There are a variety of projects currently underway to ensure that naval aviation capability evolves to increase mass, range, persistence, and resilience. Here we look at the Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) vision for 2030.
Background
FMAF has many strands, predominately centred on the addition of Uncrewed Aerial Systems (UAS) to supplement or eventually replace existing conventional aircraft. The various elements of FMAF include solutions that range from relatively simple to very ambitious. Although primarily an RN endeavour, FMAF also involves considerable RAF participation.
Despite the talk of radical transformation, there are no immediate plans to dispose of existing crewed aircraft and in the short-medium term they will be upgraded. In the longer term, the soaring costs of conventional aircraft points to a future (c2050-60s) of predominantly uninhabited aircraft. Both RN and RAF conventional aircraft numbers are clearly inadequate to match growing threats and the increased reach of precision weapons. Adversaries’ area access denial strategies demand platforms with greater range and reduced risk to aircrew.
Besides the cost savings per airframe, the FMAF vision envisages that new UAS will have better endurance and act as force multipliers. Some types are intended to be sufficiently cheap and numerous to be attritable – ie. not worry if they are lost in action. They will also allow sensors to be placed in more risky positions to detect and track more demanding threats. There is an ambition for FMAF to include an air-air refuelling UAS to extend the range of the F-35 but this is a complex and costly requirement that remains on the ‘wish list’ for now.
Future-Maritime-Aviation-Force-3Crewed platforms
The F-35B will continue to be the centrepiece of naval aviation for several decades to come. The first 48 on order for the UK will have been delivered by 2027. It should be clear by the next defence review (due around 2025-6) what the total number of aircraft will be, but it is unlikely to exceed 80. Assuming the trickle of deliveries continues, by 2030 the fleet might number around 55 jets. Of similar importance, by 2030 both the Meteor BVRAAM and SPEAR-3 standoff weapon will have been integrated (intended to be completed in 2024) and the Block 4 software upgrade applied across the fleet. There is an obvious need for an anti-shipping/land-attack missile for F-35 and it is possible that the FCASW programme might meet this requirement by 2030 (weapon carried externally). The second frontline F-35 Squadron, 809 NAS was supposed to stand up in 2023 but delays to aircraft deliveries and aircrew training may see this pushed back to 2026. By 2030 a third (RAF) squadron should be in the process of being created.
Although it was not officially announced in the Integrated Review, the out of service date for the Merlin fleet has now been extended out until 2040 at least. (The Mk2s were due to retire in 2029 with the more recently refurbished Mk4s going in 2030) There are simply not the funds to build replacement aircraft but a further upgrade of avionics and mission systems is likely. The RN is also exploring options to replace the Merlin engines but a procurement decision is not expected until mid 2023.
By 2030 the Wildcat will be a potent platform for neutralising small-medium size surface targets. Wildcat conducted the first operational firing of Martlet missile during the CSG21 deployment last year and the RN continues to develop doctrine and conduct aircrew training as this weapon is rolled out into service. The Wildcat’s light anti-ship missile, Sea Venom, was supposed to have been taken on CSG21 deployment for pre-IOC testing although there has been no public comment on developments. The 2020 Defence Equipment Plan stated that Sea Venom IOC has been delayed until 2022.
A joint project with the Army is underway to fit a Tactical Data Link (TDL) to Wildcat, a major deficiency when the aircraft first entered service. To make Wildcat a more effective ASW asset, the option of purchasing dipping sonar kits remains but there is no formal requirement for this at present. Without dipping sonar, the Wildcat cannot localise submarine targets, although can drop ASW torpedoes as directed by the ship. The Future Lightweight Torpedo is currently in the pre-concept phase, this will assess the options for either extension or complete replacement of the Sting Ray.
The RAF has now received the 9th and final P-8A Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft from Boeing. This was very much an off-the-shelf purchase, initially only including US weapons and sensors to speed up delivery and to avoid adding to the already eye-watering, £3.2Bn cost. These are very capable platforms but need further investment in an anti-ship weapon and Sting Ray replacement. Their lack of numbers could be mitigated by integration with the Protector R1 Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) remotely piloted UAS. Protector can stay in the air for up to 3 days, adding a persistent presence that Posideon can’t match. It is unclear if there are plans to purchase the General Atomics dedicated Sea Guardian version of the MQ-9B but the RAF plans to test synthetic aperture radar carried by Protector which would considerably enhance its maritime surveillance capability.
