It is never too early to start and
discuss about what the future should ideally bring. Possibly, without losing
sight of reality talking about enormous budget uplifts and acquisition of
countless new weapon systems and medium bombers and other kit that is clearly
destined to remain only a dream, barring a dramatic change in the world's
situation and, moreover, in the priorities and policy of the british
government.
In this article i'm going to explain
what i'd do in the next SDSR if i was in charge. The objective is to give a
coherent and sustainable mix of air assets to the Armed Forces, to face the
uncertainties of the future.
ISTAR
There is no overstating the
importance of knowing what is happening on the battlefield, at all times.
Knowledge is key to the victory, and situational awareness is key to successful
employment of the resources available.
The most welcome news of the Army
2020 announcement to me was the creation of the Surveillance Brigade HQ, even if we still haven't got much detail
about its composition. Even with incomplete information available, the creation
of an HQ element with the stated mission of overseeing Surveillance and
Intelligence on the battlefield is something to be cheered. It'll be even more
of a welcome development if this new 1-star HQ is structured as a joint organ
of control bringing together UAVs, Intelligence, battlefield surveillance and
Electronic Warfare (the latter being a certainty, as the HQ Royal Signals has
confirmed that 14 Regiment (EW) is
being transferred to the Surveillance Brigade).
The new HQ (in itself
non-deployable) will provide a central oversight and a central direction to a
wide variety of efforts, controlling, more or less directly, a number of
different formations and systems. I expect the brigade to include the 3
Military Intelligence battalions of the Army (plus Reserves), with the current
Military Intelligence brigade HQ "folding" into the new 1-star
command (and in support to this vision, the Military Intelligence brigade is not listed as part of Army 2020).
Ideally, the RAF, RN and Army experts of Imagery Intelligence should also refer
to the new brigade.
Then i would expect 32 and 47
regiment Royal Artillery (the UAV regiments) to transfer from 1st Artillery
Brigade to the new formation.
And, while not part of the brigade,
the newborn "Aviation Reconnaissance Force" of the Army Air Corps, to
comprise the 1st Regiment AAC (on 4 squadrons of Wildcat recce helicopters) and
the 5th Regiment AAC (2 squadrons of Defender and Islander fixed wing
surveillance airplanes) would work under the new HQ's direction.
Again, during operations the HQ
would control the 5th and 14th RAF Squadrons (Army Cooperation), flying
respectively the Sentinel R1 and the Shadow R1. 51 RAF Squadron, with its Rivet
Joint ELINT/SIGINT airplanes would also feed data to the new HQ. The RAF's UAVs
would do the same.
At times, the AEW platforms of the
Navy would also work for this command, in situations such as the Olympics, or
such as the continued use of Sea King MK7 ASaC in Afghanistan.
And here we come down to one of the
most insensate announcements of the SDSR 2010, the retirement of Sentinel R1 at
the end of operations in Afghanistan. This was an unexpected and very stupid
announcement, that was met with incredulity by most, if not all, expert and
commentators. The Sentinel R1 has been proving itself again and again on
operations, with constant use in Afghanistan and with very successful
participation in operations over Libya last year. Retiring this still-new, expensive
system in 2014 makes absolutely no sense, and thankfully, most people at the
MOD, starting from the RAF itself, seem to have finally understood it. It is
now planned that the eventual retirement of Sentinel will be decided by the
SDSR 2015, and it is widely expected that the system will get a reprieve.
In my own SDSR, Sentinel is
definitely confirmed, as is Shadow. Sentinel's wide area surveillance and
ground target tracking capability are simply unmatched by any other system in
service or visible on the horizon of the immediate future. The loss of Sentinel
would represent a massive reduction in situational awareness and battlefield
surveillance capability. A loss that is unjustified, and that would openly
contradict the lessons of operations in Afghanistan and Libya. Sentinel is good
for COIN ops and for more conventional warfare, representing a perfect example
of the flexibility required by the uncertainties of the future: in any kind of
scenario, Sentinel is going to prove invaluable.
