Current plans are to replace Crowsnest fitted Merlins with an uncrewed air platform, do you have a better idea?

Here’s information on the current plan.

Royal Navy looking at fixed-wing carrier based drone for AEW

However, a notice issued by the Ministry of Defence is asking for viable alternatives.

“Royal Navy Carrier and Littoral Strike Groups need a capability that provides air and surface surveillance that enables over-the-horizon situational awareness. This capability ensures Commanders can detect, track and recognise surface and airborne objects, and respond to them efficiently. So, in partnership with the Royal Navy, the Defence and Security Accelerator (DASA) is pleased to launch the Look out! Maritime Early Warning Innovations competition, which aims to develop alternative future concepts for the Early Warning systems currently deployed in Maritime Task Groups.”

Current early warning maritime capabilities are delivered by sensors mounted aboard airborne platforms, with the current assumption for a follow-on for Crowsnest (an airborne early warning system fitted to the Merlin Mk2 helicopter) being a singular large radar sensor mounted on an uncrewed air platform.

The notice goes on to say:

“DASA welcomes alternatives that are not based on this approach and match or exceed current airborne capabilities. We are seeking a potential successor to Crowsnest, which has a planned out-of-service date of 2029.”

Submit a proposal If you have an innovative idea that can enhance:

  • surveillance horizons and/or target detection capability
  • operational effectiveness through timely processing and dissemination of information
  • operational efficiency through optimisation of system functionality

What early warning maritime challenges do the MoD want you to overcome?

  • improving threat detection and situational awareness, including detecting, tracking, recognising and identifying hostile and non-hostile contacts, on the surface of the water and in the air
  • enhancing information processing and dissemination, including integrating the data from sensors and other air and surface platforms within the Maritime Task Group into a composite picture of activity to enable timely decision making
  • optimising efficiency by minimising workforce requirement through a reduced operator and support burden
  • novel or innovative methods of combining system functionality will also be considered, alongside solutions to enhance decision-making efficiency

Thinking of submitting a proposal?

The closing date for proposals is Tuesday 6 July 2021 at midday BST.

Click here for the full scope in the competition document.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

176 COMMENTS

  1. Well Beam me up Scotty ! An open invitation to all you Experts on here, can’t wait to see what proposals will be forth coming. 😮

      • It works very well. But a UCAV AEW will be much more survivable. And cheaper to operate in the longer term.

        • Also being able to launch “another one” provided there is an attrition reserve is of value. Quite apart from making it too much bother for the opposition to bother downing them if they are simply replaced.

        • It also I would think gives several other advantages. It allows the carrier strike group to in effect hide in the ocean as they can be tracked using Their high powered radar emissions long before they are detectable by radar.
          Cheaper and once the radar is turned off harder to detect so harder to follow back to the carrier.
          You are not putting men into harms way.
          What I don’t get is if they are fitting cats and traps to launch them. Why not do the job properly and increase the queens inter operability?

          • Some good points Michael. I don’t see the need for the full beans cats & traps. The F18 & Rafale don’t bring anything to the party that the F35 cannot do. And everything else is pretty old tech now, or simply far to expensive. We have a fantastic relationship with the USMC, and future UCAV’S and loyal wingman will bring a huge chunk of capability and flexibility that won’t cost insane amounts of money. Could be an interesting few years. And the F35B is only at the beginning of it’s growth life. It will have some pretty amazing capabilites in 10-15 year’s time that we can only dream about today. 👍

          • I agree to a certain extent however. I still have my doubts how useful the F35 will be in a air to air fight. Plus their is the not unreasonable scenario where ours is the last operable flat top standing abd to provide full interoperability with other nations maritime aircraft would be very useful!

          • The F35 will have fantastic air to air capability. With ASRAAM, AMRAAM, later Meteor. It’s unrivalled situational awareness, all aspect stealth, and Helmet mounted display, plus very good performance means it can outclass any would be aggressor. Only the F22 is superior. And even that lacks a HMS or IRST.

          • In my opinion as an armchair expert. It doesn’t have the range, ceiling, speed to intercept or internal weapons capacity.
            So I guess we will need to agree to disagree

          • In real world air combat, top trumps stats don’t make much difference. Situational awareness is king. It can hit 1.6M with full internal weapons and fuel. No 4th gen can do that with a meaningful weapon load. People talk about it’s range. yet it carrys more fuel internally than a Typhoon or a Tornado. And it’s stealth will give it a huge advantage. Along with a world class AESA radar and EO system. The pilots love it, the ground crews love. It’s a game changer.

      • It works fine, it’s just not as good as a fixed-wing platform like Greyhound. Loiter time, range, ceiling etc are all dramatically lower

        • so why not buy some that’s been proven in the field like the e2 Hawkeye? instead of researching new ones.

          • Old tech? E-2D has state of the art AESA radar, ect that is also now getting air refueling capability. Nothing else even comes close to it’s capabilities for a carrier borne AEW platform.

          • … and how would this platform actually operate from our carriers dare I ask. Plus by 2030 there really ought to be better alternatives to it surely all things considered.

          • It’s hard to tell if you care about facts. Google the info on current Unmanned systems compared to the expensive and limited loiter times for the E2D. These are old airframes, designed 50 years ago with new lipstick and upgraded internals. Think B52 with new paint and internal refurbishments.

          • Please, by all means, show me a carrier based unmanned system that has longer loiter time and a more modern radar than than E2-D. I’ll wait……

          • Because the Hawkeye cannot operate from the QE class in its current configuration and the catapult/arrester gear they are looking at installing would not be able to safely operate the type. A UAV looks to be a perfect solution with good potential for export sales. The main issue is the aside from the cost of installing the launch and landing equipment is the the meagre datalink capability currently installed on the QE class.

          • oh right. i forgot about that. i believe it is magnetic? on the qe carrier instead of a catapult.

          • oh so it can only accommodate STOL or VTOL aircraft cuz the things like f18 or rafeale needs catapults and arrestor. acutely not sure if the rafeale needs catapults.

          • Fedaykin , there must be quite a potential market for airborne unmanned early warning at sea, especially navies operating without cats and traps.

          • Surely within this decade even the US with its very able manned EW systems would be looking for drone alternatives to Hawkeye.

            Even VAR needs to take the human element out of it (sorry couldn’t resist)

      • Too many limitations such as range, service ceiling too low, endurance, power to just name a few. Using a helo for AEW just won’t cut it in a near peer conflict when you’re going up against dedicated jet AEW aircraft.

        • But the E2D isn’t jet either!

          E2D has major limitations on seeing downwards with the body of the aircraft and the propeller interference (as DaveyB pointed out elsewhere) it is good but it is not perfect.