-
F-35 model showing 8 x SPEAR-3 and 2 x Meteor BVRAAM in the internal weapons bay (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
Two of the three pre-IOC Crowsnest-equipped Merlin Mk2s in formation flying from HMS Queen Elizabeth during the CSG21 deployment, Oct 2021. -
Wildcat with 4 inert Sea Venom missiles mounted conducts flight handling trials, September 2021 (Photo: Chandler Candy). -
The 9th and final UK Poseidon was delivered to RAF Lossiemouth on 11th January 2022. -
LANCA/Mosquito model on display at DESI, September 2021 (Photo: Navy Lookout). -
Qinetiq Banshee target drone – HMS Prince of Wales, September 2021. Project VAMPIRE aims to deliver a similar low-cost UAV for ISTAR, electronic and physical threat simulation. -
The first demonstration Protector RPAS arrived at RAF Waddington this year and the system will achieve Full Operating Capability by 2024. -
US Office of Naval Research trial of the Schiebel Camcopter S-100 in July 2021 (Photo: Schiebel). The S-100 appears to be a good fit for the FTUAS requirement for a small rotary-wing platform fitted with a multi-sensor ISR sensor suite.
Uncrewed platforms
Of all the FMAF concepts, project VIXEN is perhaps the most complex and demanding, calling for the aircraft carriers be reconfigured to include catapults and arrestor gear to allow the operation of ‘loyal wingman’ UAS to work in support of F-35. (We have already covered Vixen in-depth in a previous article). Vixen will likely be a derivative of the Mosquito UAS being developed by the RAF under the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) project and the first Belfast-made Mosquito is scheduled to fly next year. While the RN is exploring the options for fitting small-medium capacity Aircraft Launch and Recovery Equipment to the QEC carriers and Mosquito is progressing relatively quickly, it is by no means certain that Vixens will be at sea by 2030.
If successful, Mosquito/Vixen will add significant mass to UK fixed-wing aviation and could be deployed in the strike, air defence, electronic warfare roles and act as a data node to extend sensor network coverage. It would be a significant force multiplier when deploying the F-35 and could be employed on missions deemed too risky for the expensive crewed jet. Vixen could also be adapted as a small tanker for use in the AAR role, although with a much smaller capacity than the US Navy’s dedicated MQ-25 Stingray UAS.
The RAF is developing the ALVINA swarming drone for use with Typhoon but it is also planned to complement F-35 in future. The intention is to operate large numbers of lightweight UAS in an unpredictable swarm to accompany crewed aircraft for decoy, distraction and electronic jamming in contested environments. It is unclear if Alvina will be suitable for carrier operations but would be a desirable addition to FMAF.
Project PROTEUS is the plan to develop a mid-sized RWAS capable of hunting submarines via sonobuoy and dipping sonar to supplement the Merlin Mk2. Proteus will need to be a sizeable aircraft as is also intended to provide surface search functions, replacing the Crowsnest system carried by Merlins and contribute to Maritime Intra-Theatre Lift (MITL). Whether this will utilise an existing light helicopter airframe or require the development of a completely new RWAS is unclear. A twin-rotor ‘miniature Chinook’ might offer some advantages for load-lifting and for mounting a large radar. It is intended that by 2029, Proteus will release the Merlin fleet from Crowsnest duties, allowing greater availability from this overstretched fleet to focus on its core ASW tasking. To develop an uninhabited Crowsnest replacement in the space of 8 years is possible but would be an achievement, given the recent track record of naval aviation development.
In October 2021 the RN started a competition to provide a Flexible Tactical Uncrewed Air System (FTUAS). This will comprise a small rotary-wing UAS, initially for reconnaissance use by the frigate forward deployed in the Gulf but potentially for wider use across the fleet. This is an Urgent Capability Requirement (UCR) and a contract will be placed by the middle of this year. The solution will have to be an existing aircraft such as the Schiebel Camcopter S-100, Skeldar V-200 or Leonardo AWHero. The FTUAS requirement includes a radar as well as EO cameras and will act as a pathfinder for the RN, building UAS operating experience to contribute to the development of FMAF. Viable light RWUAS have been around for more than a decade and it is hard to understand why the RN previously rejected them in favour of the unwieldy Boeing Scan Eagle FWUAS in the role (before eventually abandoning it).