In future, the Scavenger MALE
(Medium Altitude Long Endurance) unmanned airplane might be able to provide enough surveillance to make Sentinel R1
redundant, but Scavenger won't be available before 2020 at best, and it is
highly likely that it won't have a radar anywhere near as powerful, and it will
lack the level of C3 (Command, Control and Communications) that the manned
Sentinel, with its mission specialists aboard, can offer.
At least until 2020, the Sentinel R1
has no realistic competitor, and no realistic alternative, so it has to stay.
UAVs have also proven invaluable on
operations, so that while Reaper is a UOR funded by the Treasury out to 2015,
bringing it into core is considered a probable RAF move as part of the 10 Years
budget. Soon there will be 10 Reaper drones in service, in two squadrons (39
and 13), both based in Waddington (as 39 re-locates from the US from where it
has been operating for all this time), and this force is an obvious stop-gap on
the way to Scavenger.
If not, and it is possible, the base
for Scavenger itself, since the selection of Reaper as base platform for the
new drone is far from having been ruled
out, especially now that France hesitates, thinks again about its plans and
takes time, putting the joint BAE-Dassault Telemos MALE at risk of never really
happening.
In any case, with a gap of at least
5 years in sight before Scavenger delivers, bringing Reaper into Core Budget is
a priority in my SDSR.
For the Army, i hope in a
confirmation for the Desert Hawk III mini-UAV for use at Company/Squadron
level. The Desert Hawk III would be an interim solution on the way to, ideally,
a back-packable VTOL mini-UAV more adequate to operations that, as for Army
doctrine, are more and more likely to happen in urban environment.
With the Desert Hawk III needing a
clear area of 100x100 meters to be launched and recovered safely, and with its
other limits well known, for the future the right solution in my opinion
resembles the Selex Galileo ASIO, in itself a more advanced evolution of the
american T-HAWK idea. The T-HAWK has the main defect of being very noisy, so
that it is easily detected, meaning that in urban warfare it would probably be
destroyed very soon.
The ASIO combines the advantages of
vertical take off and landing (very useful in urban operations) with silent
running and with the ability to "perch and stare", landing on top of
a building and working as an unattended sensor for extended period of times, in
alternative to hovering in the air (which obviously reduces the duration of the
mission, in comparison).
Another important sector is that of
Base-ISTAR, the provision of surveillance and situational awareness around main
bases and FOBs. In Afghanistan, this role has grown dramatically in importance,
and it is one of those needs that are here for staying. The Army and RAF
Regiment, that already collaborate on Base-ISTAR, have launched the joint Project Outpost, which is about
selecting the systems currently in use that are most effective and promising,
and bring them into Core Budget. In Afghanistan, a number of Radar sensors,
EO/IR cameras and aerostats are in use, integrated in a B-ISTAR system known as
Cortez. According to the RAF
Regiment, the aerostat has performed so well that it will be part of the future
solution under Project Outpost. Currently in Afghanistan the British Army reportedly
deploys 7 (initially 5 were ordered) american-made PGSS (Persistent Ground
Surveillance System) aerostats, which aren't exactly small: 70 feet long and 25
in diameter when up in the air, and are filled with 25.000 cubic feet of
helium. Once filled, it'll stay in the air at 2000 or more feet of altitude
with a 150 pounds payload, normally made up by a Wescan M/X-15 Eo/IR camera,
plus other kit including acoustic gunfire-locating systems or other payloads.
With the M/X-15, the PGSS can detect a man standing at 12 km, and allow
identification at 4 km.
They are tethered to
purposefully-designed trailers weighting 16.000 lbs and can be launched in
presence of a 20 knots wind, staying in the air even with a 60 knots wind.
In the US, efforts to make these
aerostats better deployable (mainly by reducing size and weight of the mooring
station-trailer) are ongoing.
