The Scene is Set – European UAV Rumble
Share by EmailInteresting news recently from the MoD on the subject of future unmanned research and a contract with BAe for £40 million.
The four-year Future Combat Air System (FCAS) focused research contract aims to sustain and develop the UK’s critical technology and skills in this field. It will inform the MOD’s unmanned air system strategy over the coming decades to ensure that the best use is made of these new technologies.
So we have a new acronym, FCAS, although it has been bandied around for a while.
Not much news on what FCAS aims to achieve apart from simply informing future decisions and £10m a year does not seem like a lot in aerospace research but this is one area where against all odds, the UK actually has a decent set of technology advantages.
In summer this year, with the backdrop of increasing UK/French defence cooperation and discussions on a BAe/Dassault Medium Altitude Long Endurance UAV project moving on from the BAe Mantis demonstrator called Telemos, EADS warned that without a broad European agreement i.e. everyone agreeing that the EADS Talarion is the way forward, they would look at other partnerships.
With no successor to Typhoon planned the long term viability of the European defence aerospace sector obviously depends on unmanned systems.
Despite the earlier UK/French love in it is obvious from the shenanigans over the Euro that this cooperation may not survive when national interests are at stake and one only has to look at the shareholders of EADS to see the seeds of future ‘issues’
There seems no love lost between Dassault and EADS (despite EADS owning 40% of Dassault) and approaches from the Italians have been rebuffed. With the poor export showing of the Rafale, Dassault are fighting for survival once the production run has finished.
EADS and Finmeccania’s Alenia have responded by recently signing an memorandum of understanding on unmanned systems.
To complicate matters, Finmeccanica are the MoD second largest supplier with ten thousand UK employees after their extensive investment in ex ministers and senior officers via their well oiled revolving door mechanism, Mark III for the use of.
BAe have many advantages and a decent track record on unmanned systems but their relatively small stake in F35 and nothing thereafter means that they also need some skin in the game.
It seems everyone has woken up to the fact that any development party of more than two is a disaster waiting to happen and European defence cooperation has a spectacular track record of creating living nightmares.
On the other hand where there are only two partners, the story is different with a number of examples of these partnerships churning out decent kit at reasonable prices.
Whilst Telemos might look like a bit of a Reaper clone just as Reaper evolves under the skin are some significant differences and significantly, isn’t American. It is obviously a stepping stone to the more exotic combat oriented stealth concepts designs.
Which brings us back to the contract with BAe, £10m a year seems like a very small amount given what is at stake.
Perhaps we need to think again about the quantities of F35 and see that as an interim capability, reducing them to the bare minimum and concentrating on the unmanned sector?
The scene is set for a knock down winner takes all fight in the European UAV industry and it is one the UK cannot afford to be on the losing side.
European defence collaboration, as my kids might say, ‘whatever’
Category: Business and Politics
About the Author (Author Profile)
Think Defence hopes to start sensible conversations about UK defence issues, no agenda or no campaign but there might be one or two posts on containers, bridges and mexeflotes!Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
“Despite the earlier UK/French love in it is obvious from the shenanigans over the Euro that this cooperation may not survive when national interests are at stake and one only has to look at the shareholders of EADS to see the seeds of future ‘issues’”
It was always a matter of conjecture whether this cooperation extended as far as Taranis, and the future UCAV platforms it would lead to, and it has yet to be demonstrated whether the minor fracas over the euro will have any real impact on the cooperation that really is planned.
the UK is too late out of the box.
the Israeli’s, the US, heck even China are pushing with UAV development and with the slow pace of the effort inside Europe as a whole, i just don’t see much coming out of this effort.
the USN is about to begin deploying UCAVs off aircraft carriers. the US already has numerous stealth UAVs either in service or development.
a better bet would be to leverage the special relationship, get strongly aboard a US system and perhaps concentrate on correcting some of the weaknesses identified in UAV operations.
its not high profile. but it will keep the UK military cutting edge. Telemos for what its worth is a poor Heron at best (at least from the outside looking in)
correction…Mantis, not Telemos.
i don’t mean to beat a dead horse but recent news out of Afghanistan highlights my point as does the operations in Libya.
the first combat mission for a helicopter UAV occurred when the US Navy launched a firescout for a mission in Libya and today we find out that the USMC just performed the first unmanned helicopter UAV mission in Afghanistan.