          There is no carrier maritime jet based AEW airframe in service…..

          Really we are talking about two different platforms

          a) small system that uses civvy level parts for drugs busts; and

          b) hight tech high powered platform for carrier / fleet protection

          these are not the same usage case.

          As there is a decent sized market for this kind of thing if you are talking about passive of civvy level radar and optics for drug busts. And a very small market for fleet / carrier protection with active/passive radar EW models and all the rest of what needs to be there for a fully functional replacement for CrowsNest / E2D.

          That being said having the high end platform, multi point, would be pretty amazing if they could be stitched together to work seamlessly.

          • “E2D has major limitations on seeing downwards with the body of the aircraft and the propeller interference”

            This may or may not be a major issue as I am certain there are developed tactics to mitigate these. I’ll defer to Daveyb’s radar knowledge on the subject but since the aircraft is always in motion, it’s field of view is never constant and so what was potentially out of view a minute ago comes in a view moments later. In terms of tactics, a second aircraft looking down from a different position may have a clear view of what could potentially be hidden from the first.

          • Shuttering reduces sensitivity as the transmit receive window is shuttered for a significant fraction of each second.

            AEW and faint signals + sea skimmers don’t allow for time or blind spots.

            Yes, you can get round it with signal processing but you cannot beat physics if you are below sensitivity due to the shuttering effect.

          • Wouldn’t the same thing be the case for something like the Sampson radar which rotates?

          • The shuttering effect is caused by the rotation of the propeller blades blocking the radar’s view.

            The shuttering is distinct from rotation effects.

            There are no propeller blades (or anything else) blocking Sampson’s view.

          • Do you have a source for this claim of a major limitation that I can read up on?
            I’ve searched all over and I haven’t seen this claim made anywhere else. One of the major selling point of the E2-D is it’s world beating capability to spot sea skimmers over the open ocean, the littorals and even over land so this claim of a major limitation runs directly counter to this.

          • You will not find that kind of information in the public domain.

            The fact there is an area of sensitivity reduction, I won’t say blind spot because it isn’t, is just physics. Anyone with a working knowledge would be able to deduce that.

            E2X was developed for AEW not so much for spotting boats and sea skimmers. The Russian threat was from big long range bombers – Bear etc. Sure the thing has been refined almost out of all recognition but the constructional fundamentals are the same.

            Why hasn’t it been changed? The sheer cost of developing something from scratch and carrier qualifying the platform stultified change. Also the reality that the next gen solution will be drone based. So I suspect the informed choice was made to live with the slight limitations.

      • Crowsnest works well enough. However, being helicopter born brings 2 core disadvantages

        1/ Flight duration
        2/ Max altitude – and it’s altitude that impacts maximum range. The higher you fly, the further away the horizon so the earlier you get to spot low flying threats

    • Tethered areosat / blimp, loads of power / processing from mothership, should be able make it capable over moving at over 70knots which would be to carrier speed plus headwind, anything more would be pulled back down in to storage, Crowsnest etc won’t be flying in 40knot+ winds

      • Great idea: except you might as well put the criers GPS coordinates live on Twitter.

        You never want active radar centred over the carrier!

        • Surely it could be made partially stealth. Can we pass data round platforms like the cousins can? A picket could put it up?

          • That is fine if the radar is passive.

            As soon as it goes active or into EW it’s position is fixed in lights.

      • That’s an interesting solution, but would presumably have to be deployed from a support vessel rather than the carrier itself. I wonder how large the blimp would have to be in order to support the weight of the radar and all its electronics? Could it be fitted into the hangar of something like the Tide class ships, or would you need a dedicated support vessel to carry and operate the blimp(s)?

        • My uncle Bertie laughed at we small children when we asked him he didn’t shoot back. He told us he waved like mad for the men below to winch him down. Only war story I ever heard him tell. Nice man.

          • They had to be brave men to go up in the WW1 observation balloons, a stationary target with no means of protection against fire from the trenches or aircraft. Most such men don’t talk much about their experiences.I remember my sons asking my father in law (ex marine) how he survived Normandy 1944:his answer was simply “I was good at ducking”

          • They did have AA batteries surrounding them…and also had parachutes. The usual procedure when seeing enemy aircraft coming was to hit the silk, whilst the ground crew winched it in.

  3. In terms of options that offer the same or greater capability than a helicopter mounted radar, I feel like there aren’t many choices. You need a big enough aircraft to carry a decent radar a good distance for a long time, which precludes using numerous small drones.

    Tethered sensor platforms like that shown on the Dreadnought 2050 concept offer a great option against sea skimming missiles but still don’t offer the range of a regular aircraft.

    An ultra long range drone like Zephyr operating from Overseas Territories bases that shadows the carrier group would seem the most plausible alternative, although currently they’re too light to mount powerful enough sensors for military purposes. Still, this would be my preferred option, far greater range than carrier capable options and leaves more space on the carrier for offensive aircraft.

    • It is more the compact power generation that is the issue.

      Radar needs a lot of power and cooling.

    • Good thinking but SBs comment below raises its own issues I guess. But still better potentially than most options based on current tech perhaps. Still worries me mind to think how Iran managed to take control of a sophisticated US drone a decade ago and what might stop a peer power achieving that now especially if it would effectively blind you.

  4. What about a production version of BAE Taranis, as an AEW aircraft? It fits within the weight category of the EMALS deone catapults the RN is looking at for the carriers, has a long range/endurance and additional variants could be used, too.

    – Carrier-borne air to air refuelling variant.
    – Long-range strike variant (RAF)

    • Personally, I cannot get my head around the whole proposal of fitting C’s and T’s to the Carriers after millions were wasted looking at this very option a few Years back and given that the weight limits preclude virtually every present and future manned aircraft, especially with a planned 50 year service life and no other Ski Ramp capable option being planned. Makes more sense to fit these to smaller newer Ships (T32 ?). Well it’s not like we view these carriers as GP offensive platforms is it ? If we did, they’d have decent weapons fit including VLS. BAE Tranis was a concept BTW, so not really a go’er.

        • Huh ? I’m confused mate ? The Millions paid were wasted to be fair, It was never a go’er after that, can’t see why it would be now……. and, I ain’t “Shaolin” mate 😁

          • The proposal now is to fit cat & traps for UAVs only, whereas the investigation under SDR2010 was to convert the QE Class to full cat & traps for the F35s. Presumably EMALS reliability has progressed in the time since.
            It’s quite a clever idea, creating a hybrid carrier. The ski jump used for F35B which allows for operations even in bad sea states that prevent cat & trap use. But the cat & trap providing the use of a wider range of UAVs below the large size of the F35 but capable of AEW and possibly refuelling or strike missions too.