There are lighter, more deployable
alternatives worth exploring, which also have the advantage of being
british-designed and british-built. Allsopp Helikites offers the helikite solution, which
reportedly is indeed already in use in Afghanistan with both British and US
forces.
Helikites are semi-rigid and
exploit powerful wind lift as well as helium, so a Helikites of only 11
cubic metres can fly thousands of feet high in no wind, or in in gale
force winds, and can stay at high altitude unattended for weeks.
They combine aerostat and kite, with
great advantages in term of sizes and handling in windy conditions. Allsopp
offers the impressive Cased Helikite
Aerostat Maintainable Platform (CHAMP) as a fully-self contained system
that, folded up for transport, fits in a 190 kg, 4 ft x 4ft x 4ft pallet. It is
a 10 cubic meters balloon with a payload of only 5 kg, but it is enough to
place an all-weather, radio-downlinked surveillance camera several thousand
feet into the air to gain weeks of unblinking view, even in winds of 50 mph or
more. 1 sole operator can deploy the system, which comes with an helium reserve
good for "months" of operations.
There are also larger formats of
aerostat, with increasing payload capacity, still much smaller than the PGSS. A
number of helikites have been trialed, and several seem to have gone in service
already. They make for an incredibly effective and cheap solution to a range of
issues: another use they have is as means to lift a linear radio antenna high
into the sky, massively expanding the range of Line Of Sight communication
systems.
This is an area in which relatively
tiny investments can bring huge benefit to operations, so i'd expect Project
Outpost to take a very good look into the range of uses of these systems.
Also, the usefulness of Helikites as
communication relay systems is massive: erecting radio antennas pretty much
anywhere, with minimum cost and complexity and in literally minutes is a
capability that could well prove invaluable in future warfare, enabling long range
and on-the-move connectivity. In Afghanistan, the province of Helmand is
covered with a wireless internet system working from huge fixed antennas built
into bases, but Afghanistan is a relatively static front, and a relatively
permissive one. With a return to contingency operations, that include the
possibility of fighting an high-end war of maneuver, Helikites represent a
portable, cheap and deployable solution to recreate battlefield internet,
following the progress of the maneuver.
Last, but not least, the Royal Navy
is finally moving onwards with its Vertical Take-Off and Landing Unmanned Air
System (VTUAS) [also known as rotary-wing unmanned air system (RWUAS)], an
unmanned helicopter for at-sea ISTAR and surveillance. With a nominal entry in
service date of 2020, this new helicopter could provide a wide number of useful
services.
This VTUAS could potentially weight
up to 3000 kg at takeoff, and offer long endurance and sizeable payload. It is
not yet clear how ambitious the Royal Navy will be with the VTUAS, but Qinetiq
has offered a 1900 kg Gazelle conversion, and the US market shows some very
interesting products, the most impressive of which is probably the Boeing
A-160T Hummingbird.
The Hummingbird is still in
development, but it is intended to fly for 4640 km or 24 hours, with an ISTAR
payload of 136 kg or more. It has so far demonstrated an already impressive
18,07 hours endurance.
Alternatively, the Hummingbird can
fly as an unmanned cargo carrier on shorter distances, carrying up to 1135 kg
underslung from the cargo hook.
The Hummingbird is 10,66 meters
long, and has a four-blade rotor with a diameter of 10,97 meters. It sits in
the 3000 kg class. It is not exactly small, but luckily, its fuselage is not
wide, and with a folding rotor it would not be a problem to embark it on a Type
45 alongside with a Wildcat (with the Merlin it might be harder). Even easier
it would be on the Type 26 future frigate, while the Type 23's hangar might not
be large enough to take it and a manned helicopter at the same time.
The Hummingbird currently is not a
naval system, but Boeing is likely to be able to develop a navalized variant
quite easily, and has indeed offered the helicopter UAV to the US Navy already:
the problem is that, as of June 2012, the US Army has lost confidence in this
impressive machine following several technical problems, and has issued a stop-work order. The Hummingbird is, literally, a
step away from being terminated, and the loss of US government funding might
cause Boeing to abandon the Hummingbird entirely.