Project VAMPIRE is another pathfinder procurement on the way to understanding how to operate fixed-wing UAS. Vampire will be used as a target aircraft to help offset the loss of the Hawk T1 jets used in the aggressor role for live air defence training but the projects’ objectives go wider than just simulation. Vampire must be able to carry payloads including radar and cameras and will be used to develop UAS command, control and communication procedures. Vampire will be launched from ashore or using bespoke ramps from the decks of the QEC aircraft carriers. The aircraft will be recovered from the water or land after descending by parachute. An invitation to tender was issued by the RN in January 2022 and includes the requirement for 4 air vehicles, a launcher and a control station with future options for up to 10 more aircraft and 2 launchers.
In January the RN also issued a tender for a tethered UAV designed to be attached to a moving ship and able to lift a sensor payload weighing between 1-25kg . The UAV must remain airborne for at least 24 hours and will offer a live feed from an EO camera at far greater height and with a much wider field of view than can be achieved using a sensor on the ship’s mast. The RN has also begun an extensive programme of trails with light UAS for use in the logistics, ISR and potentially strike role. As part of the Future Commando Force development, there have been experiments with UAS that can deliver supplies from ships to marines ashore. In future, a mix of small-medium size UAS will be important enablers for the Littoral Strike Groups and a standard part of Royal Marine operations.
As with many uncrewed systems, much of the technology may already exist and can be demonstrated to work in controlled conditions. But before any autonomous or remotely controlled system is of real use, it must be proven not present a danger to the user or civilians first. Each system must be evaluated and thoroughly tested for safety before being certified for operations. UAS that will operate in civil airspace must meet strict safety criteria and prove that they will respond correctly in a wide range of scenarios. There is a similar layer of complexity to consider when operating UAS on congested decks and in the airspace around an aircraft carrier. There are also demanding communication protocols, bandwidth and rules of engagement issues to be resolved before UAS are ready for deployment on live combat missions.
Delivering the FMAF vision by 2030 would be a major step up in capability for UK naval aviation but much of it is aiming high and at the very frontier of technology. For VIXEN and PROTEUS in particular to become a reality will demand a much-improved performance from industry, the Civil Service and those in uniform over that of recent decades.
Link for the previous article about Vixen doesn’t work
Tnx for fixing it
I know a lot of the discussion is usually dedicated to the fixed-wing Vixen, but I think the rotary wing Proteus could be very consequential, especially if it is compatible with the escorts. By 2030 the Merlin fleet will be stretched and aged, and the Wildcat fleet is not especially large. But we will have 2 big deck carriers to fill and (according to current plans) another 5 frigates to generate flights for.
I was thinking of it as something like MQ-8C Fire Scout, which has just started deployment for the USN with a Leonardo radar, so perfect for the search role. The Osprey X-band AESA radar already has a greater (stated) range than Crowsnest Searchwater so hopefully it won’t need too much tweaking. I was wondering, will the platform have to be bigger for ASW?
To answer my own question it seems that Nothrop Grumman are trialling ASW already. With a Rolls-Royce engine, a Leonardo (UK) radar and an ASW package (sonobuoys and sensors) developed by Ultra, Fire Scout feels half British already and a pretty close precursor to Proteus. Maybe we should buy a couple and get some operational experience.
We’ve got to get away from the idea that we have loads of sonobuoys to chuck out at every contact…we don’t. There is a finite supply, and production would not keep up with demand, or even close to that matter.
A small rotary wing UAS, say a little bigger than the Leonardo Hero, could carry and EO/IR system and a modern, active, sonobuoy on a winch. No need for the far more expensive FLASH system. Have a couple working with each Merlin and you have a moving sonobuoy field….constantly relocating, dipping, triangulating… Even one of the larger Malloy quad rotor UAV’s could dip a smaller passive sonar.
Result…no huge amounts of cash spent on a finite supply of sonobuoys (or left for an opponent to recover), but massively increased capacity and capability. A sub captains nightmare.
It’s also worth noting you could use tem closer to a target as sub launched anti-air is increasingly a possiblility. You don’t want a Merlin too close to a sub equipped with something like IDAS.