          • I do wonder where the cat will go. Plenty of deck space for it but all placements have their own unique pros and cons.

          • Hi GB, this is probably going to sound stupid but why is the ski ramp so narrow!
            If it was made wider could it then be used with emails (yes, up a curve!) and cat and traps?

          • A thought I was considering too after seeing the Turkish proposal for fitting a winch system up their ramp to launch drones and potentially light manned aircraft though don’t see that last happening.

          • Launch and sortie Rate off a QE Class using a single ramp outstrips a Ford Or Nimitz class. full width ramp would create drag and slow the class,

          • Agree that’s probably the best place for it, is that 100% now? I’ve not been following the mini-cat saga very closely, last I saw was the STRN article listing the different options.

      • I know Taranis was a concept, hence why I said a production version of it. Is there any reason that, if it were refined and put into production, it wouldn’t be viable as an AEW aircraft, an A2A refuelling aircraft or a strike aircraft?

        • Well it is very similar superficially to what the Americans are employing for their refuelling drone with the eventual plan for strike and I believe potentially EW too. But I think that might hide the job of making it or something like it operate similarly from carriers esp our ones without yet any means to launch and land them. I dare see something of this nature will be seen eventually mind but only insiders or those with far greater knowledge than I could predict when, even if the costs were acceptable.

    • Hi Steve, yes, make greater use of the Taranis platform. Good speed , space, range and stealth. Or, if I can be a bit whacky here, what about a AEW F35 1-2 seat type, or a bit like the old Harrier Blackjack concept?

      • I’d move away from manned platforms, personally. Additional weight taken up by pilots, control systems and life support gear.

  6. Love it when you a get think out of the box forum. Here’s some whacky ideas.

    A lighter than air balloon could stay on station days and carry large radar equipment. It could also be launched from the sea and towed behind a ship so you need no fuel (nuts, I know).
    or
    Lots of smaller drones that are digitally networked. Shoot down one and the rest compensate.
    or…and most likely
    A drone launched from the carrier via EMALs.

    Whatever the future is going to be unmanned.

    • Well yes mate, it’s just great to see the option that now recognises all the hard work and effort our members put in on every article ! Personally, I like the TALONS option, it makes a lot of sense really….. Like Sampson on a really long Pole. I also think a “Dangled from an orbiting Telstar” would be good too !

      • Well Capt P we shall see.
        I like the balloon because when the balloon goes up you put up the balloon. Probably end up with some kind of drone that is either a tilt rotor or launched by EMALs which does both the AEW & tanker role though.

    • Got to be a LTA type for long range strategic transport. I believe the US already looked at this through DARPA. Wonder what our new ARIA comes up with?!

      • Interesting. You know people love to scoff at British engineering but we did invent the aircraft carrier, angled flight decks, VSTOL & RAS so who knows???

          • Exactly mate….. but why are all these Battery powered Washing Machines on wheels, so blinking expensive ehh ?

          • Noooo ! Seriously ? What bugs me though is just how the Governments of the future will find the way to replace the untold Billions of £££’s of Oil Revenue Tax’s ……. Mark my words chaps, We are all being Conned and Shafted here…… and let’s not forget that China makes up 27% of the entire World’s Emissions whilst selling us all their cheap crap and building a military capability that will soon overtake the USA’s.

          • Simple solution Capt, we don’t have to buy their tat. We could build tat here too. Anyway I’m off to get shares in helium (heeeelliuuum). As for replacing oil taxation; at some stage we are going to have to reform online sales tax…

          • We would need to buy predominantly Chinese/Taiwanese built silicon to do that mind.

          • Abso-bloody-lutely. I’ve been on about this for years-a communist state with how many billionaires, why do you think they ‘allow’ it?
            All these new age liberals moaning about climate change whilst buying new mobile phones,laptops & TV’s every year – makes me laugh.
            If they were really concerned about the environment,western ‘capitalist’ nations would introduce a carbon tax on Chinese imports but they won’t as all the luvvies would cry about ‘inflation’ . So the EU just ignores it, signs a trade deal with China & allows Chinas coal powers into Croatia.While here in the UK all the ‘greens’ moan about one power station in Cumbria and squark like strangled parrots about Nuclear power stations-pathetic hypocrites the lot of ’em!
            Now …where do I put my soapbox, as I’ve finished with it?

          • Will most likely be made up for by VAT on other goods. If people aren’t having to pay through the nose for petrol they will spend it on other things.q

            I’m currently spending around £150 a month at least on petrol; if I wasn’t spending that on petrol it would be going towards something else, that’s a fair amount of money to spend elsewhere.

  7. Swarm of UAS with micro-AESA panels. Can provide one huge array or be split into smaller arrays. Extremely surviveable..

  8. The Bell 247 & 280 are no brainers for this role, not sure why the RN just doesn’t go all in with the US Marine core to make this happen instead of the endless dithering and RFPs.
    On any performance metric, endurance, cost, running costs, maturity, versatility and potential UK content (Radar/Engine) they are superior to other options.

      • Somebody needs to tell Bell then as it’s still on their website.
        Even if it’s not being funded by the USMC they’ll still be developing it themselves as Bell is betting it’s future on tiltrotors and is including the ability to self-fly in the Bell V-280.

        • They’re hoping that the USMC might come back, but without that funding there is no way they’ll develop on the company dime.

          • They will keep it or the concept ticking over as they know ther3 is a fair chance it will come back in some form. Their tilt rotor research goes back to the 50s when they first flew one that clearly fed through to present vehicles. Equally the Defiant has strong links to previous defunct projects that got superseded later and indeed most of the stealth drones are projects that originated from work in the early noughties one being replaced by the next. Meanwhile Sierra Nevada still work on Dream-chaser after decades of work and no sure market capitalisation from outside. So I bet Valor based drone like variants come back to haunt us again.

  10. Whatever platform it is will need to be long duration and high(er) altitude than Merlin. So here’s my 2 pennorth…

    • BAE Mantis with radar underslung, higher weight limit and longer duration than Reaper, 2 engines for redundancy and power generation, higher mounted engines for safer operations on deck and made in the UK. Stick a wing fold on and jobs a good un…an attack version onboard would also add to the airgroup both for recon, CAS and MPA roles.

    Or…

    • Faradair BEHA with a ventral array like the Swedish Erieye. Made in the UK, STOL, no arrestor gear required, the platform could also do COD, you could even make an MPA version or tanker….cheap as chips, not as high altitude or duration as Mantis.

