds) of miles away simply reduces that vital “eyes on situational awareness”
Thus this application would pose exactly the same issue for the RN as the RAF onced faced in Afgan: the question (often unanaswered) of
The two are very difficult to distingish apart on a TV screen….and that therefore makes any decision – remotely – for live weapons firing “very problematical”
There are plenty of situations – especially when operating in the Grey Zone – where “crewed is best”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
We seemed to do just fine using Reaper for counterinsurgency operations in Syria, so I don’t see what the problem is with a helicopter.
Even a Typhoon pilot will be simply looking at a screen for the long range camera footage and making a decision from there, so a few seconds of lag in the Comms system won’t make that much of a difference for rules of engagement.
I agree that for operations in close proximity with friendly forces, like a boarding party, would be too dangerous, but supporting a Merlin or Chinook for amphibious operations and armed with Martlet seems a good use for these given the capacity for internal fuel.
Can these fit in a twenty foot container? If so the non ASW could be a force multipler for the River B2’s in fishery protection and anti narcotic operations
I doubt Proteus could fit in a 40 foot container. Peregrine is the smaller rotary drone you are looking for, based on a Schiebel Camcopter which does fit in a 20 foot container.
Ah yeah the Peregrine, I was getting a bit mixed up “it doesn’t take much these days”. Thanks for clarifying that for me 👍
It doesn’t necessarily have to fit inside an ISO container to fit on an RB2. They might be able to install a customised container or 2 for storage and maintenance to operate it from an R2. It is more likely that they will fit the R2’s with Peregrine if they are to receive 1 of the 2 options.
Something like the transport container for wa5chkeeper then?
If only we had the money….
MQ-9B Sea Guardian with AEW radar…freeing up Merlin dedicated to CROWSNEST
MQ-9B Sea Guardian with radar for surface search, ISR and strike…
Proteus….modular payloads…
BAE Strix for T-26… supplements Merlin for ASW and brings CAS capability…
Lots of large Quadcopter drones for cargo moves, man overboard etc etc…
Not sure where the Schiebel S100 fits into that…probably the only one we’ll deploy though…
That underslung radar barely looks bigger than the surface search radar fitted to ASW Merlins.
Unless there’s a whole lot of power generation inside the module, how on earth will that compete with a 3 engine, 15 tonne helicopter in the form of Crowsnest?
Unless perhaps the strategy is to use lots of them; you could perhaps fit 4 in place of a single Merlin for a T45 or T31, and have them conduct several roles simultaneously.
I suspect the radar is supposed to be Leonardo’s GABBIANO TS Ultralight which is what was in the Italian AW101 AEW helicopters until they were withdrawn. It’s smaller than the Seaspray 5000s. It wouldn’t be a Crowsnest replacement but might be a reasonable alternate in low threat environments, which would reduce the strain on the Merlin fleet. However, worth pointing out that the Italian solution didn’t work very well and was fairly quickly withdrawn.
The operating model appears to be 1 crewed helicopter +1 Proteus, operating more than that would be a real struggle.
On the datasheet air to air mode is only an “option” for that radar, so would probably need quite a bit of development work to optimise for AEW.
Leonardo show an image of it fitted to a standard ASW AW101, not AEW.
The AEW version apparently uses the HEW-784, which has a swept diameter larger than the fuselage of a Merlin.
This isn’t what we see here.
“GABBIANO TS Ultralight which is what was in the Italian AW101 AEW helicopters “
No. The AEW version used the HEW-784 as Sailorboy says. It was an antenna modification of an existing older sea search radar. Did not worked well because the antenna was vertically constrained in size so had not enough altitude discrimination and the inherent limitations of an cheap project.
That appears to be an issue here as well, with limited elevation for the radar fore and aft.
This is a massive issue, especially as one of the improvements over Crowsnest should be better ABM ability.
Perhaps side mounted phased array panels is a better solution, perhaps with two drones 90 degrees out of phase in a racetrack?