And for those who think that future isn’t coming…look at the USN deploying small, fixed wing UAV’s from subs….
Then look at a Switchblade 300 or 600…
Then ask yourself if you want to be in a noisy ASW helo dipping anywhere near a sub with one of those onboard. Using some AI they could launch it and allow it to search visually for a helo and engage…
I was also thinking exactly the same thing. I even think that the T26, T31 and maybe the T45 could fit one and a Wildcat in their hangar- which would be a win. The airframe would also be big enough to take dipping sonar, and the Martlet and Sea Venom- unlike the smaller RWAS mentioned in the article.
The actual purchase costs from Boeing for the P-8 are a fraction of the claimed £3.2Bn.
US navy published P-8 annual contracts for a fixed number of planes ( incl RAF and other foreign buyers)
This one a bit more than one year back is US$1.6 bill for 11 planes or the $145 mill each mark
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2021/04/us-navy-orders-11-more-p-8a-poseidon-maritime-patrol-aircraft/
That is roughly £72 million pounds each. Of course entry into service costs and training is expensive for a new type but even if it equalled the purchase costs of 9 planes at £72 mill each the combined total only comes to £1.3 bill area.
MOD ‘purchase price’ claims are more likely for entire cost including weapons, and maintenance ( excluding fuel and crewing) over the expected life of the type ( which can be extended)
Suspect Capex/ infrastructure at Lossiemouth is also a significant contribution
large spaceframe hangars are fairly low cost.
Thats why I included an equal amount of the purchase price as EIS service costs.
Still way short of £3.2 bill.
Only way it works is that it includes EIS AND lifetime service costs ( also under contract to Boeing), plus the Treasury charges for depreciation and asset charges
‘Atlantic Building at RAF LossiemouthThe facility, with a steel structure 19 metres high, 165 metres long and 100 metres wide, is equal to 1.5 times the size of BT Murrayfield Stadium and is large enough to park 280 double decker buses. It can hold three aircraft, as well as maintenance space, planning rooms and office space. There will also be pilot simulators for training. Around 200 Boeing employees will be based at RAF Lossiemouth, focused on maintenance, training and support.
All nine P-8A Poseidon aircraft will operate from the base, where over 400 service and civilian personnel will operate and maintain the aircraft.’
https://www.boeing.co.uk/boeing-in-the-uk/our-sites/raf-lossiemouth.page
True no doubt. The marginal cost per aircraft of procuring a few more P8s would therefore be significantly less.
What £ to $ exchange rate are you using? 1985’s?
$145m is £108.75m at current exchange rates.
A mere 50% more than £72m…
Just rechecked now US145 mill is around UK£74 million ( western union) thats for retail customers. Govts get better rates
And what difference does that really make in the overall gap between contract prices and the £3.2 bill claimed cost
All I can say change who you get foreign exchange from…retail customers get close to forex rates in the UK…
Current forex rate (which governments and banks use) is $1 for £0.75….
It makes 50% difference…which is huge.
The first 48 on order for the UK will have been delivered by 2027
why not 2025？
You’re thinking of F-35, he’s talking about P-8
Great to hear wildcat datalink may be progressing. Adding dipping sonar would be a great multiplier. Assume datalinks would allow Wildcat to work with UAS systems such as Alvina.
I still think it was a mistake not to give Wildcat, the foot longer cabin of the Lynx 3 prototype. Would help when you try to stuff more things in there.
Yes. Wildcat is an odd beast. Without toys it is a big taxi, too big for the Army that is a certainty. But if you want to get the best out of it it needs more volume.
It was a mistake to build it at all.
We’ve got Merlin sized decks and hangars everywhere. Wildcat should have been based on the AW139 rather than Lynx. Huge uplift in capability, particularly with moving personnel and stores, and a vast hinterland of civilian users to keep costs down. Wildcat doesn’t have a folding tail boom so the difference in size when parked up with folded rotors is miniscule (AW139 is longer by 4 ft but lower in height).
It’s clear that Wildcat was a political decision to support helicopter design skills at Yeovil. I agree it was a mistake, you can’t fun every skill set from the MoD budget.
The money would have bought upgrades for all the Merlin fleet and paid for a utility helicopter based on any of the competing off the shelf designs. Wildcats not a bad helicopter in any way, it’s just a very poor VFM helicopter. It’s high cost is reflected in its abysmal export record.