Hi TD,
RE “everyone has woken up to the fact that any development party of more than two is a disaster waiting to happen and European defence cooperation has a spectacular track record of creating living nightmares.
On the other hand where there are only two partners, the story is different…”
- EADS has a partnership with Turkey as well, not only Alenia
- knowing how keen Turkey is to bring key military technologies ( T129, a twin-engine combat helicopter developed from the AW129, SAR-type satellites, stealthy cruise missiles…) onshore, I would not be surprised if these are two different, bilateral partnerships (?)
- compare the above list with this one (which is actually two lists, emerging in close sequence): “Italy and Germany signed a cooperation deal Dec. 16 covering UAVs, unmanned ground vehicles, guided munitions, satellites and missiles, according to an industry source. That follows a Nov. 29 meeting between the Italian and German defense ministers in Berlin, where they signed a letter of intent on cooperation on UAVs, submarine development, long-range precision munitions and pilot training” [Defencenews 19 Dec ]
RE “Perhaps we need to think again about the quantities of F35 and see that as an interim capability, reducing them to the bare minimum and concentrating on the unmanned sector?”
- I have been speculating for a good while that the thinking has already been done and we are hedged against such futures (plural as naval and land FCASs may turn out to be different) by batching the c. 100 F-35s (what was the acronym for them in the UK again?) into two, time-wise widely separated lots of 40-50
Have to agree with Sol on three accounts:
1.the UK is too late out of the box (the global market is being squared before any of these products hit it)
2. On the navy side of things we should hang onto the coat tails of the USN
3. Is a Heron (in capability); not a poor one. So I actually disagree, but the point is you can buy a Heron, but for Mantis you’ll have to wait quite a while (so it will ever only be a flying test bed and a demonstrator, because the market will have moved on)
@TD, “Perhaps we need to think again about the quantities of F35 and see that as an interim capability, reducing them to the bare minimum and concentrating on the unmanned sector?”
I’ve come to that very conclusion. If the FAA were the sole operator of manned carrier a/c to be used primarily for fleet air defence (say 50 air frames in total), the RAF could operate a large number of surveillance / deep strike UAVs. This would be a very positive step in my opinion and whilst UAV technology is not quite there yet, with other the tools at our disposal such as TLAM and the Typhoon, it would be a relatively low risk capability gap whilst the technology comes on line. Also UAVs could switch easily between operating from land bases and carriers without us worrying about keeping RAF crews trained for carrier flying and their dislike of being at sea… Also, if we no longer need carrier a/c for primarily strike missions, then is the F35 the right a/c anymore…
At the end of the day the UK could have a lot of skin in the UAV if the government wanted to shape the RAF (and it’s budget) accordingly. I’ve said it elsewhere, but the UK could have significant global presence if we chose to focus on the RN having the 2nd most powerful navy in the world, the RAF the 2nd most powerful UAV fleet and the Army the most agile rapid reaction force.
“Perhaps we need to think again about the quantities of F35 and see that as an interim capability, reducing them to the bare minimum and concentrating on the unmanned sector?”
As with AAC I agree that el-governmento has hedged their bets very nicely against the potential for UCAV’s to disrupt the current dominance of the manned combat aircraft.
From my point of view all i care about is that the potential of the CVF is used, and if this is a mix of F35/son-taranis/gbu-equipped-storks i care not.
just reading repulses comment and i’m reminded of a report in on the BBC programme the one show. John Nichol (tornado pilot captured in GW1) was reporting on reaper, at the end of the report he turned to camera pointed to aircraft and made comments about it being pilotless (warning sign on the side) being the saddest part of this future aircraft. That is the attitude you’re up against RAF like playing with their expensive toys, no banging about in gro-bags (flying suits) impressing the ladies
Solomon’s comments really show just how powerful US advertising can be, and are massively far from reality.
