RAF Mosquito
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Such vehicles, just like their manned counterparts, will be designed around a threat and a theatre of operations - and the size, range and performance of that required by the RAF in the European theatre will probably be different to that required by the RAAF/USAAF/USN in the Pacific theatre.
That dichotomy was shown in the Cold War era when the RAF wanted a long range two seat interceptor to meet the SACLANT and manned bomber/QRA roles whilst everyone else was buying F-16s to counter the Central Region short range dogfight threat.
Now, that doesn’t mean that export potential and OOA concerns might not end up with both Tempest and Mosquito having long legs and being similar to the Loyal Wingman - but it does mean just buying off the shelf from Australia isn’t a given.
As for the idea the UK would only buy something designed in the UK, I’d point out we bought and operated the F-4 for decades, alongside the C-130, Chinook, Apache and many others, and have in the last couple of decades bought the F-35, C-17, P-8, Voyager, R1…. And of course the E-7 Wedgetail…..
My previous post #13 also pointed out that various Grumman and other designs are possible candidates for Mosquito, Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast may lead the programme, but I doubt they’ll be starting from scratch….
That dichotomy was shown in the Cold War era when the RAF wanted a long range two seat interceptor to meet the SACLANT and manned bomber/QRA roles whilst everyone else was buying F-16s to counter the Central Region short range dogfight threat.
Now, that doesn’t mean that export potential and OOA concerns might not end up with both Tempest and Mosquito having long legs and being similar to the Loyal Wingman - but it does mean just buying off the shelf from Australia isn’t a given.
As for the idea the UK would only buy something designed in the UK, I’d point out we bought and operated the F-4 for decades, alongside the C-130, Chinook, Apache and many others, and have in the last couple of decades bought the F-35, C-17, P-8, Voyager, R1…. And of course the E-7 Wedgetail…..
My previous post #13 also pointed out that various Grumman and other designs are possible candidates for Mosquito, Spirit AeroSystems in Belfast may lead the programme, but I doubt they’ll be starting from scratch….
Last edited by ORAC; 14th Sep 2021 at 11:38. Reason: Sp
Well you did modify the F-4 significantly with the addition of the Speys but I was merely pointing out (in an epic fail attempt at UK-Oz banter) that the term "Loyal Wingman" was already taken. Just so you know even the name Wedgetail come from Australia. Its named after a very impressive indigenous eagle. 
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Press release
Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office announce review of Project Mosquito
Project Mosquito, the future uncrewed Combat Aircraft Technology Demonstration being explored by the Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), will not proceed beyond the design phase.
Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office announce review of Project Mosquito
Project Mosquito, the future uncrewed Combat Aircraft Technology Demonstration being explored by the Royal Air Force Rapid Capabilities Office (RCO), will not proceed beyond the design phase.
£30m wasted!
Yup, predictable just like Taranis. Autonomous aircraft are so far away, despite what the progressive visionaries say, and I would be amazed if we saw a fully autonomous UCAV before 2050. Even then, I suspect it will always have a human “on the loop”. We don’t even have an uncrewed aircraft that can fly autonomously in unsegregated Class G airspace yet, so really the Mosquito was going to be little more than a radio controlled Hawk (wasn’t that a Jindivik?).
It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
You never know this might actually be a way to obtain the same outcome with out spending money on a technology demonstrator deemed superflous to the end goals of LANCA by Project Mosquito Phase 1. (I may just be naïve.)
From the original Mosquito press release.
'Under LANCA, a technology demonstrator project known as ‘Mosquito’ has awarded contracts for Phase 1 of the work, which will produce a preliminary system design for an unmanned air vehicle and assessment of the key risk areas and cost-capability trade-offs for an operational concept.'
From the 24 Jun 2022 MoD press release:
'Air Commodore Jez Holmes, Head of the Rapid Capabilities Office said: Through Project Mosquito and other experimentation activities the Royal Air Force has made substantial progress and gained significant value in understanding and harnessing a range of future uncrewed capabilities. This decision maximises the learning accrued to date and enables a change of direction for the LANCA programme. The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF’s unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'
(My emphasis)
The press release also says:.