Too much emphasis on UAVs and not enough on F35B numbers. The goalposts are continually changing as the UK armed forces grow weaker. The original purchase number of 138 should be adhered to, we have managed to build two very modern carriers but are unable to put one to sea with a full airgroup! As for ‘surge’ capability, this is non-existent, we have no assets to ‘surge’ with!
Is there still talk about a reducing the number of F35Bs and purchasing F35As for the RAF. Or was that just a rumour that has gone away?
That would seem to be the sensible thing to do if we procured something like the originally intended numbers of f35s. Say, three or four operational squadrons plus an OCU of F35As for the RAF and three, preferably four 800 plus one 700 Naval Air Squadrons of F35Bs.
I’ll place that with the 12 Type 45s and 16 type 26s originally intended.
Now scheduled for 2029, around the same time 6th gen aircraft will start to appear including drones.
No Meteor integration or Spear Cap 3 until then.
“The GAO report found that the current 2027 goal for finalizing the Block 4 modernization is “not achievable,” GAO said that costs of the effort had ballooned by $1.9 billion between 2019 and 2020, bringing the overall cost to about $14.4 billion. Software development has been the primary driver of the problems, the report said — including the fact that about a quarter of the software being delivered by prime contractor Lockheed Martin was found to have defects after it had already been integrated into the aircraft.”
https://breakingdefense.com/2021/03/block-4-software-issues-could-cause-f-35-capability-delays-costly-retrofits/
What do they expect if they’ve decided Agile is the right software development methodology? They based their methods on a report called “Software is Never Done”, and they still can’t fathom why they never finish the software.
However that doesn’t mean that Meteor/Spear integration needs to wait that long. Block 4 is a catch-all term for a number of software mods and improvements. Block 3 was released in stages, and I’m sure Block 4 will be too.
Meteor and Spear is more like 2027 at present.
Why would it have been sensible? Save a bit here and there and yet waste the ability to be used on the carriers? Sensible?
That goes for the Merlin numbers too; they are the worlds premier ASW helicopter and are a force multiplier, so considering the ASW challenge more would be very welcome. Introducing F35 and Merlins into service was expensive: each additional airframe is as a result cheaper then the last. We built the QE class entirely around the F35B and it is a world class capability so the idea of not getting the mass in return for promises about UAVs in the future is a huge waste of money.
Agree with you Jack65, I believe we’ve gone beyond ‘down to the bone’. We’re built for only peacetime ‘token show of force’ capability right across the forces. Slightly off topic (as it relates to RN surface combatants) but did anyone hear the Northumberland skipper, on Ch5’s Warship (Episode 4 this past week), say “the RN is stretched …. trying to keep up with Russian activities”. If it’s stretched now God help us if we need to support even a small surface force for an extended period, away from CSG activity. I can see basic but essential patrol duties will suffer elsewhere, we’ll see more mission creep and shore leave cut further …. morale will suffer and our ability to meet commitments with it. Just thinking of the intensified activity the Russians are showing …. usual UK water encroachments and, now, missile testing in the Western Approaches, just one example.
I may have misread it, but wasn’t Vampire for six drones (plus up to ten more), not four? I thought it was four this year 22/23, one each in the following two years, and the option for ten was over and above.
I think you’re correct more or less – 16 was a total number over the course of the contract if recall, roughly as you describe.
Wasn’t Vixen also supposed to have some possible AEW functionality, to take up the role of a proper dedicated aircraft such as an E2-D?
Now that would be great, could it take the heavy gear… E2-D is huge.
E2-D has multiple sensors and in-situ command and control with five people working it all. Vixen will be unmanned. A new generation of sensors will be used, smaller and more sensitive, and presumably most of the command functions will be located elswhere. Finally, it doesn’t need to be as good as the E2-D. As long as it’s better than Crowsnest, it’ll be a step up.
I’m no expert but can all these actually land on and launch from the carriers ?
If we spent the money to make sure they can then yes. Even a trap and small cat could work but can’t see it, looks like we are going for cheap ass carriers, well compared to yanks.
I would add a few CMV-22 for keeping the link between shore & QE/PoW. The US plans to have 2 per carrier, so we would only need to buy 4 at $105 m each, with initial spares. Such a small number would only be viable, if we used USN training & logistics.