Not sure whether flying forwards improves a helicopter’s endurance.
We can look back at the more expensive Merlin-mounted solutions and see that the Lockheed Martin Vigilance system, trialled a decade ago, had side-mounted antennas containing the same radars as the F-35. This was nixed on cost grounds.
I like the idea of using multiple rotaries to cover the blind spots fore and aft, assuming we can afford it. The “hat” on the Wedgetails gets around this problem, but I’ll bet that’s at huge cost, and there are resillience advantages to having multiple cheaper systems.
Perhaps adding a nose cone and tilting the side-mounted radars backward could also be an option.
Well, it’s a helicopter that is supposed to hover roughly in place, so any shape is possible.
You could even use a contrarotating rotor and end up with a sort of upside down Fylingdales-looking box and phased arrays.
But I think, because the airframe itself is so much cheaper than the module, dividing the power and weight requirements between two drones makes a lot of sense.
It also allows a measure of graceful failure, because one drone by itself also allows good AEW.
Especially if a fixed panel allows a more powerful system to be carried, it makes a lot of sense for replacing Crowsnest.
I think the advantage comes in clearer positions and I suppose that can be viewed as more powerful.
I’m not convinced by the MQ-9B STOL programme and I’d rather we had a tiltrotor programme instead, but wishes don’t often come true. One of the big advantages of VTOL is that it doesn’t need to be based on a carrier and could be operated from a RFA ship supporting a carrier or MRSS in a Littoral Strike Group. If it turns out we can’t get the payload/endurance equation advantage from a carrier fixed-wing drone, we might be stuck with the rotary AEW programme.
I admit it would be interesting to see what continuous evolution could do for AEW in something the size of Proteus, squeezing ever smaller systems into a weight limited and mostly fixed tight space. I believe that could propel UK-based digital engineering, piggy backing on the GCAP advances, rather than the stop-start investment MOD so loves.
Isn’t there a beamforming and sensitivity advantage to having a larger, more rounded panel of elements?
I agree that there is a lot of opportunity coming over the horizon for some really advanced lightweight radars.
This, Tempest, Loyal wingmen. They all need powerful radar on space and power-short airframes (or very powerful in the case of Tempest.)
Additionally, the side radars could be mounted on a hinge, similar to the Lockheed Martin Vigilance design, and get a field of view much closer to 360 degrees than fixed panels:
Thanks for that.
Also LM swapped out the APG-81 type radar from the F-35 to an Israeli Elta ELM-2052
https://www.iai.co.il/p/elm-2052
For a fixed price I think a single rotating antenna will be larger than the individual fixed panels of a set, so the beamforming advantage goes to the rotating antenna. Possibly there’s a shape issue though, so you’ll get a better position horizontally with one and vertically with the other.
There’s a crazy amount of research being done so I feel unsure that the fundamentals of AESA radars will even apply in 10-15 years.
Anti Ballistic Missile (ABM) capability is not a sweet spot for an AEW platform. Sure, the E7 Wedgetail might have some capabilities, but from an RN perspective, the ABM enhancement comes from updating the T45 and carriers S1850M volume search radar, which has already shown the capability to track objects in orbit. https://www.navylookout.com/upgrading-the-royal-navys-type-45-destroyers/
For AEW, it is look down that is important. To extend the radar horizon beyond the earths curvature and spot low flying threats, be they supersonic ASM, or “low and slow” drone swarms. Not saying total radiated power is not a factor at all, but altitude is at least as important for this capability. For a given radar set with for example an instrumented range of say 200 nautical miles, its better to get it up to 30,000ft than it is 15,000ft.
According to DaveyB, beyond a certain height altitude is no longer the limiting factor for look down AEW and power generation allows beam curvature over the horizon
I made a mistake in specifying ABM. There are also high diving and hypersonic missiles that are approaching from high in the atmosphere. Even high flying fighters are a long way above the height a helicopter AEW can fly at.