The US is about to deploy UCAS off carriers? Since when did that happen? If you have any knowledge of X-47B and chose to look below the surface, the reality is far far different from what seems to be reported. This is a demonstrator to test UCAS compatability on carriers, it’s miles away from a finished product. It doesn’t have weapon bays, mission systems, and most importantly, isn’t VLO. Everyone seems to assume that the US has a monopoly on LO but this is not reality. Look at X-47B in detail and you can see that this isn’t a VLO design. It’ll be a good decade at least before you’re looking at anything production based with mission systems and then the question is really how capable that is going to be?
Comparing even, the orginal Mantis demonstrator to IAI Heron is just silly. It’s rather larger and massively more capable. The UK has a long interest in unmanned R&D with many demonstrators over the years (Raven, Corax, Herti etc.) that just get ignored but are actually world-leading. These aren’t just remote controlled aircraft like Predator or Reaper but rather more capable unmmaned systems. Mantis/Scavenger/Telemos is aimed at the high end, above Reaper in capability.
One of the main issues here is that most of the capabilty isn’t in the air vehicle but is hidden in the background. The US can tell everyone that it’s stuff is great because no one can prove otherwise, apart from operators of the system. So why is the UK pursuing an indigenous MALE? It sure as hell isn’t for sustainment issues in the current environment but is rather indicative of issues with operating Reaper. A simple point would be to ask how the UK would train with Reaper when it’s got basically zero chance of being cleared for UK airspace?
With regards to the wider question of which European countries are doing what; it’s really got down to the choice of whether countries want to retain Defence aerospace industries. Given the state of the industries in the various countries it’s likely that everyone is going to lose – but some more than others. The UK has had a fairly big step up by pursuing Taranis alone, but there’s a lot to do on mission systems. Integrating new sensors, mission systems, and VLO at acceptable cost is the key challenge.
‘just reading repulses comment and i’m reminded of a report in on the BBC programme the one show. John Nichol (tornado pilot captured in GW1) was reporting on reaper, at the end of the report he turned to camera pointed to aircraft and made comments about it being pilotless (warning sign on the side) being the saddest part of this future aircraft. That is the attitude you’re up against RAF like playing with their expensive toys, no banging about in gro-bags (flying suits) impressing the ladies’
I think there is some mileage in what you say, but it’s not quite at the level you would think. Non aircrew are being trained to fly UAVs now. It is changing, although I think it’s human being thing, not just confined to the RAF. People like certain things and don’t like change, to him it would be sad. No doubt there is something that when changed you would think would be a change for the worse, especially if your job related to it. There still is something special and individualistic about flying.
Oh and he was the nav not the pilot
‘A simple point would be to ask how the UK would train with Reaper when it’s got basically zero chance of being cleared for UK airspace?’
Good point hannay I know that that point is a big sticking point over 39 Sqn coming back to the UK.
Reaper is a UOR, so there is the answer
Well there are plans afoot to move them to the UK UOR or not. 13 and 14 Sqns are planned to reform in the UK at Waddington.
If the RAF had to prioritise GR4/Typhoon/F35 v bringing Reaper into the core EP which do you think would win?
As soon as UOR funding runs out that is the stark choice, maybe the squadron might reform but I think it will be with an eye on future UAV’s and operating the Reapers solely overseas
Can’t see Reaper ever flying in the UK, segregated airspace or not. The trouble we have had with Watchkeeper shows how difficult this will be and that is a completely different kettle of fish to Reaper
Just to add to above, one of the plans is for the actual uavs and groundcrew to stay in the US and the aircrew and ground stations to come back and fill out the two new sqds. But it still hasn’t all been worked. But there is a desire to get them back asap, the cost of keeping 100 people out there is high, too high to a lot of people.
Are you sure that it’s a UOR TD? It may well have been at the start, but I think it has been brought into the main budget.
I don’t understand the need to cooperate with the French on UAV development. The benefits from co-operation are that R&D costs are shared and you have the benefit of expertise from both/all nations.
In the case of the UAVs, a lot of the hard work has been done. I simply think we should just run with Taranis and Mantis and see them through as finished products, don’t p**s about, changing requirement etc (which is a lot more likely if co-operating with other nations).