Also interesting, General Atomics Mojave. Based on the MQ-9 Reaper, but with STOL capabilities. Can carry up to 16 Hellfire missiles, or similar up to 3600 lbs. They think it could work from aircraft carriers. Probably would not need (could not use) cats & traps, so might be suitable from QE/PoW. Probably greater combat radius/loiter time than an F-35B.
Too silly for words
The Thai navy has been operating a UAV from their pocket carrier, earlier this month.
Why? It uses the same control architecture that the UK has had in use for over 10 years, we have the compatible weapons in stock and personnel trained in using them in flight (same as MQ-9B). It’s designed for short take off and landing, it could easily get aboard a QE. Using the ski jump would need trials however. A UAV with 24hr endurance and serios weapons capability woul dbe a huge bonus.
And if Protector can carry and deploy radar and sonobuoys…Mojave can…
It could definitely operate from the carrier with wind over the deck and its head into wind (like all launches) but they’d need to test its ability on a ski jump…
It’s a 450 hp turboprop. I can’t see it using a ramp launch unless it starts from the top of the ramp, rolling downward to gain speed.
With a high lift wing…it won’t have a problem. Christ a loaded Britten Norman Islander could land and take off from Hermes back in the day
I agree that without weapons and limited fuel, it could take off and land on the QE. I’m saying it’ll gain nothing from the ramp. The question in my mind is, is it cost effective to buy a plane and run it so below its maximum capability? Better to build something lighter and with less capacity, designed for a carrier. Protector costs £15m a pop for additional UAVs, the first tranche costing much more. I can’t see Mojave coming in for substantially less than that.
I do like the Islander. I thought we should have bought Hermes back from the Indians a few years ago when it was for sale and parked it off Pitcairn to give them an Islander service to French Polynesia (and many more facilities beside).
I have wondered about biplanes as lifting bodies. Imagine a ‘modern’ AN-2-esque something for Crowsnest. AN-2 has apparently no discernible stall speed.
How about a triplane…
Faradair BEHA…
They even briefed the REN on it…and it will land and takeoff on QE Class…with 3 standard cargo containers…
They even mocked one up on QE’s deck…
https://imgur.com/vx2vRHN
YES! It’s the only way we will loft anything off QE economically.
I still think (despite known problems) missing a trick by not choosing to take an amphibian route for UAV.
There’s a whole lot of stuff coming in the eVTOL space as well in the near future…
It’s 3x CMV-22 per carrier on current plans.
When you add the cost of paying to use USN facilities you end up with a very small fleet that cost much more per hull than the F35. All for a bit more capability than you get from Chinook. Very poor VFM in my opinion.
Absolutely.
For the cost of it we could buy half an additional FSS.
“Elbit Systems UK has formed and will lead a British industrial team of suppliers to compete for emerging unmanned aircraft system (UAS) programmes, the company announced on 20 January.”
https://www.janes.com/defence-news/industry-headlines/latest/elbit-systems-uk-builds-british-team-to-compete-for-domestic-uas-projects
In this day and age is it possible to go radio silent? Given that a lot of the options listed here are remotely piloted and not autonomous, that’s a significant electronic signature. How do you keep your task group hidden?
EMCON is still a thing, LOS satellite links provide little electronic signature.
But in a world of cheap remote sensing satellites the utility of EMCON is falling in the naval arena.
You would have thought by now they could have stripped a Chinook chassis so just leave cockpit and rotas and move the fuel tanks to the roof so it could pick up and drop off iso containers and make it unmanned using targeted lazers and floor marking on deck to enable pick up and drop off of stores. This will then can be used for mission pods and a troop carrier facility. I’m sure it was done with the ch54 skyhook in the 60s so why not revisit the idea.
Spell checker is your friend.
For all the hype of UAVs and USVs, they can only operate in permissive environments. Introduce electronic warfare and jamming and they will fall from the sky or go around in circles. To Treasury they are attractive but in a hot war without autonomy, useless. Go on BJ and place a firm order for 90 F35Bs, 1 x Astute, 2 x Type 26s and 10 Type-32s. Make Global Britain real.
Wouldn’t that be great news !
There are reports, that the artificial islands, China has built in the South China Sea, have heavy electronic warfare capabilities, to try to counter the US tech advantage.