    And..

    • Zephyr/Phasa 35 HAPS with E/O, ESM (a small radar is possible as well). 20 of these in a circle around a CSG at 200 miles range would be an incredible capability alongside Merlin (or one of the above). They’re cheap (mass production would be £1m per copy) to buy and operate (running off solar power), and could stay up for 3 months to a year (more than the whole duration of a CSG deployment). The E/O isn’t bad, ESM would allow any hostile emissions to be triangulated well enough for a track to be developed and there are radar/lidar/E/O packages being developed (the radar is unlikely to be powerful enough to do more than a limited range search). These could operate as a moving ‘fence’ alongside the main AEW platform. At the height they operate it would actually cost the enemy more money to shoot down than the UAV actually costs…(few missiles can intercept at 80,000ft, the ones that can cost a lot…)

      • Nope. Totally unrelated. BAE still own the Mantis design. They did look at using a development for Telemos but that went nowhere.

        • Telemos became Euromale without UK. MQ-9B Protector was selected for Scavenger after which Dassault joined with Airbus and Leonardo to continue Telemos project as Euromale.

          • Yes, but its not the Mantis design. No IP from BAE was sold. Mantis is still their product.

      • Which bit?

        Mantis completed a flight test campaign, it has a large endurance and payload capability. It’s more credible an idea than using other non-existing designs. A radar installation like the MQ-9 Sea Guardian is perfectly doable.

        The BEHA is in development, will land on and takeoff a QE Class without assistance and the RN are actually speaking to them…

        Zephyr/Phasa are already well advanced, their E/O systems are already at NIIRS level 6, ESM, Lidar and radar (primarily ground mapping, foliage penetrating and SAR) payloads are already under development.

        Compared to using balloons, variants of the LANCA, airships, non-existent tiltrotors, tethered UAV’s and other suggestions so far these are the height of common sense…they’re affordable, already flying/flown in full size or test articles, could work on a QE without huge multi billion £ costs and are UK built.

        • The first trials of CASTOR were on a Defender if I recall? Before it ended up as ASTOR on Sentinel.

          • They were. And back in the day an Islander (with piston engines) and a full load of RN passengers even landed on HMS Hermes and took off with ease on numerous occasions…
            Apparently all they needed to do to make it fit on the lifts was remove 4 large bolts and the wing would come off…

      • Not sure its so far fetched didn’t we co-operate for with French on future capabilities for 10 years! I think it was the Lancaster House treaty.

    • Aren’t Zephyr/Phasa challenged by operating north and south of circa 40 degree latitudes in their respective hemispheres, due to a lack of adequate solar insolation to gather enough energy to keep them up overnight? Thought I’d seen that specified somewhere. Operating over the Sahel however seems a mission made for them.

      Edit: It was Phasa-35, which has a 35 latitude limit plus Polar Summer operations.
      https://www.prismaticltd.co.uk/products/phasa-35/

      • That will improve over time, but operations in the northern climes will likely continue to be a distant goal. But Zephyr did set its record flight in Mojave, which is bang on the 35th. The dream would be anywhere from 45 to 60.
        Probably the best place to trial them for a practical role would be Diego Garcia, providing overwatch over the marine protected area around the BIOT.

  11. A Britten-Norman BN-2 Islander can surely land and take off if she points her bow into a head wind doing 25-30knots. I saw cesna type plane land on a flat top during the fall of siagon with 7 people on board in the vietnam. Why do we constantly have to reinvent the wheel these planes are cheap mega reliable and have good range or is the 11000ft ceiling too low?
    

    • The BNDefender has a ceiling of 25000 ft, way better than Merlin. It already exists in an AEW version. Take off and landing distances look tight, even for the QE flight deck. A tilt rotor might be the best and most flexible option. I still can’t believe there is a serious intention to install cats and traps nearly but not quite powerful enough to cope with a manned fighter.

        • BN Defender brochure has landing and takeoff distances of 1167 and 1108 ft respectively. These are usually calculated to clear 50ft, so could be shorter on a carrier. Given that there is an AEW version in service, I presume the RN looked at it but rejected it.
          Any option that doesn’t involve the disruption and cost of fitting EMALS must be preferable.
          Cheers

  12. I have always been sceptical when experts say drones are the way forward and manned aircraft are obsolete. Drones have one major flaw, namely it’s satellite relay link. The Russians, the Chinese and the Americans all have anti satellite weapons. If the RAF & FAA were all or nearly all drones, 6 missiles taking out our satellites would render the whole force useless.
    Remember in the 1950’s & 60’s experts said that aircraft are obsolete due to antiaircraft missiles!

    • Two options.

      Military LEO satellite networks in the 100’s or 1000’s, similar to SpaceX Starlink (which is already offering military comms services). They’ll be there for ISTAR anyway.

      Airborne mesh networks to provide redundancy to satellites.

      • UK Gov has a big stake (c50%) in OneWeb.

        https://www.oneweb.world/

        But it wouldn’t be necessary. There’s no point operating an AEW aircraft more than 100-200 miles from a ship and at that range and altitude you’ve got direct Line of Sight for comms/data links.

        • A lot of soft power value in OneWeb if UK govt want to use it, but I suspect it was more the future military value they had their eye on combined with domestic small satellite launch capability.

          Agreed wrt to AEW link to carrier. I was answering the broader statement that drones are rendered useless with the loss of 6 satellites.

  13. Not sure how feasible, and I see mention of balloons in the comments but what about dirigibles ??? I’ll confess a wee fascination with them but would they be capable enough to support the AEW gear, I know that stuff is ‘thirsty’ but if the carriers/RFA’s were supporting them they wouldn’t need the long ranges of a Zeppelin. 48 hours on station would be impressive, no reason you couldn’t have a couple of them and stagger the refuelling/crew change etc or am I just a dafty with a wee obsession for Airships…. 🤔 Answers on a postcard please, oh and be gentle I’m happy to accept I’m talking bollox. 😀

  14. A couple of matelows in a basket under a hot air balloon with a pair of binoculars. Cheap option.

  15. How about a multi role single prop plane such as the super tucano? It would have the range it’s cheap to buy and fly and in lower threat environments would allow strikes/close air support without having to use the f35

  16. Always good to be thinking about the next good idea. But…

    Apparently Crowsnest is to go out of service in 2029. That means in service for only 8 years. Seems a ridiculous amount of time given it has taken 4 years to develop it. Even the most recent version of the Sea King AEW was in service for 16 years and the whole concept was in service for 36.

