Royal Navy flies first mega Mojave drone from aircraft carrier A large drone aircraft has been operated from one of Britain's aircraft carriers for the first time, indicating how the Royal Navy intends to expand its air power beyond the meager number of F-35 fighters it currently has at its disposal. The "Mojave" aircraft took off and landed back on the carrier HMS Prince of Wales last …
That a slow, unmanned drone costs half the price of the F35. Different capabilities obviously, even so, seems a very expensive drone.
Of course, there was a time when £80m for an F35 seemed an outlandish price, but since that only buys 300 metres of HS2, maybe it's a bargain (even if the F35 is over-complex, and poorly conceived).
Defence companies don't get paid directly for R&D work and so their R&D costs are recouped via higher costs on things that do get ordered.
Typically this then results in the unit cost being higher than expected, which results in cutting the number of units to save money, which results in the unit cost going up.
Personally I think it'd be more honest to just account for and pay the R&D work directly given that in most cases our own government is the sole customer. (Unless you want to sell our military technology to the Russians/Chinese, who'd probably be delighted at buying a single copy to reverse engineer...)
In 1947 the UK SOLD Rolls-Royce Derwent and Nene engines to the Soviets. Soon afterwards MiG-15 and La-15 jet fighters with similar engines rolled from their assembly lines.
Stalin reportedly said "What kind of fool would be willing to sell his secrets!". Stalin and the Bomb, page 235.
Not so much Rolls Royce, the deal was an instructed sale by the Labour government of the day, to their "friends", and against the advice of anybody sensible. If you can speed read you'll get most of the gist in the link below before the "register to read more" banner pops up.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/07/22/attlee-ignored-warnings-send-stalin-rolls-royce-engines/
EvilDrSmith,
Isn't 74 the number that have actually been ordered, while the plan is for 138?
I suspect this may have changed. Or not - it's always hard to know with defence plans. To be fair they are often trying to plan/guess in 50 year timescales... In order to be the only tier 1 partner on the F35 program - and to get c. 20% workshare - i think we needed to be ordering a decent number. We have paid for about 5 of the test aircraft - which aren't combat capable - and can't be made so. So of our initial order of 48, 5-odd are for testing only, one fell off the end of the carrier and somewhere between 10-15 haven't been delivered yet. Oh and about ten will always be needed for the OCU - which is the training squadron. Which is fine, they can have the older aircraft that can't be converted to all the latest specs.
According to the latest MoD mantra, 138 is the numbe of units to be purchased across the lifetime of the aircraft. And this was always true (and we've always been at war with EastAsia). The carriers are expected to still be sailing in 2050-2060 - and so any aircraft we're already flying will be knackered by that point and will have had to be replaced. Likely with newer (more capable) F35s.
The MoD are also rather pissed off with Lockheed Martin about delays. We should have had all our aircraft by about now. But also the Block 4 updates aren't available yet, and they were due several years ago. Block 4 is really important. It's the next big step up in capability, it involves more electricity generation from the engines and more computer power. Weapon integration has been delayed until it's done - the the only one of our weapons that's currently integrated with F35 is Paveway IV and ASRAAM. We're still stuck with AMRAAM for our radar guided air-to-air missile, even though Meteor is way better - and we aren't able to use Brimstone either - the new capabilities of which were specifically designed for the F35 - because it's small and fits in the weapons bay. Weapons mounted on the win make the aircraft less stealthy. If you want to use it to attack enemy air defences, then you want it as stealty as possible.
So we're aparently holding back on buying the next tranche of 24 until they've got their shit sorted out. Also all aircraft made before this year/next year will have to be upgraded to Block 4. More money. And prices are falling, although i doubt they'll fall much further. I doubt there are many economies of scale when you're building say 800 aircraft a year instead of the 500-odd they're doing now.
This could be interesting. If the F35 keeps suffering from delays - it's getting pushed towards when GCAP happens. Well OK, is supposed to happen - it's a defence project after all. Delays are to be expected. But unlike Eurofighter, the Germans aren't involved to slow things down. BAe and the Mitsubishi have already flown tech demonstators - the prototype is supposed to be flying by 2027 - and unlike with Eurofighter (which happened at the end of the Cold War) there's urgency - and Japan in particular are right next to China. Production is supposed to start around 2030. GCAP isn't a carrier fighter- but the F35 is also used by the RAF. There isn't really a difference between RAF and Fleet Air Arm anymore, but the point is that the F35 is also supposed to do land-based tasks. Which puts pressure on what can be based on the carriers. But maybe it will get to the point where GCAP will be a better buy than F35 for all non-naval tasks? Or maybe F35 will continue getting cheaper - whereas GCAP is going to be expensive (and built in fewer numbers) so maybe we will be buying F35 as the cheaper option in 2040? As well as to keep a force for the carriers.
