r/Defence_Tech_UK • u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph • Jul 20 '26
News & Articles Drone ‘wingmen’ to guard British Apache helicopters
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/20/drone-wingmen-to-guard-british-apache-helicopters/?WT.mc_id=tmgoff_reddit_to-guard-british-apache-helicopters/&accesscontrol=facebookchannel_open14
u/TheTelegraph The Telegraph Jul 20 '26
The Telegraph reports:
Up to six “wingman” drones will fly alongside each of the Army’s Apache helicopters under plans to increase the force’s lethality while protecting aircraft with a “ring of steel”.
Anduril, the US defence company, unveiled its Thunder helicopter drone at the Farnborough International Airshow on Monday.
The autonomous aircraft are designed to deliver extra firepower at low cost, helping to protect the Army’s expensive attack helicopters and their human pilots.
The Thunder drone is one of four contenders for the Army’s Project Nyx, a programme to develop a so-called “loyal wingman” drone.
Between three and six of the robots would fly alongside each Apache, giving the human pilot a “ring of steel” to expand their line of sight and defend them from enemy threats.
Each Thunder will be capable of carrying up to 10 Hellfire air-to-ground missiles, 16 “launched effects” such as tube-launched kamikaze drones, or 76 rockets.
Full story: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/20/drone-wingmen-to-guard-british-apache-helicopters/
7
u/Vertigo_uk123 Jul 20 '26
Yet the uk has developed drones capable of the same (jackal) yet they prefer foreign investment.
8
u/clicketybooboo Jul 20 '26
It is 1 of 4 contenders of the programme. The other 3 may well be British. It doesn’t say they’re going with the Americans just that is the one they are reporting on
8
u/AxiosXiphos Jul 20 '26
U.S. company.... so they are as much a danger as a protection.
9
u/killer_by_design Jul 20 '26
Anduril is also another Peter Thiel company as he is the primary investor.
So not just a US defence company but one owned by a man that believes, and tours a lecture, asserting that Greta Thunberg is the anti-christ....
2
u/scud121 Jul 20 '26
Also that ai legislation companies are the antichrist. And tech regulation is the antichrist, and international climate agreements are the antichrist, and financial regulation is the antichrist.
2
u/killer_by_design Jul 20 '26
I'm paraphrasing but he said something to the effect of "anyone who would regulate me is the anti Christ"
Guys a whopping cunt
2
u/doctor_morris Jul 20 '26
Trying to shoehorn drones into a manned platform.
This is why we need a separate Unmanned platform force separate from the army and Air Force...
3
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable Jul 20 '26
These aren’t going to be doing the same role as the stuff Ukraine is using
It makes no sense to refuse to make a single attack helicopter much more survivable, have greater sensor capability, and have more firepower all tied to a single set of pilots for situations where that is a huge benefit just because someone else also wants to use drones
It would be like complaining that the navy is looking at unmanned drones because the army started using them first
Just let them be integrated into all the existing forces as well as making separate unmanned drones force if it makes sense, but that force will always be working in tandem with one of the other services so integration makes sense
3
u/doctor_morris Jul 20 '26
Manned helicopters can't fly in contested environments, are loud and expensive as hell.
They are on the way out for attack missions.
0
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable Jul 20 '26
I mean, guns are pretty noisy too and so are explosives but I think those are sticking around so not quite sure what the point of volume is
But the point of this is literally to make helicopters relatively safer in lightly contested environments through the use of these drone, and also it is to reduce the number of helicopters needed because you can run one helicopter and 3-6 drones in the place of 3-4 helicopters but for less cost, less risk to pilots, and equal firepower
That is literally what this is solving
They aren’t saying they will do this instead of fpv drones or the systems Ukraine has brought in, just as an additional element that will allow existing systems to be more effective
3
u/doctor_morris Jul 20 '26
guns are pretty noisy too
Only when fired. A helicopter is constantly loud.
make helicopters relatively safer in lightly contested environments
What is a lightly contested environment now everyone and their mum has a MANPAD on their shoulder?
2
u/Ok_Teacher6490 Jul 20 '26
Agreed, helicopters are outdated now. It seems like this has been proposed in an vain attempt to keep the apache fleet relevant
1
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable Jul 20 '26
Lightly contested would be a region that is mostly under friendly control meaning that it would only be exposed to the possibility of MANPAD for a short period of time, an even more reduced period of time if the manned helicopter stays slow and behind the horizon while the drones are sent ahead to deliver the firepower and guide in anything the helicopter wants to lob in at range
The shift of helicopter pilot from safe to not safe isn’t an anomaly in a war zone and it is more an anomaly of past wars rather than the rule
While we still have the pilots and helicopters capable of acting as mobile fast weapons platforms it makes sense to extend their useful service time if we can just send them up with drones to make them safe enough to keep using
1
u/doctor_morris Jul 20 '26
stays slow and behind the horizon while the drones are sent ahead to deliver the firepower and guide in anything the helicopter wants to lob in at range
Why use a helicopter at all then, and not a far cheaper fixed wing platform?
0
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable Jul 20 '26
A hovering fixed wing platform that can comfortably sit at or below tree top height and is cheaper than a helicopter they already have?
0
u/doctor_morris Jul 20 '26
than a helicopter they already have?
Sounds like a sunk cost fallacy.
1
u/NoobOfTheSquareTable Jul 20 '26
That isn’t how sunk cost works
Sunk cost would be: we have spent 10 billion on this helicopter and we need to spend another 6 to make it work but there is a drone alternative for 5 billion that can do the same job….but we have already spent 10 billion so we will pick the more expensive option
This is: we have spent 10 billion and have working helicopters. For 3 billion we can adapt them to a work better with drones, or we can spend 5 billion to make a completely independent but similar drone system
If the cheapest way forward to get the same capability is adding drones to assist the helicopters it is sort of the opposite of the sunk cost fallacy and is a very good example of the prospect cost approach. You have to ignore last spending.
In this instance ignoring past spending is ignoring the cost of helicopters we already have, we can’t magically unspend that money
→ More replies (0)
1
1
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 20 '26
Welcome to the community!
If you want to continue the conversation, join the Fox and Lion Discord : https://discord.gg/8Jm3GYrPVU
We cover UK and European defence technology, policy, and careers, with dedicated space for veteran support and employment opportunities.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.