    If the alternative needs a (mini) catapult that’s going to mean a carrier out of service for a year at least to fit it and presumably we would want to test the replacement before taking Crowsnest out of service. So agree the concept, design, build it ready to start the fitment in 2027. No chance. Even with a non catapult option, no chance.

    In my view Crowsnest will not be out of service in 2029 unless we are prepared to accept a loss of carrier AEW.

    • 2029 is the Merlin OSD (whih Crowsnest is mounted on).
      Thats the agreed programme end at present. Thats how the Gov. presents the data. However, it will get extended as will Crowsnest.

  17. The Brits need to get a real AEW CV borne capability before the shooting war starts with China. Their helo borne AEW will be severely overmatched by China’s big jet AEW aircraft flying from the mainland or their man made islands.

    • Would the land based big jets not be better than pretty much anything that ANYONE can put on a carrier ??? Its kind of one of the advantages of being land based.

    • Other things we need cash for more. Just like usa with new defence budget under Joe need to prioritise. Long range fires, f35 other things come first till public accept 4% of gdp on defence

    • Anyone who ends up in a shooting war with China vs what they have as land assets its game over, they are already too big and powerful regardless who wants to take them on.

      The only area to be ahead of them is being stronger than what China can currently field outside of the south china sea.

      • India may disagree. Currently the only nations who have shown a propensity to take China on on land is India & Vietnam (not that they have a choice). Both have to some extent been successful.

        The problem for China is they have only one true friend – NK. With a friend like that – who needs enemies. Finally, Germany is joining in on a naval basis. Add in France, UK, USA, Japan, India, Australia, Singapore, SK etc & things naval start to look questionable. Anyone looking for a timetable, it appears Australia has decided to slightly slow down its Attack class submarines in order to accelerate Collins class upgrades on the basis that the Attack class are likely to be too late.

        Interesting times ahead.

        • I was referring mainly to the original post about someone taking them on from a naval point of view going against the mainland, even a large coalition of forces from the sea would struggle to take on China vs what they can throw into the sea from the land based forces.

          India has a large standing army for numerous reasons but they are very split east to west, if China made a large push against India they wouldnt last long, well before things went Nuclear anyways. Vietnam has done very well in the air defence arena and as we all know they arent exactly an easy ground force to take on, China would have a challenge going in but once the air defences are taken out they will easily control the air and sea domain.

    • The only nations with very high end AEW in Asia/Pacific is Australia’s & SK’s E7 Wedgetails. Even US don’t come close.

  20. This is a rather odd request. It rules out a single large radar on an unmanned air vehicle which is the current assumed successor. But it doesn’t exclude a helicopter successor to Crowsnest. And it wants something that can operate for/ from the littoral strike group not just from the carriers.
    Is there already concern that an EMAL system might not be deliverable at an acceptable price or timescale?
    The only alternative I can imagine is to have a number of smaller drones networked to create an overall picture.
    But these would be unlikely to overcome the major limitations of Crowsnest- range and altitude.

  25. I appreciate there are limitations with altitude and perhaps load carrying, but why not autonomous heli? They’d be much faster / easier to launch and recover, could stay on station without having to do circuits, and – most importantly – could potentially be used to dip some sort of lightweight sonar too.

    Emerging solid-state battery tech might be any option worth exploring for them. Lighter, greater storage capacity and faster recharge time than traditional Li-On. Plus, less burden on stores.

  26. Does it have to be carrier launched? What about some form of high altitude UAV with long loitering times, akin to the Zephyr? Granted they will have to sort out the payload restrictions so it can actually have the sensor equipment and have enough of them to launch every few days, but could be a more outside the box option?

  27. How about a tethered drone quadcopter?   The copter could carry a AESA radar and receive power and comms via a fiber optic microcable. Getting power from a surface ship reduces the weight, size and cost of the quad. Microcables would allow higher altitudes to be reached by reducing the weight of the cable. So for example at 3000ft, a radar horizon would be 73 miles (excludes height of target). An anti-ship missile at mach 5 travels roughly 1 mile / second. So at 3000ft this would provide a warning of 73 seconds. The quadcopter could have a hydrogen fuel cell to supply emergency power. When a hostile target is detected the tethered microcable could be detached. This would allow the quadcopter to fly away from the vessel and reduce the targeting / fix data for the incoming missile and even act as a decoy.

    • OK

      Assuming the wire supplying the power is say 4mm2 copper with a high tensile element in it: how much per meter do you think it weights?

      Then multiply by the altitude desired.

      Calculate how many 1,000kg this weighs.

      Then calculate how many kW it requires to hover 1,000kg.

      When you have done that please check if the cable can supply enough power to lift its own weight (hint: it can’t).

      • We have moved on since this obsolete objection.
        I did say microcables but did not go into technical possibilities. Only a fool would try and use copper. Graphene nanoribbons / tubes are one possible option. Graphene’s current density is roughly 1,000,000 times higher than copper. A 1m2 sheet of graphene weighs 0.001% of a 1m2 sheet of paper. Tsinghua University in Beijing appears to be currently the world leaders in developing the commercial and presumably military applications of graphene.

        • What a lovely way of expressing yourself.

          How many commercial graphene cables are there?

          How reliable are they in rough handled conditions?

          • May I remind you the MoD are looking to introduce a replacement in the future. The technology is currently in developement. It is not fanatasy as the electrically current densities and weights have been confirmed.
            May I also remind you that “commercial” availablity has absolutely noting to do with acutal availablity. At one stage microchips, or GPS, were not “commercially” available but were in use by the military, where commerciality was not a consideration.
            As far a “reliable” I quote “Due to the strength of its 0.142 Nm-long carbon bonds, graphene is the strongest material ever discovered, with an ultimate tensile strength of 130,000,000,000 Pascals (or 130 gigapascals), compared to 400,000,000 for A36 structural steel, or 375,700,000 for Aramid (Kevlar).”
            Like I said only a fool would have considered using copper. It obvisously would not work but there are exotic technologies that are realistically viable.

  28. Ok, this is going to be a long one!
     
    There are really two avenues that can be used to provide airborne radar coverage, which are organic and non-organic. By this I mean the ship provides the asset or it is provided by other means.

    Non-Organic.