Deciding to not proceed with the specific manufacturing technology demonstrator will not impact on the wider intent to build the most capable and cost-effective force mix possible, or the “Loyal Wingman” concepts under investigation within the Future Combat Air System Enterprise. The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space, where integration through a system-of-systems approach has been a key requirement from the outset.
The decision was informed by parallel analysis and capability experimentation conducted by the RAF and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl). The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.
From the original Mosquito press release.
'Under LANCA, a technology demonstrator project known as ‘Mosquito’ has awarded contracts for Phase 1 of the work, which will produce a preliminary system design for an unmanned air vehicle and assessment of the key risk areas and cost-capability trade-offs for an operational concept.'
From the 24 Jun 2022 MoD press release:
'Air Commodore Jez Holmes, Head of the Rapid Capabilities Office said: Through Project Mosquito and other experimentation activities the Royal Air Force has made substantial progress and gained significant value in understanding and harnessing a range of future uncrewed capabilities. This decision maximises the learning accrued to date and enables a change of direction for the LANCA programme. The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF’s unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'
(My emphasis)
The press release also says:.
Deciding to not proceed with the specific manufacturing technology demonstrator will not impact on the wider intent to build the most capable and cost-effective force mix possible, or the “Loyal Wingman” concepts under investigation within the Future Combat Air System Enterprise. The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space, where integration through a system-of-systems approach has been a key requirement from the outset.
The decision was informed by parallel analysis and capability experimentation conducted by the RAF and the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl). The accumulation of analysis concluded that more beneficial capability and cost-effectiveness appears achievable through exploration of smaller, less costly, but still highly capable additive capabilities.
So:
The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space
The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF's unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'
Or is 2035 near term?
The programme remains focused on the post-2035 capability space
The Rapid Capabilities Office will now quickly launch activities to aggressively pursue the RAF's unchanged firm commitment to integrate advanced uncrewed capabilities into the near-term force mix with more immediate beneficial value.'
Or is 2035 near term?
Yup, predictable just like Taranis. Autonomous aircraft are so far away, despite what the progressive visionaries say, and I would be amazed if we saw a fully autonomous UCAV before 2050. Even then, I suspect it will always have a human “on the loop”. We don’t even have an uncrewed aircraft that can fly autonomously in unsegregated Class G airspace yet, so really the Mosquito was going to be little more than a radio controlled Hawk (wasn’t that a Jindivik?).
It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
It will also put the mockers on Project VIXEN: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
Why have people tried so hard to produce aircraft in this class?
Are the Kratos aircraft, MQ-25 and Ghost Bat similarly 'doomed' do you think?
Skyborg program (not kratos) and Ghost bat are inspirational programs but we will get something less in the end. I think they will be a dumber just advanced escorts for things like AWACS and tankers, at least initially then later possibility of a more heavy integration with fighters in combat
rattman - agreed.
Jackonicko - the Stingray started off as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) in 2010. It was then vaunted to have an AESA RADAR with AIM-120 with a robotic wingman notion for F/A-18 and F-35C. By 2016 it was all scaled down to Carrier Based Air Refuelling System (CBARS) and “a little ISR”. Also, they hurriedly recruited, trained and invented a whole new career field (737X) as Aerial Vehicle Operator (AVO) Warrant Officers - 450 of them. They join the Naval Aviators (Pilots), Naval Flight Officers (WSOs, EWOs, TACCOs, etc…) and Naval Aircrew (Crewmen, Cryptologists, EW Specialists, etc…) as a 4th flying badge that requires flying training. The AVO’s in depth aircrew training was required as the levels of autonomy originally envisaged were just not there. They have to complete Officers Candidate School, Ground School, Basic Flying Training and then MQ-25 specific training.
As for Taranis then again there was a great vision from the ever long Project CHURCHILL lead in. Taranis was always called a demonstrator and it cost the taxpayer ~£180M. Again, it was little more than a radio-controlled Hawk, with no ability to let it go “off tether” without a human tugging on its leash. I think it last flew 6 years ago and is effectively shelved. It also drew on Corax, Raven and HERTi - the latter being a pretty facsimile of what General Atomics had been producing for years.