Final point, project Ark Royal. This a program with the aim of trialing drones off the carriers. Then maybe bigger drones with catapults and traps. Then looking at the costs of fitting full-size capapults for heavy drones, which would also be large enough to accommodate manned fighter aircraft. You'd still operate F35, so the carrier wouldn't need a full rebuild - but they would do a sort of mini angled deck thing. The idea is to evaluate this, and see how fast drone technology matures, to see if it's worth refitting the carriers for cats and taps when it comes to their mid-life refits. They were built big, to give these kinds of options. So you could presumably expand the flight deck - to give the full angled deck - and at that point could have a full CATOBAR carrier. However the F35C is I believe actually more expensive than the F35B - which I assume is purely down to only the US Navy ordering them. So would it be worth it? Or could you operate some kind of hybrid - with drones and F35Bs?
But it is possible that come 2030 we've decided to buy no more, and have the RAF using GCAP and the Navy transitioning to something else? However with two carriers it's unlikely we could afford to buy the 80-odd specialist carrier based fighters to give them both air-groups - and you can't ask the RAF to become part-time carrier pilots in anything other than a VSTOL aircraft. It's too bloody dangerous. So that would mean only having one carrier operational at a time - whereas once we've got the numbers of F35 we could surge most of the force in order to operate both at once, if required. The reason for buying two carriers was redundency (ships need a lot of maintenance) but there's a difference between that, and literally not being able to use your second carrier at all.
The carriers are expected to still be sailing in 2050-2060
Unless we get into a shooting war with China - in which case their lifespan can be measured in minutes..
(It used to be "Russia or China" but the last 18 months have shown us a really bad the Russian miliary is. I suspect that a couple of WW2-era battleships could take the whole lot apart..)
Given the rapidly escalating price of modern combat aircraft (carrier-based or otherwise) I would expect that carrier operations will increasingly move to drones, keeping manned aircraft for those times when you just have to have eyeballs connected to wetware looking directly at the target. Drones are typically smaller and cheaper (so we can get more on the carrier), are increasingly capable of carrying the same payload (so your effective strike capability is not degraded) and are relatively expendable (no pilot is lost if the drone is shot down). We are seeing something like this operational methodology develop in the Ukrainian conflict over the last 12-18 months, so its reasonable to expect it to become more widespread.
no, we're _not_ seeing something like this develop in Ukraine, quite the reverse. In Ukraine we're seeing high altitude, small, or smallish observational drones, that slip though air-defences, to spot for targets, also low-to-mid altitude loitering ammunition (though, in general, there's little actual 'loitering' here), we're seeing high (relatively) altitude, very long distance kamikadze drones (both sides use them), and we're seeing low-alt consumer-grade observational drones sometimes used to bomb the opponents and, of course, consumer-grade fpv kamikaze drones. Plus a couple of in-betweens, like those switchblade drones, or a few other, fixed wing Ukraine-made equivalents. There's nothing there used effectively now that's similar to reaper, etc., unless the battlefiled becomes more 'dynamic' and bayraktar drones manage to slip through Russian defence.
Actually, reaper-style drones are not a replacement for manned aircraft, as they lack speed (though the Turks are apparently advanced in their jet-powered fighter drone).
"Actually, reaper-style drones are not a replacement for manned aircraft, as they lack speed"
Then the Western military need to get some supersonic combat drones ordered pronto. The F35 is a dreadful camel of a machine, and a purpose built supersonic combat drone could be smaller, faster, lighter, without the complications of meatsacks requiring years of training, or of heavy life support systems. No need to scrap the slower Reaper-style machines because they'll have better endurance.