    Starting from the top (literally) would be a form of satellite surveillance. There are already radar satellites that monitor the weather and can search for shipping. Tracking aircraft or missiles is a whole different ball game. The issue is available power, i.e. how much power can the satellite deliver to a radar. A solar array will need to be huge to power a very high powered X-band based surveillance radar. Because of how the atmosphere attenuates radio waves when they are propagated, the radar has to be very powerful to compensate for these losses. This would discount a low earth orbiting satellite. As these are in general quite small and with short life spans, due to gravity’s pull. A medium altitude satellite with height adjustment fuel, will also need to be huge, but could be nuclear powered, which may provide enough juice for an high power X-band radar. But its power output will need to be massive to compensate not only for the distance but also the losses when it hits the atmosphere. We could use a lower frequency radar such as a UHF (300MHz to 1GHz). A radar operating in these frequencies is not as affected by the atmosphere’s attenuation losses. So therefore, can be much less powerful. It will be able to detect the majority of aircraft, but will struggle with missiles due to its much longer operating wavelength. It will have to rely on back scattering and resonance to detect small targets. However, designers can mitigate these issues using certain materials. Until we find a way of putting a low volume but high-density power supply unit in a low earth orbiting satellite, that is affordable (sacrificial), then satellite surveillance is not ready yet for tracking aircraft or missiles (I’m not including IR sensors at this point!).
     
    High altitude pseudo satellite. These are high altitude long range and duration aircraft that operate above 80,000ft. They are normally battery powered and use solar cells to recharge during flight. To get there they must be very light and have very long delicate high aspect ratio wings (glider like). The main purpose of these aircraft is either as a communications node or for surveillance. They can be fitted with a electro-optical turret or even a small radar. However, this radar has limited uses, it cannot be used for searching for and then tracking aircraft or missiles, as it has extremely limited data processing. Some do use remote data processing. But again, this must be done either via a satellite data-link to a ground station or through a line-of-sight ground station data-link. Because of their delicate construction to operate a decent radar you would need to triple the size of the aircraft, but power generation may still be a problem. The major issue with an aircraft of this size is ground handling and only being able to take-off and land in very benign environments.

    High altitude reconnaissance aircraft. An aircraft such as a U2 could be made into an unmanned radar platform. It again will need to rely on a ground station to do the data processing via either a satellite data-link or a direct line of sight data-link. The U2 as an example, has a duration of 12 hours and can fly above 80,000ft. It is powered by a turbojet, which could be used to generate the electrical power needed for a decent radar. Again, due to the weight and aerodynamic constraints, the radar will need to be relatively small. It would need to be fitted in a pod that housed a side looking radar, either above or preferably below the aircraft. At these heights signal attenuation will need to be factored in. However, if the data processing is done remotely more electrical power can be used for the transmitter, so an X band radar may be doable. Boeing has the Phantom Eye UAV prototype, this flies at a lower altitude of 65,000, but has a duration of 4 days during trials. Though Boeing expected to increase this to 10 days.

    There are already several high-altitude unmanned aircraft, such as the MQ-4C Triton and the RQ-4 Global Hawk. Both aircraft can be fitted with a radar. However, the radar’s performance is somewhat lacking. This led to the USAF developing the Multi-platform radar technology insertion program (MP-RTIP). This is a scalable AESA X band radar that is intended to be used by the Global Hawk. It is primarily designed to replace the JSTARS for battlefield surveillance, but has a secondary role in searching for and tracking cruise missiles. But again, due to the small antenna array size in the Global Hawk its range is limited. The radar is also being lined up for use on the E8 JSTARS ion either a pod or replacing the current AN/APY-7 Pave Mover radar. The Global Hawk has an endurance of 32 hours and fly at altitudes of 60,000ft. At present they cannot be refueled in flight, so they would have to do very long transits to cover a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic for example.

    Manned AEW platform. These still provide the best method for long range airborne radar coverage. A converted commercial airliner provides both the electrical generation needed to power the radar, but also the space required for the data processing. Using the E7 Wedgetail as an example, it can fly at 41,000ft and usually a operational duration of 8 hours. The RAAF proved that the aircraft can stay on mission for 17 hours following multiple air to air refuels. However, after this the crew would likely be too knackered for a successively mission of the following day, thus necessitating a second crew to take over. The Wedgetail is fitted with the multi-role electronically scanned array radar (MESA). This can simultaneously conduct both airborne and maritime search and tracking out to a published range distance of 600km. The Wedgetail is currently the best AEW platform available. But they are massively expensive and will again suffer issues with time on station, as it has to return to a base to exchange crews.

    Unmanned AEW commercial aircraft. An aircraft such as the Bombardier 6000 is already used as an AEW platform. Which uses the Saab Erieye-ER AESA radar and is called the Globaleye when combined and has a published range of 430km. The aircraft can cruise at 41,000ft and has a range of 6000nm. It as yet cannot be aerial refueled, but companies such as Marshalls are very good at doing conversions. There are two trains of thought here if the aircraft was to operate unmanned, either the data processing is still done on the aircraft or it is done remotely. Both have their pros and cons. The pro for keeping the processing on the aircraft is that the data-link won’t be handling very large amounts of raw data. The con being it pushes up the aircraft’s cost. The pro of doing it remotely is that it saves on weight, so can extend the aircraft’s range. The con being the lag of working through the raw data. The aircraft will suffer the same issues as the Wedgetail, in that it will have long transit times to reach a fleet in the middle of the Atlantic and that it has to return to base for refueling. As it will be operating out of line of sight, it will need to use a satellite data-link for control and possibly the data processing, so the link and satellite could be at risk. Unless space on a ship can be used for the data processing, which would mitigate the satellite issues.
     
    Hybrid airship. The Airlander 10/50 hybrid airship is admittedly very slow and can cruise at an altitude of only 20,000ft. It does have a duration measured in days though, but can also be hover refueled to extend that further. The envelope provides an ideal location to locate multiple radars. Why multiple? Each radar band has its pros and cons when detecting either aircraft or missiles. Generally, the higher the frequency the better the target resolution, but also the ability to detect surface imperfections that cause radar reflection hotspots. However, the con is that as the frequency increases so does the atmospheric attenuation. Therefore, a 1Kw S-band radar will have significantly better detection ranges over a comparable 1Kw X band radar. There is certain phenomenon that help longer wave radar detect stealthy targets, but these cannot always be guaranteed, whereas a higher frequency radar has a much better chance of detecting a small stealthy target. The airships envelop has sufficient space to allow for multiple radars operating in different bands. Therefore, it could operate a long-range UHF radar, in conjunction with an S band and an X band. This would make it hard for a stealthy target to evade detection. Furthermore, as the airship can lift between 10 and 50 tons depending on the variant, it could be outfitted with living quarters, galley etc. to allow shift working. However, it will become an extremely high priority target, so will need protecting. Due to its size, it might be difficult to knock out in one go, but again because of its size, it lends itself to kinetic active protection, perhaps using a derivative of the Trophy or Iron Fist systems.