The Astue line is closing asap to make way for the very much needed new SSBN’s. The first opportunity for extra SSN’s isn’t before the mid 2030’s.
My idea is to swing the RAN SSN deal our way, is to build the lead vessel downunder for the RN.
Couldn’t agree more. Would settle for the F35Bs and the 2x T26 which should be eminently affordable in the scheme of things (as the big sunk costs for both programmes will have been paid). Plus some more choppers…
You could have those T26 and F35’s for the cost of Ajax. Which should be the priority for an island nation?
Uncrewed? So they service themselves and are purely autonomous in every way?
The word unmanned is apparently sexist/uninclusive
🙂
Is WOMAN sexist too?
We all womans now if we want to be. Apparently.
Yep, it’s crazy, iits a dam mental illness.
Occasionally I identified as a pot plant.
I want to identify as a 21 year old. Sadly, reality refuses to have anything to do with it.
I occasionally smoke pot plants…
Naughty! 🙂
Spear 3, having first flown on a Typhoon in 2016, is still years from entering service, despite the obviuos need for it. I’m afraid I don’t hold out much hope for the early introduction of any of these projects and instead I expect that come 2030 we’ll still be talking about how they’re nearly ready for service.
Spear was test flown in 2016, it was an early development missile without its full capabilities. Not a fully finished weapon.
A few points:
1) Fitting a stand off heavy ASM to the F35 should be a far higher priority than fitting that capability to the P8. It doesn’t need to be on every F35; a third of the fleet would probably do
2) Wildcat can’t be directed onto a submarine target by a Type 31 (no sonar) or a Type 45 (poor sonar reportedly no longer operated). Both of these classes are effectively defenceless against submarines when carrying Wildcat.
3) Wildcat with Martlet is not a potent small ship swarm counter weapon. Astonishingly we have not built Martlet as a fire and forget system which puts the Wildcat as risk of MANPADS while directing the missile and (presumably) limits the number of simultaneous engagements. It’s hard to think of a less fit for purpose weapon than an anti-swarm missile that isn’t fire and forget.
4) The F35 needs a stand off land attack missile (Spear 3 does not have the range). The lack of that means the F35 having to go into the engagement envelope of the many types of ground based SAM that Russia will sell to anyone. Unless stealth works exactly as advertised and none of its advantages are eroded over the coming decades, that’s a huge risk.
5) The lack of a long range land attack missile on the F35 coupled with no drop tanks and no carrier based air to air refueling requires the carrier to operate closer to shore to prosecute land based targets. This puts it at risk from attack by land based SSM’s and aircraft.
1) – There is no heavyweight AShM for F-35 at present available. In fact there won’t be one until 2028 when LRASM is integrated. FCASW should arrive in the early 2030’s so no point buying US. Until then there will be 1 AShM available from c2023/24, the Norwegian/US JSM. But its not a heavyweight. There won’t be anything else integrated until after the Block IV weapons are added.
2) – Not unusual in the naval world, but the RN is not using them for ASW.
3) – What better weapon is out there? It’s range is 8km+ which is well outside the range of a MANPAD on a fast attack craft. Each Martlet engagement at max range takes less than 20 seconds…how fast do you think a fast attack craft can actually travel?
4) – Spear (not Spear 3, thats the programme name) has a range in excess of 120 miles. That puts it well outside Russian SAM’s that are designed to engage fighters. They won’t be able to get a track on an F-35 anywhere close to that range either…
5) – Drop tanks are being developed, FCASW will arrive in due course.
1) I’d take JSM over something that might be available in the 2030’s if it’s the only missile system to come in on time ever. JSM is available sooner, does the job and doesn’t require development costs for a new missile so will be cheaper.
2) It’s totally unusual for frigates and destroyers in every first world navy not to have effective sonar. Primarily AAW assets in other navies such as the US, Italy, France, Australia, Spain etc. all have effective sonar and ship launched torpedoes. We are replacing GP frigates that have an effective sonar with frigates that don’t.
3) I didn’t say there was a better weapon. I said we should have developed a fire and forget missile of its primary purpose is anti-swarm
4) The range of Spear puts the F35 well within S400 and S500 range. As I said if stealth prevents aircraft tracking for the decades ahead that’s fine. If all the money being spent by China and Russia on radars that degrade stealth pay dividends then there’s a problem.
