Sleek new drone nicknamed ‘Goblin Shark’

Airbus has announced that they will present a full-scale model of their ‘Wingman’ concept at the upcoming ILA in Berlin. The Airbus announcement includes a picture of the concept, which features several emerging technologies that are being showcased for possible inclusion in a future air combat semi-autonomous wingman.

These technologies include a design that is clearly intended to be both stealthy and manoeuvrable, and to offer supersonic capability. Carriage of sensors and air-to-air and air-to-surface weapons is envisaged, and the potential role described is as a semi-autonomous adjunct to aircraft such as the Eurofighter Typhoon. 

Importantly, Airbus explicitly recognise that future capabilities using such systems require not only the platform technologies to be available, but also the broader system of systems, enabling command and control, decision-making and teaming of the air combat elements. In addition, novel tactics are likely to be developed for the effective application of teamed manned and unmanned solutions.

Proposals of this sort are not new, but they are of considerable interest to the writer, having been involved in UK Air Combat research for a period in my mid-career. The first autonomous fighter proposal I encountered was a Lockheed-Martin attempt to market autonomous F-16s, perhaps influenced by the sense of emerging competition from European platforms such as Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen. This was supported by early autonomous combat work using the USAF VISTA testbed, in which, I understand, the safety pilot found the aircraft autonomously pulling significant g, while seeking to engage a target, quite disturbing. “Difficult to keep one’s hands on the knees” is the quote I recall.

I have no doubt that the concept of a pilot, in (for example) a Typhoon, FCAS or Tempest, controlling a number of autonomous armed wingmen to shape the battlespace favourably, can work. I make this assertion because such a situation has been modelled using simulators more than two decades ago in the UK research programme, as part of work to examine future capabilities.

At the time, many of the technologies would have been regarded as somewhat immature, but apart from establishing a level of feasibility, useful work was done examining how command and control would be exercised, how situational awareness might be delivered, and how the use of such systems affected pilot workload. The development of tactics for the use of such systems was of particular interest, and I am confident that much thought is being directed in this area, given the significant range of roles which might be addressed by such systems.

I’ll say no more about that work, which was, to some extent overtaken by the pressure to bring Typhoon into effective service, and, to some extent, made to appear less relevant by the economic collapse of the Soviet Union.

Today, however, such concepts appear more relevant than ever, with a resurgent Russia, with concerns about Chinese aspirations, and with considerable uncertainty about how reliable the US might be as an ally in the future.

The Airbus concept

Concept cars are always fascinating to look at, even though the eventual marketed products rarely live up to the imagination of the concept. In aerospace, however, technology demonstrators have had a useful place in helping to identify technology and integration risks, and showing how these can be resolved. 

In the case of the Airbus offering, and on the basis of the information provided, I’ll make the following observations:

The wing and canard planform and thickness/chord ratio, plus the engine installation and intake, appear consistent with a maneuverable platform capable of flight at up to about Mach 1.8.

Depending on the scale of the platform, which is difficult to judge from the image, but will become apparent when the model is displayed at the ILA, there appears to be adequate provision made for both fuel and a variety of weapons.

The absence of a vertical fin, plus the edge alignment and the treatment of control surfaces and leading edges, suggest that a low radar signature is one of the design drivers.

Novel control systems will be essential, particularly to manage lateral-directional stability and control at supersonic speeds. This can be problematic for a slender aircraft, and is one reason why large (and often twin) fins and rudders have been a feature of supersonic manoeuvring aircraft. Techniques are available, and have been demonstrated, ranging from split control surfaces to provide pitch, roll and yaw control, to circulation control by b[own jets, with no requirement for moving control surfaces.

Rather like a concept car, not all the trade studies have been done as yet. High maneuverability may or may not be required, depending on the role and mission. For example, an opportunity exists to design a platform able to manoeuvre outside the 9-g limit imposed by a human operator. But this would come with a weight penalty and would require a suitable (bigger) engine.

Whether such manoeuvrability would be required is probably tightly connected to whether the primary use will be as an ancillary sensor and EW system, as a strike platform, or as an air combat system.

The sensor suite, missile armament, datalink and communications capabilities are also all in the complex trade space, and will be dependent on Defence Department decisions about what the missions need to be, and how they are split between the manned and unmanned elements.

Inevitably, of course, one has to consider cost and broader programmatic issues. The more capable the semi-autonomous system is, the more complex it will be. Size, weight, propulsion and payload-range are all enablers for greater capability but are also powerful cost drivers.