The US Navy is currently pursuing
its own VTUAS requirement by purchasing 28 MQ-8C Fire Scout, not to be mistaken
for the original Fire Scout, the small MQ-8B already in use.
The new C uses the same software
suite, but installed in a larger, more capable commercial Bell 407 helicopter airframe. Weighting
2724 kg at takeoff, the MQ-8C can operate for 8 hours at 556 km from the launching
ship, carrying an ISTAR payload of up to 400 kg. The maximum endurance is 12
hours. As a cargo carrier, it can carry 227 kg internally or 1203 kg under
slung.
It is 10,6 meters long and 2,4
meters wide once folded up for fitting in the hangar, and has a rotor diameter
of 11,2 meters once unfolded. This means that, folded, the helicopter is
smaller than a folded Lynx 8. The Type 45 could easily carry a Wildcat and a
MQ-8C, and possibly it could carry a Merlin and a MQ-8C.
 |
| A folded Lynx 8 is at least 3 meters wide and well over 10,8 meters long. |
 |
| A Type 45 would have no difficulties in carrying a mixed Ship Flight comprising a Lynx/Wildcat and an MQ-8C or similar |
AgustaWestland, on the lines of the
MQ-8C, is offering to convert into a UAS the poland-produced light helicopter
SW-4.
The Type 23 remains an issue, and
quite an important one since the Dukes will be part of the fleet all the way
into the 2030s, but their own Ship's Flight can be reinforced in other ways,
with systems such as ScanEagle or the
newer, more capable Integrator
selected by US Navy and US Marines. And indeed the Royal Navy is about
to purchase a number of such systems, to gain one, and then two task-lines,
each capable of 300 hours of operational ISR data collection at sea per month from RFA
and Type 23 platforms so that, in theory, the problem is easily solved.
 |
| ScanEagle in british colors on a Type 23 frigate during successful trials at sea in 2007. Now the ScanEagle has a more capable brother, the Integrator. |
My belief is that the Army could
benefit from a VTUAS just as much as the Navy. The ability to act as a light
cargo hauler would greatly ease the strain on crews and machines tasked with
delivery of multiple, relatively-small loads to troops in FOBs or at the edge
of the battlefield, as proven by the US
Marines experience with the K-Max unmanned helicopter in Afghanistan. This would free up a lot of precious flying hours of manned utility helicopters, that could then focus on troop-transport and other roles. The availability of an unmanned cargo-hauler would also reduce the need for the resource-intensive Combat Logistic Patrol convoys used in Afghanistan to bring supplies to FOBs on roads made dangerous by the IEDs and ambushes. Anything that can cut back the need for such convoys while also keeping the utility helos free, is to be welcomed.
If i was in charge, i'd be very keen to see the Army collaborate with the Navy to put into service each a squadron of such VTUAS, based in Yeovilton, where Army Air Corps personnel and Wildcat helicopters will be jointly based from around 2015.
If i was in charge, i'd be very keen to see the Army collaborate with the Navy to put into service each a squadron of such VTUAS, based in Yeovilton, where Army Air Corps personnel and Wildcat helicopters will be jointly based from around 2015.
I would of course go ahead with
Scavenger, and specifically i'd try to prosecute the development of a national,
or bi-national product along with France. Telemos is going to be fundamental
for the future of the aerospace sector in the UK, after all.
I'd want the new drone to make ample
use of mission pods, so to be easily reconfigurable for multiple kinds of
missions, and i'd stick with the indicative number of 20 (in two squadrons) that
was circulated some time ago, with no immediate purchase of attritional
airframes, in the hope of procuring further drones only later, when they are
needed.
I've covered the Scavenger
extensively here:
the article provides an update on the current situation and expands on the
subject of mission pods.
