US Navy Drone Tanker
Again, the RFI doesn't name the MQ-25 but yes, any ScanEagle type solution would need to be upscaled for a future large UAV to fly of the QE/PoW.
The RFI is for the MoD to see what potential solutions there might be, the only point I was making is that it might not be traditional cats and traps, which in turn might not require too much structural mods to the carriers.
The RFI is for the MoD to see what potential solutions there might be, the only point I was making is that it might not be traditional cats and traps, which in turn might not require too much structural mods to the carriers.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
I’d be surprised if at least one proposal is not a jet powered STOL UAV. It would need lift augmentation devices to perform a ski-jump take off and SRVL landing, but technologies to provide that are well known.
https://www.navylookout.com/cats-tra...unched-drones/
I'd be incredibly surprised if it was - because the Request for Information to industry is to assess the state of electromagnetic launch and arrestor technology available for fitting to the aircraft carriers with the RfI demanding a solution that is “sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023”.
https://www.navylookout.com/cats-tra...unched-drones/
https://www.navylookout.com/cats-tra...unched-drones/
. A suitable vessel doesn't necessarily just mean a CV - just deck space (and hangarage) for the vehicle(s); power and room for the launch and recovery systems and their control/operation systems (and operators).(Excerpts from the RFI - emphases are mine)
4. Requested Information:
The Authority wishes to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.
Potential suppliers and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.
Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21319Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation
Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24948Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.
The Authority wishes to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.
Potential suppliers and interested parties are invited to provide information in relation to potential solutions which are sufficiently technically mature to be fitted to a suitable ship from 2023.
Potential arrestor solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max trap 47000lbs / 21319Kg
b. Min trap 11000lbs / 5000Kg
c. Energy damping method
d. Potential for energy reclamation
Potential catapult solutions ideally should offer:
a. Max launch weight 55000lbs / 24948Kg
b. Electrical power input required against launch cycle time.
The RN is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet.
2. Background
The Ministry of Defence (The “Authority”) is currently seeking information in order to qualify requirements and develop our understanding of the potential for the market to provide assisted launch and arrested recover for a range of air vehicles, which would be
suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 - 5 years. This is to support the development of the RN’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) with potential for use with both crewed and uncrewed air vehicles.
The Authority intends to use the responses to this RFI to inform future decision making regarding potential air vehicle choices.
2. Background
The Ministry of Defence (The “Authority”) is currently seeking information in order to qualify requirements and develop our understanding of the potential for the market to provide assisted launch and arrested recover for a range of air vehicles, which would be
suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 - 5 years. This is to support the development of the RN’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (FMAF) with potential for use with both crewed and uncrewed air vehicles.
The Authority intends to use the responses to this RFI to inform future decision making regarding potential air vehicle choices.
And that makes quite lot of sense. It is foreseeable that In the next two decades numerous types of UAV will be developped. Of those >90% without STOVL capability. Thus, preparing for CATOBAR would open up way more options for usefull Flightdeck decoration. And each of these things will be way cheaper (and more performant) than if it has to do the Harrier.
Lots of spare `Hoovers` in storage....
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Last edited by ORAC; 28th Aug 2021 at 09:03.
"In the next two decades numerous types of UAV will be developed. Of those >90% without STOVL capability"
Indeed - and so the options for the RN are going to be limited. I just can't see serious funds being made available to make big changes to the PoW class - and putting in any CATOBAR will be expensive
Indeed - and so the options for the RN are going to be limited. I just can't see serious funds being made available to make big changes to the PoW class - and putting in any CATOBAR will be expensive
For Recovery I'm curious to see what ideas come up. QE/PoW don't have angled decks and you would probably not want to land straight in towards the ramp, in case you miss the wire/wire breakage.
Stopping a 20 tonne MQ25 is a tough challenge but a flat/angled deck at the back of something big might work for something smaller - bit like the old "Argos"
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/what...ets-look-like/
What will the Royal Navy’s new Vixen jets look like?
….According to an official Royal Navy publication, titled Future Maritime Aviation Force, which was originally published in December 2020, the Royal Navy aims to replace its helicopter-based airborne early warning (AEW) platform, the Merlin HM2 Crowsnest, with a fixed-wing UAV, currently known as Vixen, by 2030.
The Royal Navy also expects to utilise Vixen in surveillance, air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare and strike roles. A slide from the publication shows that Vixen could be used for airborne early warning, strike, aerial refuelling and more.You can read more about the aerial surveillance side of things by clicking here and the aerial refuelling aspect by clicking here.
Naval Technology reported here that the Royal Navy and RAF are working together to study potential platforms for Mosquito and Vixen, suggesting that a common drone could be fielded fby both services.
We reported recently that the uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator for LANCA, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023……
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/3...ghter-aircraft
£30-million injection for UK’s first uncrewed fighter aircraft
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/roya...drone-for-aew/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
What will the Royal Navy’s new Vixen jets look like?
….According to an official Royal Navy publication, titled Future Maritime Aviation Force, which was originally published in December 2020, the Royal Navy aims to replace its helicopter-based airborne early warning (AEW) platform, the Merlin HM2 Crowsnest, with a fixed-wing UAV, currently known as Vixen, by 2030.