System integration, and particularly the time taken to deliver the fully integrated system that would be needed is a powerful driver of risk, cost and time, and, indeed, may well be considered as the ongoing thorn in the side of the JSF programme.

https://unbound.com/books/the-hush-kit-book-of-warplanes-vol-3

The other elephant in the room is the messy situation regarding European and International air combat programs. Development of an effective system-of-systems will require coordination between manned and unmanned platform programs since there will be a co-dependency of requirements for each, dependent on the roles envisaged for each and how these are to be delivered.

This will have a comprehensive impact on the sensor, communications and weapons suite for each, as well as having fundamental effects on weapons bay size, fuel capacity, propulsion and layout. So, is the Airbus concept aimed at co-development with the Franco-German FCAS, or the Tempest/GCAP program? Or is it a stand-alone effort hoping to appeal to both, or even the US future air dominance programs?

Programme aspects

There are many issues to be addressed and questions to be answered before the technology mix adopted in a future semi-autonomous uncrewed air combat system can be defined. The Airbus concept demonstrator is important, not least because it should stimulate debate about how the future air combat systems of a number of countries are to be developed, and because it may de-risk some key technologies.

Key issues include the role of manned and unmanned systems; the effects to be delivered and how this will be done; the definition of the requirements for system elements; and who the key partners will be, both from the Industrial and the Military perspective. Recent discussion has emphasised the importance of Sovereignty in the development, deployment and use of such capability, and this aspect will surely also need careful consideration.

A nagging final question, particularly for the Tempest/GCAP and FCAS programs, is what adjunct systems will be required and how these are to be funded. Does the Airbus concept have a place in either program? If so, what would impact the management, industrial structure, requirements, and development program? 

There is some sense of urgency in all these questions, given worldwide developments in foreign and military affairs, and some considerable uncertainty about possible political developments in the US, which may impact on current alliance structures.

Airbus presentations at the ILA on this topic will surely be observed with great interest, but one does feel that there is much water to flow under this particular bridge before a sensible, effective development partnership and program can be developed.

Thanks, everyone! It’s been a superb week. The sooner this gets to 100%, the sooner I can get cracking & make this happen. Simply pre-order your copy now, that’s all you have to do to support the project. Your name will appear in the book.

Airbus press announcement 

“Berlin, 3 June 2024 – Airbus will be presenting its new Wingman concept at the International Aerospace Exhibition ILA in Berlin. In military aviation, a “Wingman” is a pilot in another aircraft that protects and supports the flight lead, delivers more tactical options and thus contributes to mission success. In the Airbus concept, the Wingman is going to operate very much in the same way – only that it is neither a pilot nor a fighter jet flown by one. It is a fighter-type drone that will be commanded by a pilot in a current combat aircraft such as the Eurofighter and can take on high-risk mission tasks that would pose a bigger threat to manned-only aircraft.

The 1:1 model, which Airbus will be exhibiting from June 5 to 9 on its static display at ILA, is similar to a “show car” used as a design exercise by the automotive industry. The Wingman model showcases all of the foreseen capabilities required, such as low observability, the integration of various armaments, advanced sensors, connectivity and teaming solutions. As with “show cars”, not all of what is on display may find its way into series production. In this aspect, the model on display at ILA Berlin will serve as a foundation and catalyst to drive the design requirements for each generation of the Wingman.

Based on the current concept, the Wingman is intended to augment the capabilities of current manned combat aircraft with uncrewed platforms that can carry weapons and other effectors. 

“The German Air Force has expressed a clear need for an unmanned aircraft flying with and supporting missions of its manned fighter jets before the Future Combat Air System will be operational in 2040,” said Michael Schoellhorn, CEO of Airbus Defence and Space. “Our Wingman concept is the answer. We will further drive and fine-tune this innovation made in Germany so that ultimately we can offer the German Air Force an affordable solution with the performance it needs to maximise the effects and multiply the power of its fighter fleet for the 2030s.”

The Wingman’s tasks can range from reconnaissance to jamming targets and engaging targets on the ground or in the air with precision-guided munitions or missiles. Pilots in manned aircraft acting as “command fighters” will always have control of the mission. They are always the final decision-making authority, while benefiting from the protection and smaller risk exposure that the delegation of tactical taskings to unmanned systems offers. An additional focus is on affordably increasing the overall combat mass so that air forces can match the number of opposing forces in peers or near-peers in conflicts.”

– Jim Smith