Last, but not least, as part of
SOLOMON the RAF should invest into the development of the Common Ground Control
Station software and installation, developing a single, common model of GCS
able to interact with both Scavenger and Watchkeeper and at least dialogue with
the Sentinel R1 ground element.
On land, with the COBRA
artillery-locating radar having been prematurely required and with MAMBA being
quite limited in its performances, priority must be accorded to purchase of the
Common Weapon Locating Radar, in number of 12, by 2014 at the latest, as
planned. The new radar (the very effective ARTHUR C from Saab) will replace
fully the already-lost COBRA and the MAMBA.
The Lightweight
Counter Mortar Radar, procured as UOR, should be confirmed in service in
the longer period due to its effectiveness.
In summary, in the ISTAR domain, my SDSR
would include the following indications:
- Continue development of Scavenger,
with the aim of acquiring 20 systems from 2020 [Planned]
- Put into service the Common Ground
Control Station
- Go ahead full strength with the
Rivet Joint plan [Planned]
- Retain Sentinel R1, Shadow R1 and
Reaper at least until Scavenger enters service and provides a real alternative
to their peculiar capabilities. Reaper is easily replaced, the Shadow should be
replaceable if an adequate SIGINT payload is developed for the Scavenger, while
the wide-area surveillance offered by the Sentinel's radar might remain
unmatched for a long time still. Retaining Sentinel even after Scavenger
arrives is probably going to be the best approach. [planned?]
- Go ahead with the urgent purchase
of mini-drones for the Royal Navy [planned]
- Bring the Army into the Royal Navy
VTUAS effort, buy a squadron of machines for the AAC as ISTAR and cargo-hauler
platforms, with a weapons capability possibly following. The VTUAS must at least
match the MQ-8C capabilities to truly benefit the forces.
- Maintain the Desert Hawk III mini UAS in
service as an interim solution; develop/select a VTOL mini UAS for long-term
use in Infantry companies and Cavalry/Armor squadrons.
- Create a capable, integrated,
joint HQ, directed by the Army, in the form of the Surveillance and
Intelligence brigade, to direct the collection of ISTAR and to process and
redistribute the data to the forces. [planned?]
- Retain a credible B-ISTAR package
of systems and experience, jointly operated by the Army and RAF Regiment, to
include aerostats and/or Helikites, on which i urge more investment due to the
extremely cost-effective benefits they offer.
- Go ahead with the purchase and
fielding of the Common Weapon Locating Radar; bring into Core Budget the
Lightweight Counter Mortar Radars.
I do not call for a revolution in
this field: many of my proposals are already part of the strategy and,
crucially, of the 10 Years budget. But i do deem indispensable to pour some more specific effort
into things such as the VTUAS and lower-echelon ISTAR, at Battalion and, better
still, at Company level. These improvements would, in my mind, absolutely be
worth the use of money from the famous 8 unallocated billions in the 10 years
budget.
I did not mention Watchkeeper and
Sentry AWACS because i do not advocate any change in the current fleets and
plans for these two machines. On at-sea AEW, i'll expand in a future article,
but i'll anticipate that i deem a Merlin-based solution sufficient to meet the
realistic UK's needs, so long as the AEW role is given to the 8 currently
non-upgraded HM1 airframes. Loading the AEW role on the small fleet of HM2
currently envisaged would be too much of a compromise: there is no room for
another demanding and rather unique role in a fleet of airframes and men that
are already very hard worked.
My solution to Crowsnest is to
remove the ASW kit from the 8 HM1 airframes, while exercising the option for
their upgrade to HM2 standard (barring the ASW-specific updates), instead
fitting these Merlins with the AEW suite that will prove most effective: either
the proven, already-in-service Cerberus/Searchwater AEW or the new Lockheed
Martin Vigilance podded solution.
For a detailed review of Crowsnest
current status, i suggest reading here.
As for maritime patrol aircraft, i'm going to talk of this vital requirement in a future article.
As for maritime patrol aircraft, i'm going to talk of this vital requirement in a future article.