Taranis and Mantis have potential to be excellent systems. Some may consider Taranis to fill the role of replacing Tornado for deep-strike. Although this is true and it will do that very well, I believe the main benefits will come from the fact that it will provide a very survivable, long endurance capability.
As for comments on the F-35 procurement, to be honest, I imagine F-35 will be cut to a patheticly low level anyway. To be fair, with intended reduction to 12 F-35s per carrier which I assume is just a single squadron. I wonder whether a purchase of 50 or so would be enough to provide three squadrons of 12 F-35s. If I am right, the SDSR stated that an operational carrier will typically operate 12 F-35s while retaining the ability to operate the original intention of 36. I think this force would be ideal and should be entirely operated by the FAA. Reason I say this is because inter-service rivalry has always been an issue and in this way, FAA will get their F-35s and the RAF will get their Tarnis, both providing a deep-strike capability. The other reason is that before the SDSR, it would have made sense to retain RAF crews from JFH which were predominantly RAF crew. Seeing as all training is now to be done in conjunction with the US for CATOBAR training, all from scratch, then there is no need to retain RAF for naval operations and these crews would be better diverted to Tornado and Typhoon operations.
As for Taranis, it would be nice to see it developed into a carrier capable system, although I question whether its design would fundamentally allow for it and if this option were to be pursued, combined training and research would be best done with the US with their current UCAV(N) research.
*very survivable, long endurance ISR capability.
You are probably right Topman, wouldn’t be the first time I have gobbed off without the benefit of fact checking
No probs, it might still be UOR, there just seems to be a lot of noise on 39 Sqn and around the bazaars at the moment. Specifically what the long term plan to move to the UK and getting as many people off overseas allowences as possible!
BAE last year also flew the Demon demonstrator UAV, this is the first UAV to use no flaps or ailerons. This could have significant impact on costs, maintenance and lo.
One of the biggest problems usualy mooted against UAVS is bandwidth and jamming
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.com/2011/12/news-satellites-finally.html
Now, thats a recon rather than communications satellite, but to the outsider, that sounds a lot like we could hold a stock of satellites and rockets on Ascension, and in the event of war, lob them up to provide satellite recon and communications over the theatre in question? I struggle to see why would need 24/7 coverage of the entire planet, but £50mn for coverage of a warzone….
“If I am right, the SDSR stated that an operational carrier will typically operate 12 F-35s while retaining the ability to operate the original intention of 36.”
That will be the benchmark which fleet numbers must enable.
I was guessing (with no expertise) that this would require 72, but if it can be less then it probably will.
People need to look beyond BAE systems when they talk about F35 and whats involved for the UK business they are just the most visible aspect for obvious security reasons. There are nearly 100 uk companies involved with this program and the percentage share of manufacture in the UK is equivalent to the percentage share we get on airbus a/c for example. The production run maybe extended but in time this a/c will be the only manned fast jet a/c in uk service. Just to give a idea of how far engineering runs ahead the major design effort of f35 in this country peaked in 2006-7 its now very much in production and sustainment mode.
When people really see what the capabilities of the current UAV a/c are they will quickly discover how far away we really are. The only single cost saving over manned a/c will be that we buy less airframes and have a small production run they will not be cheap and will require a sovereign satellite capability with signifcant redundancy that will make the man from the treasure go weak at the knees.
The effort in this area should be solely in long range recon assets that are cheap and expendable (rq170 type) similar to the current reaper type a/c indeed the abundance of cheap long range manned a/c such as diamond ect make me even question is anything above watchkeeper even needed for the UK in the unmanned arena.
This 40m is so small in Aviation terms its almost pointless if we had put an extra nought on the end then I would start to think that perhaps we have something in the pipe line in about 10 years time. The max uk requirement here will most likely be around 24-36 a/c so to pin UK aerospace hope on it will be utter folly as the satellite requirement will mean there of limited export potential. The game is over for UK miltary aerospace we missed out where done when it comes to assembly of a/c. The french partnership will end in tears as it alway does when work share rears it head.
we should have asked for a final assemblty for an airbus a/c of some type if we were concerned about uk aerospace its all to late know mind you spain,germany and france out foxed us years ago.
“European defence cooperation has a spectacular track record of creating living nightmares.”