I stand corrected. Entirely possible it’s not supposed to any particular model and just representative of what could fit there. AESA radars are very scalable and AEW radars are not common enough to just by off the shelf, especially at this size. Could even be a fixed system than a rotating system.
To me that’s more likely to be a Seaspray being modelled, similar to that on the Wildcat, with the actual choice of radar left open. Leonardo have to balance capability with cost. An AEW radar would be something new and expensive. The Seaspray 7500E v2 would be a comfortable upgrade to the currently in service 7000s while bringing significant maritime search capability.
I hope that will have wheels rather than the skids shown, for deck handling.
The skids seem to be in quite a bit of the way of the optics gimble. Could they bring it a bit more forward or on the nose or give it a drop down ability?
Dont need wheels. Peregrine doesnt
Camcopter 100 could probably man handled by some burly Chock Heads 🙂
A 3 tonner is going to need wheels to be manoeuvred around flight deck and hanger.
The MQ-8 Firescout used attachable wheels/dolly for that
There’s also the Camcopter 300 bigger brother…which might need several burly blokes! Lol.
Good news.
There’s definitely a place for some smaller RWUAS (particularly for the Rivers and other smaller vessels, and for some ISR), but in the maritime domain at least, they need to be this size to deliver big value in my opinion.
Ranges are greater, meaning larger payloads in terms of ISR, data links, fuel, etc. And the benefits for mission sets like ASW really come into their own at these larger sizes too.
Hopefully this will actually feed through into service, because one of these paired with a Wildcat/Merlin on each escort would be a real force multiplier.
I think the main advantage to these is the numbers they could be fielded in.
Imagine 2-3 AEW equipped Proteus on each T45 and a mix of ISTAR, logistics and future weapons modules on a T31.
Add in ASW variants of all types on each T26 and it gives real bulk to get sensors and equipment everywhere they are needed rather than clumped together on the same airframe, as with a Merlin or Wildcat.
Yes, we’d need to purchase 50-60 of them, but that is exactly what is needed to massively boost the escort fleet.
Agreed- much as I’d like a wholesale re-organisation of our manned rotary fleet and potentially some more airframes procured, I don’t see that happening. Any increase prior to Merlin and Wildcat replacement is therefore going to come from stuff like Proteus.
Like a few others on here I’d be surprised if Proteus is big enough to deliver a valuable AEW capability (would rather leave that to a STOL Protector/SeaGuardian).
But an ISTAR/fleet protection version with surface search radar, electro-optical sensors, datalink and Martlet would be a great capability for any ship in the fleet.
Add to that with the ASW version you mention on the T26, and that’s a solid capability increase.
We’d be lucky to get 50-60, but that would be a 1:1 ratio for manned/unmanned rotorcraft for the RN (28 Wildcat, 30 Merlin HM2, not including the marines’ ones, because they’re a totally different mission set that Proteus couldn’t even partially deliver) and would make sense if we could afford it.
Even if a Proteus AEW had only a fraction of the area radar coverage of a Crowsnest, the number that can be carried probably makes up the capability at least for small flight decks.
Wildcat + 2 Proteus for non ASW, Merlin + 3 for T26.
Carriers don’t really need it, as you say they should have MQ9B STOL if we do the sensible thing.
MQ 9 isn’t exactly safe to operate on carriers which may be part of the issue
Yes, you have to close the flight deck to helos and F35 for launch and recovery, but F35 launch does that anyway.
And the massive endurance means that for 4 drones in the air at once, you only actually have to land one on every 8 hours for an evolution that takes a matter of minutes.
I think with reverse thrust, power folding wings and the improved brakes, flight deck handling isn’t too much of an issue, but obviously more complicated than the QEs are used to at the moment.
If we want to do cats and traps for loyal wingmen at some point, then it’s going to get crazy then either way.