Expected battle doctrine for future air-to-air conflict puts something like an F-35 in the middle of a group of manned or unmanned missile platforms (such as the F-15X or EX) which will use the powerful control systems in the F-35 to direct the fire of the 'drones' at the adversary. So you would use one F-35 using stealth in an advanced position controlling half-a-dozen less stealthy aircraft further away from the enemy armed with long range ordnance such as Meteor or AMRAAMs. This is one of the reasons why the F-35 is not an out-and-out air superiority fighter like the F-22.
What the drones being described here are for reconnaissance or loitering ground attack, rather than air-to-air combat. The UK is doing research on supersonic combat drones (BAE Taranis and the joint european FCAS), but this is still years off actual combat aircraft.
something like an F-35 in the middle of a group of manned or unmanned missile platforms
I'm getting flashbacks to Eve Online here - Gallente drone-boat anyone? OK - not long on missiles (and Caldari drone capacity sucks generally) but certainly in the sense of "big momma hangs back and lets the replaceable drones in to do the killing"..
...drones are not a replacement for manned aircraft, as they lack speed...
You can have speed or you can have endurance, but you can't have both. In the majority of cases endurance is more useful.
Supersonic drones could be tricky to control, the latency would be too high to remote fly them in a dog fight and do we want AIs flying combat planes with no wetware in the loop?
The immediate use case driving this current project is to find a replacement for Crowsnest (radar mounted on a Merlin helicopter) by 2030, which is when Crowsnest is scheduled for retirement.
The current plan is to have drones take over a lot of the routine monitoring and surveillance jobs that manned planes would have to be otherwise used for, freeing up the manned planes for more complex jobs. The latter includes both F-35s and Merlin helicopters. Drones have lower operating costs than high performance manned aircraft, and it's the operating costs, not the purchase price, which dominate the overall lifetime costs.
The issues being looked at include factors such as how well the model being evaluated will take-off and land in all sorts of weather and sea conditions, and how to deal with safety issues such as making sure the drone doesn't crash into parked aircraft on the deck in the event of a bad landing. Since there's no pilot, I imagine the options for ensuring the latter are probably a lot more "robust" than would the case if there were a pilot in the aircraft.
UCAP,
Given the rapidly escalating price of modern combat aircraft
Is this really true? The F35A has apparently dropped to around $75 million a piece. Can't see it geting much cheaper. Also the operating costs are very high - and worse, not dropping in tne way they were supposed to (unlike the purchase price).
That makes an F35 a similar price to a Typhoon or even a SAAB Gripen - which are twenty years older (although both with modern new avionics). Although that's partly because they suffer from not enough being ordered, making them more expensive. And both are cheaper to operate than F35.
However, jets and complex weapons systems = expensive. Sure, you'll save some maintenance on systems only present to look after the pilot - but the more capable your drone aircraft - the more its costs will resemble those of manned ones.
Drones are typically smaller and cheaper (so we can get more on the carrier), are increasingly capable of carrying the same payload
This also isn't true. Or at least both can't be true at once. This drone for example only has a low powered prop engine, and a limited payload capacity. So might not be capable of carrying an air search radar and its computers, and certainly isn't capable of powering them. A Merlin helicopter can carry 4 tonnes of payload - the Mojave 1.6 - and can power Crowsnest - plus carry two operators. Oh and the F35B can launch with 10 tonnes.
In the end the laws of physics decide this. If you want to go fast and far, carrying large payloads - you have to be the size of a large manned aircraft. But the holy grail of effective carrier ops is AEW and tanker support. The US Navy use buddy-stores (drop tanks on other fighter aircraft for air-to-air refuelling) and E2 Hawkeyes. Getting something automated to circle round near the carrier offering fuel or doing the radar work would be an excellent asset. The US have trialled a drone tanker, and that's likely to be so heavy it needs traps (even if it can take off from a ski jump). Not sure about the big airborne radars though. Although the alternative to that would be to pay vast amounts of cash to buy the V22 and have a radar version of that built. It might actually be cheaper to buy another carrier...
I would expect that carrier operations will increasingly move to drones
And smaller, cheaper carriers (escort carriers rather than fleet carriers - but without the slow bit :-) ). After all, if you can build 3 carriers for the price of one big, vulnerable one, it kind of makes sense.
Not as chest-puffingly jingoistic of course but, were I a sailor, I'd rather be on something smaller and faster (and multiple) rather than the sole target of every hypersonic ship-killer in the theatre..