The Royal Navy also expects to utilise Vixen in surveillance, air-to-air refueling, electronic warfare and strike roles. A slide from the publication shows that Vixen could be used for airborne early warning, strike, aerial refuelling and more.You can read more about the aerial surveillance side of things by clicking here and the aerial refuelling aspect by clicking here.
What will they look like?
Project Vixen also parallels the Mosquito project, part of the Lightweight Affordable Novel Combat Aircraft (LANCA) initiative.Naval Technology reported here that the Royal Navy and RAF are working together to study potential platforms for Mosquito and Vixen, suggesting that a common drone could be fielded fby both services.
We reported recently that the uncrewed fighter aircraft demonstrator for LANCA, known as Mosquito, will begin a flight-test programme in 2023……
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/3...ghter-aircraft
£30-million injection for UK’s first uncrewed fighter aircraft
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/roya...drone-for-aew/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Vixen
I am slightly intrigued by the difference in max trap and max launch weights = 8000 lbs /3629 kg, which suggests no immediate recovery if technical problems occur soon after launch.
The required weights suggests something much more substantial than an XQ-58A (MTOW <3 tonnes) or Reaper (MTOW <5 tonnes) sized UAV. From an AAR viewpoint both MTOWs are less than the 6.3 tonnes fuel transfer payload from the Bug or Stingray (the USN's target for CBARS was 6.8 tonnes to 4+ a/c at 500nmi); an almost dry F-35B can take in the region of 6 tonnes but one assumes the RN is looking at extending the 450 nmi combat radius (Internal fuel only).
As I have (half-jokingly) said before the RN isn't the only Navy needing to solve the problem; does affordability (and light weight) rule out a new integration for the RR liftsystem? I assume it has already ruled out enough power for STOBAR a la MiG-29K?
The RFI specifies an arrestor wire system - with a UAV how many wires are required? If they are truly looking for inovation does it have to be a wire - EMAAS
? Why can't an EMALS follow the ramp profile? The MiG-29K suggest ramps can be used without thrust vectoring - so why not for a lighter UAV - isn't it mainly a question of having sufficient thrust to acheive enough forward velocity (and by implication lift) for sustained controlled flight before it leaves the ramp?
The required weights suggests something much more substantial than an XQ-58A (MTOW <3 tonnes) or Reaper (MTOW <5 tonnes) sized UAV. From an AAR viewpoint both MTOWs are less than the 6.3 tonnes fuel transfer payload from the Bug or Stingray (the USN's target for CBARS was 6.8 tonnes to 4+ a/c at 500nmi); an almost dry F-35B can take in the region of 6 tonnes but one assumes the RN is looking at extending the 450 nmi combat radius (Internal fuel only).
As I have (half-jokingly) said before the RN isn't the only Navy needing to solve the problem; does affordability (and light weight) rule out a new integration for the RR liftsystem? I assume it has already ruled out enough power for STOBAR a la MiG-29K?
The RFI specifies an arrestor wire system - with a UAV how many wires are required? If they are truly looking for inovation does it have to be a wire - EMAAS
? Why can't an EMALS follow the ramp profile? The MiG-29K suggest ramps can be used without thrust vectoring - so why not for a lighter UAV - isn't it mainly a question of having sufficient thrust to acheive enough forward velocity (and by implication lift) for sustained controlled flight before it leaves the ramp?
With a properly designed drone, you don't have the limitations on accel rate that you have with piloted aircraft - no concerns with the pilot blacking out or otherwise not being able to control the aircraft immediately after launch.
I'm amazed it "will be in service by 2030". Eight years for a new system? And one that has to be tested with both aircraft and ships??
the peacetime record would suggest that's a tad optimistic?
the peacetime record would suggest that's a tad optimistic?
That's a good point! Perhaps it might really be possible to squeeze a rather short EMALS catapult in front of the ramp, ending where the curvature of the deck begins.For the energy required this will not make much of a difference, only peak power would have to be increased. With EMALS that might be easier than with a steam system.
td, henra; a more significant problem is with the aircraft structure, nose leg compression; - total energy.
Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.
I recall a Harrier incident where the takeoff distance was miscalculated - the roll required before the ramp inadvertently added the ramp length; fast on the ramp, nose-leg ‘exploded’ due to over compression.
Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.
I recall a Harrier incident where the takeoff distance was miscalculated - the roll required before the ramp inadvertently added the ramp length; fast on the ramp, nose-leg ‘exploded’ due to over compression.
td, henra; a more significant problem is with the aircraft structure, nose leg compression; - total energy.
Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.
Faster off the ramp has advantages - vectored thrust not required, higher takeoff wt, but the aircraft structure has to account for ‘V squared’ in the energy equation when entering and ‘rotating’ on the ramp.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
With the higher acceleration a large angled deck extension might not be needed, a diagonal catapult in the space behind the ramp should be more than adequate.
I don't think getting them off a medium sized vessel is a big problem - firing things of all sizes is something Navy's do rather well - it's getting them back on that requires space and (possibly) go-round areas