Cats and traps at least has arresting gear to bring the aircraft to a controlled stop, I think they’ll have a hell of a time justifying the safety requirements for an MQs unarrested landing
Cats and traps means you have to think about bolters, which is a huge issue for some of the possible deck layouts.
Nothing else gets you the MQ9’s endurance and range, so I think it is probably worth the need for extra flight deck crew.
Look at how easily Mojave did it with a really bouncy landing approach.
MQ9 with higher aspect ratio and more thrust should be much more controlled.
The MQ9 has a stall speed of 55 knots…. steaming at 25 knots into a 15 Knot head wind, the thing will be barely moving when it touches down….
The Proteus will only be a bit smaller than a Wildcat. You couldn’t fit a Wildcat and two Proteus in a hangar. As for the T26, you could fit three in the mission space, but it would be a pain getting them in and out through the hangar. If they are to be the primary ASW search vehicles, with sonobouys and dipping sonar, it might be better to put two Proteus in the hangar and have the Merlin in the mission space. That way if either Proteus finds anything, the hangar will be cleared for the Merlin to transit to the flight deck.
Proteus has half the MTOW of a Wildcat on a tall and narrow fuselage, so you might well be able to fit two side by side.
If not, remember that hangars with capacity for Merlin, the entire escort fleet at present, tend to have room for two Wildcat side by side and spare room fore and aft, so it could be very possible to have 1 Wildcat and 2 Proteus just in the hangar.
I assume that with skids, a specialist vehicle similar to a pallet mover will be needed to move Proteus around, which may result in more freedom to move around the flight deck than our manned helicopters have at present. That makes it easier to get them past a Merlin in the hangar.
The ideal solution would be to have a dedicated hangar for 2 Proteus or 1 Wildcat designed into each escort, but we will have to make do with hangar tetris or temporary shelters as is.
Ah. You think one could be stashed sideways behind the others. Yes, possibly. We already have lifting squares for the Wildcats, which should also work for a Proteus in reasonable weather conditions or to reorient it in the hangar. I was chatting to a Wildcat pilot at DSEI a year or so back and he said they rarely use the slots anymore, just the lifters.
I don’t know any of this for certain, I’ve never been on board and escort, but it certainly looks like that from the pictures on here.
I’m not surprised about Wildcats not using the slot, it limits them to staying on the hangar Centreline and they don’t really need such a heavy duty system.
How did you get to DSEI, was it with your company or can you go as an individual?
From the website:
“DSEI is open to Official Delegations, Exhibitors’ Guests, DSEI VIPs, Ministry of Defence, Government visitors (UK and overseas), Media and Trade visitors. Visitors should be engaged in legitimate areas of defence and associated industry, the government, equipment procurement organisations, defence colleges and research establishments.”
There are other military and military related exhibitions you can go to without connections, but most of them run on weekdays. You could try looking for exhibitions in the school holidays. Farnborough Air Show and RIAT have weekend days. Going to the open ones is a good way to chat to people in the industry. Many are free or free to the public sector (you work in schools and they may never check). The prestigious ones have real security and they’ll probably check registrations before sending tickets.
There was a free student day for Euronaval in Paris that would have been ideal, but you just missed it and it’s every two years.
Thanks for the info.
I have been planning to go to Farnborough 2026 for a while now, it will make a nice post-Alevel day out.
Maybe I need to get job experience with George from UKDJ so I can get into the industry-only ones? 😉
I suspect a lot of the other ones have age restrictions, so I’ll look around.
Sailorbouy
Make sure you tell them you are a school prefect!
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
I’m not old enough to be a school prefect, why lie?
Your GCSEs post seems to have been deleted. Mocks were last year and I’ve done the exams, as I think I’ve said before.
And deploy on RFAs and civilian ships if necessary.
Great, how about doing the test flights in Ukraine? See how it gets on in contested spaces and get feedback from the operators.