Let’s fast forward to General Atomics Protector, with a semi-autonomous capability (auto take off and land), that programme is at the cutting edge of current uncrewed production aircraft. The tricky bit is making it certified with a suitable detect and avoid system - but again it requires human pilots and sensor operators to make it function. Granted, just like cars with ‘driver assist’ then I suspect that more and more autonomy will be built in. In the car industry there are 5 levels - 1 - no automation, 2 - hands on shared control, 3 - eyes off, 4 - mind off and 5 - no controls. At best in aircraftI believe we are at Level 2 and levels 3, 4 and 5 for a large aircraft in non-segregated airspace is 25+ years away. Then again, it won’t happen overnight. However, the various aircraft manufacturers will keep peddling ‘snake oil’ photos of fancy looking uncrewed concepts with bold claims of loyal wingmen and autonomous fighters - but with immature tech to back that up.
Jackonicko - the Stingray started off as the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) in 2010. It was then vaunted to have an AESA RADAR with AIM-120 with a robotic wingman notion for F/A-18 and F-35C. By 2016 it was all scaled down to Carrier Based Air Refuelling System (CBARS) and “a little ISR”. Also, they hurriedly recruited, trained and invented a whole new career field (737X) as Aerial Vehicle Operator (AVO) Warrant Officers - 450 of them. They join the Naval Aviators (Pilots), Naval Flight Officers (WSOs, EWOs, TACCOs, etc…) and Naval Aircrew (Crewmen, Cryptologists, EW Specialists, etc…) as a 4th flying badge that requires flying training. The AVO’s in depth aircrew training was required as the levels of autonomy originally envisaged were just not there. They have to complete Officers Candidate School, Ground School, Basic Flying Training and then MQ-25 specific training.
As for Taranis then again there was a great vision from the ever long Project CHURCHILL lead in. Taranis was always called a demonstrator and it cost the taxpayer ~£180M. Again, it was little more than a radio-controlled Hawk, with no ability to let it go “off tether” without a human tugging on its leash. I think it last flew 6 years ago and is effectively shelved. It also drew on Corax, Raven and HERTi - the latter being a pretty facsimile of what General Atomics had been producing for years.
Let’s fast forward to General Atomics Protector, with a semi-autonomous capability (auto take off and land), that programme is at the cutting edge of current uncrewed production aircraft. The tricky bit is making it certified with a suitable detect and avoid system - but again it requires human pilots and sensor operators to make it function. Granted, just like cars with ‘driver assist’ then I suspect that more and more autonomy will be built in. In the car industry there are 5 levels - 1 - no automation, 2 - hands on shared control, 3 - eyes off, 4 - mind off and 5 - no controls. At best in aircraftI believe we are at Level 2 and levels 3, 4 and 5 for a large aircraft in non-segregated airspace is 25+ years away. Then again, it won’t happen overnight. However, the various aircraft manufacturers will keep peddling ‘snake oil’ photos of fancy looking uncrewed concepts with bold claims of loyal wingmen and autonomous fighters - but with immature tech to back that up.
I think the problem may just be that if the "wingman" can do all this stuff, it costs nearly as much as a proper fighter but depends on one being nearby to operate, so it's not cheap and it's too valuable to take many more chances with.
If the improvements can go into sensors, countermeasures, or weapons that can be carried by the "formation leader", you could just do that and not bother building a whole second aircraft.
If the improvements can go into sensors, countermeasures, or weapons that can be carried by the "formation leader", you could just do that and not bother building a whole second aircraft.
Steam chicken
There are other things to consider. Firstly it might be wingmen rather than wingman. That means a lot more weapons and coverage than one person in one aircraft could manage. Also, people are bloody expensive and take time to train and are a serious limitation due to their physical constraints and requirements.
I personally think unmanned/partially manned is the obvious future solution. It just needs proper investment early to sort it.
BV
I personally think unmanned/partially manned is the obvious future solution. It just needs proper investment early to sort it.
BV