    Organic

    This is perhaps what the Navy really requires, a self-deployed platform that can see beyond the local radar horizon and provides wide area radar coverage suitable for long range air defense. As I mentioned earlier, the size of the platform will be directed by the radar requirement. So, if we are operating from a OPV, do we need a radar capable of seeing 200nm? Again, there will be at least two avenues to solving this requirement. Something that a ship can operate and deploy on its own or something that is supported by a carrier. It is likely that both roads are looked at. But they should both be able to network together without interfering with each other.

    I will immediately discount the so-called heavy lift quadcopters and their ilk. These may prove marginally useful for logistics, but their battery life is way too short and they don’t have enough spare capacity to power a radar. No, the next seriously unmanned VTOL category are those aircraft in the 200kg class, such as the Scheibel S100. It can fly for 6 hours to an altitude of 18,000ft. This little helicopter can carry the Thales I-master radar, as used on the Watchkeeper UAV, which can detect ships from 100km, vehicles from 35km and also infantry from 15km. It currently can’t detect aircraft, but this is just a software modification away. The issue being is that if it were modified to detect aircraft, its range will be quite short, probably closer to the vehicle detection range rather than the ship range. Therefore, this aircraft and radar would be ideal for OPV work, but not for air defense. Again, the aircraft is too small to generate the necessary power required for a long-range radar.
     
    I am going to jump a few UAV classes and look at the Group 4 UAVs and in particular the Bell MQ-8C Fire Scout. The classes in between don’t have any significant advantages over the S100. The MQ-8C is based on the manned Bell Model 407 helicopter. It has a maximum endurance of 15 hours and can attain a height of 20,000ft. More importantly it can lift payloads of just over 300kg. The US Navy have equipped the 8C Fire Scout with Leonardo’s Osprey 30 lightweight AESA X-band radar, using four panels mounted around the fuselage to give a 360-degree view. When cruising at 16,000ft the radar will have a detection range of 100nm (161km) according to published information. This radar can detect both maritime and airborne targets. I am not sure if the aircraft is cleared for hover refueling, otherwise it must land to refuel. This aircraft combination represents good money for a decent capability. It will be ok for a Frigate but not an air defense ship, such as T45.

    For an organic AEW platform that can enhance the effective range of an air defense ship, you need to look at the next UAV class (5). These are aircraft with much larger lifting payloads. One example of which is the Bell V-247 Vigilant. This is a tilt rotor UAV based on the V22 design rather than the newer V-280 Valor, in that the whole engine and gearbox assembly rotates, rather than just the gearbox on the Valor. It was initially designed to fulfill the USMC MUX requirements for a multi-role UAV platform, that could do close air support, maritime strike, communication relay, electronic warfare and ISTAR. Like the V22, the aircraft could fold its main wing and prop-rotors to reduce the stored footprint. When folded up, it has the same footprint as a MH-60 Seahawk. The aircraft was going to be powered by one of the V22’s RR AE1107C turboshaft engines. Which would have given it an endurance of up to 17 hours and could attain a height of 25,000ft. Northrop Grumman had developed a podded derivative of the F35’s APG-81 radar for it, so it could be used as an AEW platform. Unfortunately, the USMC cancelled the program as they were piling too many requirements on the aircraft, which kept pushing up the weight. However, the USMC requirement stands, they are desperate for an AEW platform that can operate from the LHA/LHD mini carriers in support of their F35s. Their recent experience of using them as “Lightning Carriers” highlighted the issues of relying on non-organic AEW platforms, as they were not always around when needed.

    The US have been using tethered aerostat radar systems since the mid 80’s. They generally fly at an altitude of 15,000ft using a cable that is 25,000ft long. These aerostats are stable in wind speeds up to 65kts. They carry the Lockheed Martin L-88 L-band (1 to 2GHz) pulse-doppler radar. Which has a detection range of 200nm (370km). It was designed to look for low flying (non-stealthy) cruise missiles, so may struggle with newer stealthier cruise missiles. It can detect aircraft. The system is used to monitor traffic in and around Florida, though it is retracted when a Hurricane is nearby. An aerostat such as this could be used from a ship. But like the lower flying UAV is susceptible to the weather. It would also mean a ship’s helicopter has to be very aware of the tethering cable’s location. The loss of sight of the tethering cable caused the Puma to crash in Kabul, Afghanistan. The main advantage of a radar carried by an aerostat is that the data processing is done within the ship, so more power can be used by the transmitter. But because of the payload capacity a decent long-range radar can be carried.

    Therefore, we have two options for an organic radar platform deployed from a T45 class of ship, either a large VTOL UAV or a tethered aerostat. Both systems have their pros and cons and both are dependent on the local weather conditions for their deployment. The UAV can operate away from the ship, whereas the aerostat will always be following it, which can be used to pinpoint the ship’s location. If the ship operated something like the Vigilant, then it could be used for other roles, such as maritime strike etc, the aerostat can really only be used for one role. The issue with operating the aerostat from a ship though is when trying to recover it and then store it, as they are very labour intensive to manhandle and don’t always cooperate when its gusty.

    For a carrier-based platform that can replace the Crowsnest equipped Merlin. There are a number of choices. A tethered aerostat is not one of them, as the cable will interfere with aircraft operations if being towed by the carrier. Due to the available deck space, we have a number of options both manned and unmanned, VTOL or CTOL.
     
    The simplest one is to copy what the Norwegians and Italians are doing with their EH101s. Both are fitting the Leonardo Osprey radar to the aircraft. Norway is using the lighter 30 version, whereas Italy are looking at the larger 50 version as a direct replacement for their aircraft equipped with the Eliradar HEW-784 housed in a large under fuselage radome. The HEW-784 has been constantly plagued with problems. Italy have been looking at a fleet wide fit of the Osprey as a replacement for the aircraft’s maritime search nose mounted radar. Where the aircraft would be fitted with four Osprey 50 panels around the fuselage to give a 360-degree view. The Osprey 50 has a comparable detection range to the Searchwater 2000. But, the radar will have the same constraints as the earlier Crowsnest, i.e. short duration and limited altitude. This means any Merlin can fulfill the AEW role and won’t need re-rolling for that specific task.

    The next VTOL type aircraft could be the Bell V-280 Valor. This is the aircraft most likely to replace the USMC’s UH-1Y Hueys. It has a slightly faster cruise speed than the V22 Osprey but has a comparable range. The aircraft has the necessary power generation for a decent radar comparable to the Searchwater. But should it be manned? The problem with optionally manned aircraft is that they really don’t save on weight compared to a dedicated unmanned aircraft. You still need all the flight controls, seating, instrumentation and environmental systems; in case the aircraft is to be manned. So, the only saving is on operating in a hazardous area where you remove the risk to life or increase the flight duration slightly. However, the option of operating the radar is still extant, where you can do the data processing aboard the carrier. As the aircraft will likely be operating in line of sight of the carrier, using a discrete data-link like the F35’s MADL will reduce the risk of it being detected or jammed, plus allow large amounts of raw data to be transmitted.