Andrew
Why stop at Ukraine?
A kamikazine one-way mission flying off to the Kremlin would finish off phase 1 of the operational testing phase of the planned Leonardo R&D programme off very nicely
There is only one challenge……
It is just that – as several large Jerry cans are shown in the back of this Proteus prototype – the big geo-political question of 2025 will be “do we want the Jerries to win?”
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
Black Sea is closed to the navies of outside nations by Turkiye. So unless its tested on Romanian warship in the war zone, forget it
What we actually need is some more Merlins, built to the latest standards (per the Norwegian Coastguard ones which can lift an extra tonne). We already have the worlds best ASW helicopter… what we need is more of them and more spares.
What comes after Merlin will be the next big question.
So far this has not been mentioned but at some point it will be a huge issue.. just like the Red Arrows.
The obvious answer would be an upgraded Merlin, probably with one fewer engine to reduce costs. the US like to keep updating platforms which work… I don’t think that we need anything exotic like tilt rotors.
That is an interesting thought! Our Merlins are 3 x 2100shp RTM322’s – which has been evolved into the Safran Aneto. Wikipedia says there was supposed to be a “Dash3” version of Aneto rated at 3,000+ shp. Removing the mass of one engine, fitting a simpler gearbox, probably also of reduced mass, lighter avionics etc, I wonder what kind of performance gains might be achieved? I think the majority of the fuselage is already composite, so probably not a lot of weight loss to be achieved there. Perhaps Leonardo might consider this development path to keep a competitive aircraft in this weight class ???
Jed
The orginal 1980’s era plan was for multi-national commonality between NATO allies for these helicoptors
However the three engine RN Merlin mk2 ended up being “rather different” to the NH90 (two engines)
The key RN requirement which was really driving the Merlin’s design was the RN operational requirement to be able to take off – when fully loaded with ASW kit and weapons etc – from a T23 frigate without the need for the frigate to turn into the wind
I strongly suspect that this key operational requirement still applies:and thus why a third engine is probably still needed
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
For sure, plus requirements were for a non-sortie ending “1 engine out” capability in the shitty weather of the north Atlantic. I guess the question is, do engines which are 40 years more modern provide the performance capabilities to meet the requirements, without needing 3???
Maybe the next Merlin could be a giant manned Proteus?
Think about it, you could just cut the middle section out of a Merlin HA4 and put in modules to optimise for different tasks.
Give extra seating, AEW kit with dedicated consoles, ASW or even anti ship missiles.
Yes. large helicopters like the Merlin (around 16 t max weight) have a long production life – The Chinook is still going- as they are easily upgraded with the things that matter, engines and sensors
Yep and from an aerodynamics point of view the basic platform remains advanced
Merlin’s are far more expensive than these will he
Are you sure? How much will this capability cost to transform into an operational capability, vs. a platform which already is proven and works.
There’s always an initial cost for a program but when you look at the equipment required it’s 1 engine not 3, and cost of loadouts will be very dependent on how many of each variant we buy. Also Additional Merlin’s requires a lot more maintenance and obvs air crew than one of these
Hugo
I would be a bit careful with making your key assumption that “smaller is always cheaper”
However your point about numbers purchased is very valid: as that affects he cost of spares quite massively
Therefore out of all UK military helicoptors flying today, the most expensive one to operate “per hour” is one of the smallest: the AAC Apache: simply because it has the most bits of electronic kit in it
Peter (Irate Taxpayer)
That’s an interesting question that I don’t believe the Navy has sorted out. You will need similar training and infrastructure for both rotary drones, Peregrine and Proteus, and we saw that they ducked the issue on Peregrine by outsourcing the whole thing at a very high price. The Navy has to look to the RAF’s methodolgy for Rapier/Protector and see how much is necessary to bring in-house in the FAA for a rotary equivalent. It won’t be cheap, but unless we are planning on throwing all UAVs out of future planning it has to be done.