Or you go it alone and end up with Rafale, where the manufacturer holds a gun to your head to maintain production at a higher level than you can really afford, in order to keep the lines going for export orders that don’t come, because there’s no economies of scale. Or qv Nimrod.
Or you piggyback on a US programme and end up with a gold-plated boondoggle that is late and costs twice as much as first promised – qv F-111, F-35.
In comparison the likes of Jaguar and Tornado look positively cushty.
El Sid
Saab seem to manage, its not clear from a quick search what the development costs of the Gripen were, but they cant have been that much.
There was a report recently that stated that Saab was the fighter manufacturer that was going to be under most strain in the years ahead as it looks at what happens after the last of the Gripen exports.
Gripen’s first test flight was in 1988 they took a while to save cash.
a nation that produced the Spitfire and Harrier can maintain a military aviation industry. i just don’t think its to be found in the UAV market.
what should drive development is the low cost fighter/trainer type based on the BAE Hawk. it just needs to be made more capable and slightly larger. i am amazed that no one is discussing it for use on your upcoming carrier as a close support/helicopter escort platform.
there is a way forward but it will take dedication and courage to see it through…and effort by the government to make it work.
Hang on Solomon,
I remember in a previous post you slammed the suggestion of using a Hawk varient off carriers…even the single seat ‘light fighter-attack’ Mk200.
Unless you mean a far more radicle development? Like the Japs did with F-16 for F-2?
thats exactly what i mean. much more radical. bigger engine, state of the art AESA, all the electronic bells and whistles and longer range through a stretched fuselage and enlarged wings.
that should feed the industry, plus size the jets for the FAA and open up the possibility of competing against the Gripen for new orders in the low cost market.
the UK, BAE and the Royal Navy can get this done…if they find the will.
so this is a no on the disposable sats then?
The Americans had the same idea of having satellites ready to go. I can’t remember if they ever did it though.
@ soloman with all that extra kit you would virtually be designing a new a/c.
Bollocks to all that, we need my medium bomber concept!!
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2011/05/is-it-time-to-bring-back-the-medium-bomber/
Mike & Sol,
Agree with Topman, and Mike’s example proves it:
- F2 ended up costing the same as F-15 but is nowhere near as good
I was looking at the Airbus concepts recently and it struck me that getting in at the start would make for a fairly tidy transport/refuelling/medium bomber/MPA/sigint/AWAC platform.
One of the concepts was for modular payloads, which could allow civilian airframes to carry military modules and protection systems rather than the additional cost of a fully militarised airframe.
why would it be designing a new airplane? unless you call the Harrier AV-8B a new airplane…they added a radar, bigger wings, improved avionics and a bigger engine…they called it an upgrade and it was rather straight forward without complication..
the Japanese embarked on basically a new build airplane based on a previous one. you already have the line running for the Hawk, i’m just suggesting you improve it, call it a complimentary capability, you infuse new energy into your home defense industry, you have an entry into the light wt and affordable fighter market and you have birds to fill up your carrier…
i mean seriously? 12 airplanes off a carrier the size of the Queen Elizabeth? say it out loud…SERIOUSLY!
@ soloman yes some people would call the later mark gr5/av8 onward a new a/c. It was compared to the gr3. But no matter the main problem that i was suggesting is that i don’t think it would be worth it. I don’t believe that there is the market to make it pay. 12 has worked out to be fine for peacetime ops. Outside of this there is no requirement for any more.
I don’t see how it could be financially worthwhile to produce a whole new aircraft for the sake of filling 24 carrier slots. We would also be entering late into a competition with a cheap and capable SeaGripen for a slice of a particularly small niche market.
I expect that like Harrier before it, SeaGripen will be the only kid on the block for navies wishing to operate a budget CV.
The piddly little sums that we allocate to the development of new unmanned acronyms might suggest that we have no confidence in the capability of a future European, or solely UK, system.
Perhaps our government wants to do just enough R&D to enable congress to approve sales of American acronyms at some point in the future.
Solomon, I like the idea for a beefed up hawk which could double up as a trainer / carrier aircraft. The reason being that we are looking at 2030 before we have the carrier strike capability we are concerned with. In 20 years with enough investment we could have strike capable UAVs and sons of TLAM.