    Another unmanned aircraft to consider is a variant of the Sabrewing. This uses a single Safran Ardiden 3 turboshaft and produces about 1700shp to drive an electrical generator that then powers the four fan motors. This might be a little low for an AEW platform, especially as the radar will likely cause drag on the engine through an increased load requirement. However, there are other engines out there about the same weight, but with a much higher power output, such as the Chinook’s Lycoming T55-714 engine. If this aircraft used the Lycoming engine and used the four Osprey panels. The aircraft would have a significantly better duration than the Merlin, plus it can cruise along at 22,000ft, thus extending the radar horizon.

    The next option is a very large UAVs, such as Boeing MQ-25 Stingray. This is supposed to have a number of roles beside being an aerial refueller, such as reconnaissance and ISTAR. The US Navy have put the other roles on hold until the aircraft is in-service. However, this UAV is a conventional take off aircraft and due to its weight, will need either rocket or catapult assistance to take-off from our carriers. Both Boeing and the US Navy are being tight lipped about some of the aircraft’s specifications, such as operating altitude and duration. However, they have said it can operate above 20,000ft. But as an educated guess it could probably operate above 35,000ft. As its only single engines there will be a constraint on how much electrical power it can deliver, which will also constrain how powerful a radar you can fit. However, due its size, the upper fuselage is long enough to comfortably mount Saab’s Erieye radar. Whether it can power it is open to debate. But doing all the signal processing remotely on the carrier will help this out a lot. The S-band Erieye radar has a published detection range of 450km (243nm), nearly double Searchwater’s. It will suffer the same issues as other aircraft that have their radars on top of an aircraft, namely a poorer look down view.

    The next option is the Gold-plated solution, this would be the E2D Hawkeye. The E2D with a crew of 5 uses the Northrop Grumman AN/APY-9 AESA radar that operates in the UHF band (300MHz to 1 GHz). The radar has a published detection range of greater than 600km (324nm). It predominantly uses back scattering to detect smaller stealthy targets when cruising at 25,000ft. However, that cannot always be relied upon. It acts as a node for the cooperative engagement capability for the fleet and has discrete datalink capability with the F35. It has already shown that it can search for and track both cruise and ballistic missiles, using either the weapons from a F18/35 or a ship to take them out. This is the capability that our Navy want, they just can’t afford it! France bought only 3 aircraft at a price of $2 billion. The aircraft could still be better though, by making it totally unmanned. By removing all the crew controls and environmental systems a large weight saving could be made. This would allow space for an additional search radar to be fitted, preferably in the X-band, like Leonardo’s Osprey. The additional radar would compliment the UHF one. By mounted to the lower sides of the fuselage it would help to fill in the blind zone below the aircraft. But as it’s a dual mode radar (maritime and air searching) it will be able to spot even smaller targets, without overly relying on back scattering. Thus periscopes, very small drones and smaller cruise missiles will be easier to find.
     
     Conclusion

    The Royal Navy (RN) need a range of aircraft that can provide enhanced surveillance and AEW coverage. Ranging from policing work with the OPVs, extending the view of a frigate and providing beyond horizon search and targeting for the destroyers. These platforms all need to be capable of being networked together to provide a larger radar picture or shared within the fleet using discrete networking. The RN also need a platform that can provide a fleet wide radar coverage based around our carriers. This needs to have a much longer detection range, but also be capable of detecting small stealthy targets.

    1.      A 200kg class VTOL UAV to operate from Offshore Patrol Vessels and Minesweepers. Using a 50km high frequency (>10GHz) X-band radar (AESA if funding allows). The higher frequency will allow the radar to better discriminate very small targets especially when operating close to shore. The signal processing can be done on the aircraft or on the OPV/MCM.

    2.      A Class 4 UAV that can operate from a T23/26/31/32 Frigate’s hangar. With a duration of 12 hours operating from an altitude greater than 10,000ft. Using a X-band AESA radar (8 to 12GHz). X-band radar are particularly good at spotting periscopes in choppy seas. The signal processing will be done remotely on the frigate.

    3.      A Class 4/5 UAV that can operate from a T45/83 hangar. With a duration greater than 12 hours and operating from an altitude greater than 20,000ft. Using a X to Ku-band AESA radar (8 to 20GHz). The signal processing will be done remotely on the destroyer.

    4.      A Class 5 UAV that can be launched from and recovered by a carrier. With a duration greater than 12 hours and operating from an altitude of greater than 30,000ft. The aircraft would operate at least 2 radars, one in the S band (2 to 4 GHz) and the other in the X to Ku bands (8 to 20GHz). The signal processing will be down remotely on the carrier. The aircraft must be capable as acting as a network node for aircraft and the fleet.

    5.      Left field option. To develop a fleet of at least 10 Airlander hybrid airships as multirole platforms for maritime patrolling and airborne early warning, using 2 or more AESA radars housed in the gas envelop.

    • And finally some sense.

      Might I suggest that you write an article for George on this with some proper references to non-classified sources?

      Might raise the level of debate on this area?

    • Fantastic summary, this demands to be a full article. You do however sit on the fence in your conclusions. The clearly logical option is the Bell 280/247. Before the regular mime that this has been “cancelled” I would say that if the RN jumped in as sponsor this would instantly change. They are logical compliments to the F35 can operate in all sea state, do not need expensive carrier reconfiguration, have long duration, are flexible and relatively cheap.

  29. And what is the budget for the project!! This will surely be a major influence on the way forward. If Crowsnest goes out of service in 2030 the RN must have a budget provisioned for its replacement in the MOD long term financial plan otherwise its yet another cost overrun!.. The cost and risks of developing, integrating , building, testing and certifying all of the required new capabilities (platform, radar, datalinks, training simulator, maintenance and control nets and upgrades to the ships) will be significant and may very well make other, more assured, solutions attractive to Defence . One compelling solution would be to restore the 2 E7s cancelled in the recent defence cuts and negotiate use of allied runways operated by the USAF, USN and RAAF in the Pacific region. and maybe do a deal with the RAAF for MRTT support. I cannot see the UK carriers operating in the Pacific without USN cover so such a deal is eminently possible as the RAF E7s will have the capability to provide a service to these allies as well as they are all currently interoperable today. .

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here