5) Unless and until we have those then my comment remains valid.
Spear is slow, big, and has a tiny warhead.
SeaWolf was knocking smaller and much faster targets in the late 70’s.
Why anybody thinks it is worth carrying on £100 million platform for use in the naval sphere is beyond me.
Sea Skua was bigger and didn’t stop anything much over several 100 tons. Mission kill-ish…….perhaps-ish……..
This makes no sense…
Spear is not big…its a 100kg weapon. It’s not slow…its high subsonic. Tiny warhead…perhaps but its not a heavyweight weapon…
SeaWolf was designed to defeat supersonic sea skimmers in the 70’s…which for some reason everyone seems to think are the bees knees now….But if you fire 16 Spear from 2 F-35B at a ship target there aren’t many ships that could defend against it. It’s a lot easier to shoot down 2 larger AShM’s than 16 small targets…if a couple hit its a mission kill for most vessels. Add in Spear-EW producing false tracks and barrage jamming on the raid and it probably has greater survivability than most AShM’s…8 Spear cost a similar amount as 1 heavyweight AShM as well…
Shame that there’s no mention of the E7 Wedgetail, given the limitations of helicopter AEW.
Why we are reducing numbers is beyond me…
Is there any plans to have unscrewed F35s? Wouldn’t seem that hard with today’s tech.
For me, the RN are missing a trick if they’re not making PROTEUS a fixed-wing asset- potentially based upon the Mosquito/Vixen airframe, or the AAR airframe if it’s different. Rotary wing AEW is limited in endurance and altitude, and threats are getting stealhtier and faster. By 2040 I imagine hypersonics are going to actually be the threat that they’re made out to be today, and I’d want to know they’re coming as early as possible.
Also, if the RN aren’t considering Firescout M/Q8C for FTUAS, then they’re crazy. DOn’t bother with something too small to carry a reasonable payload. All of our newest escorts have hangars big enough to take more than one helo anyway, why are we trying to get something so small?
I remain sceptical of thebreadth of the F-35B’s weapon fit, but none of the operators are in a much better place prior to the early 2030s anyway.
You should email Mr Ben Wallace, I’m sure he’ll listen to you.
Haha, for most of the above I think it’s more a case of budget rather than capability. If I’m going to write an email to anyone, it’d have to be Sunack!
Do you disagree with any of the above? I don’t think I’m saying anything particularly ground breaking or uninformed… Although I do have to apologise for the awful spelling errors, I was typing at speed.
I don’t disagree at all, it’s the way we should be heading but for some reason no-one is really listening, which is folly in my book.
I read that Fire Scout prices are around $10-11m a unit, which is peanuts to the USN, but still an item to us. There also has to be a place for something S-100 sized on OPVs and GP frigates.
The advantage of going Fire Scout is that the US pays for the comms and integration research and irons out any bugs. For the number we’d be buying, at least initially, it’s nuts not to buy off the shelf.
I think the next generation of Leonardo radars could change everything for a decade. they say the Eurofighter’s Mk 2 radar will be leading edge, but it looks like there’ll be a step change after that. The replacement for the Osprey 30 in the Fire Scout could turn them into a huge force multiplier in a few year’s time — and we need to get ready for that now.
I’m with you on Fire Scout (C) . It’s shaping up to be a very nice platform.
Yes, pretty cool that they’re just beginning deployments too!
Morning, Flightradar showng a bunch of F15’s and other aircraft heading to Lackenheath…. they just flew over my part of the World.
This is a bit of hindsight, but the RN would have an easier time going forward had it built two CTOL carriers. That would have allowed for more interoperability with the US Navy and fielding a proper AEW aircraft like the E-2D.
‘Fielding’ E-2D would have cost c$10bn. Thats more than the 2 QE Class carriers cost…
$250m per aircraft, with 12 needed (5 per carrier and 2 spare). $3bn right there..
Add in EMALS and AAG for 2 ships and a shore set and you’ve added another $3bn…
Add in extra personnel to operate the EMALS and AAG, lifetime support and spares for that and E-2D and you’ve added an additional $4bn easily….
And it hasn’t even covered the training aircraft necessary to procure for deck landings, their personnel and operational cost either…
what’s standoff weapon