To buy 50 F35 would have a significantly high operating / support costs not mentioning the cost to buy them. Also, the danger is by the time we are able to operate them properly they are likely to be outdated and we will be wanting unmanned a/c anyway.
A pimped up hawk may not be glamourous and definately will not be the best plane on the planet, but neither was the Harrier and that served it’s purpose. We have approx 160 hawks in service today, if we replaced them with a carrier capable (primarily air defence) version we would get the economies of scale and export opportunities to the likes of India and Brazil.
The key question is though, what is it we are trying to get out of our carriers? Are they strike carriers, or multirole floating airfields? Also, what is it we are lacking today whch means a job like retaking the falklands is out of our reach, is it the provision of air cover or ground strike or both?
@Repulse: air defence should be the primary role of the carriers: without it we cannot deploy a frigate in a heavily contested area. Strike is nice, but having MK41 launch cells sitting on surface ships would do us even more good
Might be being thick here, but isn’t Solomon’s proposal a bit more than the difference between different marque’s of the Harrier and a lot more like the difference between the Hornet and Super Hornet? You got to take the Goshawk and the Hawk 200, which already have relatively low level of commonality, create a hybrid design then add a FBW system (must for export), a larger wing likely with a different wing geometry if you want to go supersonic, then add a new FADEC engine possibly with re-heat with the required lift, which will require further structural changes (especially as he mentioned lengthening the fuselage) and larger air intakes, then given that the USMC thinks that it needs a LO aircraft to defeat next generation MANPADS/SHORADS you got to add decent ESM with good counter measures, RAM to the canopy and leading edges and intake blockers to reduce the RCS. On top of this to be able to export it you need to get a decent AESA radar installed (along with RWR and LWS), you will also need to be able to offer as options of a helmet mounted sight and a IRST, and as base line you will need to integrate more than just core UK weapons if you want overseas sales (I would argue you need to clear SPICE guided bombs, AIM-9M, IRIS-T, A-Darter and R-Dater along with Paveway, ASRAAM, AMRAAM and Meteor as your core weapons if you want export sales). At this point I doubt that you would have an aircraft which cost less than Super Hornet with less performance and it truly make sense for us to pay SAAB to develop the Sea Gripen with UK assembly and significant UK production (say the wings and tail, plus some avionics). Alternatively, I wonder how open Boeing would be to selling their production line if they fail to secure export orders by 2015 for the Super Hornet and the USN does not buy a further batch of F/A-18′s?
Damn it, were’s the edit function, my last post is in serious need of being turned into paragraphs!
I fail to see how this would be cost effective. The airframe is the cheap part. Integrating all those gadgets and a better engine and testing it all is going to cost a bomb. All for a plane that could essentially be purchased off the shelf. Makes no sense whatsoever.
@ Rupert Fiennes,
let me get this straight. The purpose of a carrier is to be an airport. The purpose of the planes flying off the airport is to protect the airport.
Seems like we could save a bundle of cash by not buying either, and not actually lose any capability.
I know that is a bit of an absolutist argument, and I’m not trying to be deliberately obtuse. There’s some shades of grey, of course.
But if we optimise the carrier and the planes coming off it for air defence as opposed to something useful like a strike capability, we are indeed heading down a route of expensive waste of money. Particularly as those other expensive little T45 boats are also optimised for air defence, and someone soon is going to make a case for a new frigate class to protect the carrier from submarines, and they all float around together holding hands. At what point does spending a vast proportion of the defence budget on self-protection of a little surface Navy become stupid? I’d rather cut the surface fleet to ribbons if all it can do is protect itself, and put the money into more submarines which at least have the merit of not needing 6 other submarines to protect them.
@James, air defence is not just for the carrier but for the whole fleet and any amphibious landing forces. Also, as I said the carrier strike element could be UAV based or even from Apache helicopters (which would definately need air cover!).
Methinks we should have strike aircraft operating from our carrier. Which personally I think should be renamed to something approaching its likely use, ie Avation Projection Ship. It’s quite obvious we’re going to be using them as everything from CVs to CVLs to ASW carriers to LPHs and all shades inbetween.