The Bayraktar is a cheap frontline surveillance drone that also carries small missiles. It was not designed for the high threat environment Ukraine used it in, but it was what they had, so they used it anyway.
The Navy aren't looking for that. If they need to bomb things from the carrier, they've got the F35. Which is specifically designed to penetrate Russia's extensive air defence network. However if they want to fly a plane in circles at 20,000 feetfor ten hours, a few miles from the carrier performing airborne radar surveillance - they don't currently have anything that can do that. They've got the Crowsnest radar, which is carried by a large helicopter.
Another use for these drones is exactly how we used Reaper. In a low threat environment, say over Afghanistan - for battlefield surveillance - with the option of a few Hellfire missiles for fire support.
The other thing they'd like is drone tankers. But they're even heavier.
Drone combat aircraft of similar capability to frontline fighters are a way off in the future, I suspect.
This story, on the day that David Cameron makes his debut in the Lords, let's remind ourselves of his strategic defence review from when he was PM...
I'm not sure the RAF hijacked the Fleet Air Arm. I suspect the politicians are more to blame, plus circumstances. Creating the joint Harrier force made sense, given it had been done successfully in the Falklands - flying RAF Harriers down there - and it made sense with three carriers and only 30 Sea Harriers in the 90s. Particularly as the Harrier's role in Germany wasn't required after the end of the :Cold War.
Also you can't accuse the RAF of not providing the planes required for the Navy to use. The RAF even took a downgrade, in using the F35B, because it can operate from carriers, over the cheaper F35A - which also has a slightly longer range and larger payload. So rather than calling it a hijacking, I'd call it a sensible compromise to get a capability that the politicians wouldn't otherwise have funded. This way there is enough mass should the Navy require a full deployment, but the rest of the time the planes can be used on RAF operations. The problem will be much less acute when Lockheed Martin pull their bloody fingers out and get Block 4 sorted - so the rest of our planes can be delivered.
The Navy quite sensibly chose to go this route, and chose to go for STOVL carriers after quite a lot of thought, in order to have access to a larger pool of aircraft. I'm guessing the alternative would have been a small F18 buy - where we'd have maybe bought 24-30. And that would have been it. We currently have two carriers, because a single carrier might be in maintenance when you need it. But if we'd bought 24 F18s, that would have been one air group (or maybe a bit less if they went for F35Cs). Whereas we'll have two air groups worth of F35s within a few years. it would need to be an emergency to prise all the extra planes out fo the RAF's hands - and of course the emergency would need to happen at a time when both carriers were available - but it gives more options. If you go for the full cats'n'traps carrier, you can't have the RAF reinforce you at short notice. It takes too much training to do arrested carrier landings, and that training has to be regularly refreshed.
In future there should also be less pressure on the RAF's F35s - once GCAP comes along.
The STOVL / F35B option also provides for better interoperability with other nations - USMC, Italy and Japan all operate F35B from ships (well, Japan may still be thinking about it, with their Helicopter-destroyers, that are absolutely not aircraft carriers-honest), and I think a few other nations are looking at getting the '-B' model.
With a conventional carrier, the option would be USN and French navy only, and carrier inter-operability isn't just having cats-n-traps, but having the right equipment to launch each aircraft type. I'm not sure if F35C can operate from the French carrier, for example.
I doubt F35C can operate from the Charles de Gaulle - because the kit hasn't even been fitted to all the US carriers to operate them yet. I believe they've test flown an F18 from CdG though - but a one-off isn't interoperatbility.
The Spanish haven't decided on F35 - but their Harriers (Matadors) must be getting quite long in the tooth by now. I'm pretty sure Japan are past the thinking about it stage, and have actually ordered F35B. They've got observers on Prince of Wales at the moment (on trials of F35 landing techniques and weight and bad weather limits), in preparation for their own testing and evaluation trip to the US early next year. And two of their helicopter carriers are being refitted specifically to operate F35 - in fact one is finished, though doesn't have a ski-jump yet.
South Korea are also in the process of designing a carrier - also supposedly for F35B. Turkey are building a drone carrier / helicopter carrier thing.
Plus, as you say, us the Italians and the US Marines.
The defence relationship between us and the Japanese seems to be getting a lot closer - and I can well imagine cooperation on aircraft carriers becoming quite a big thing. Perhaps even up to pilot exchanges or even visiting planes.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
