The Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system will achieve full operating capability next year after a spend of £425.7m, only to be retired four years later in 2029.

The information came to light in the following response to a Parliamentary Written Question.

James Cartlidge, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated:

“The Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system achieved initial operating capability in July 2023 and is on track to achieve full operating capability next year in time to support a Carrier Strike Deployment in 2025.

Under current plans CROWSNEST will retire on 31 December 2029. The capability was not extended in the Integrated Review 2021.

As of 31 December 2023, the CROWSNEST Programme has spent £425.662 million. This is within the original approved whole life budget for the programme of £459 million.”

Competition to enhance Royal Navy early warning capabilities

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

98 COMMENTS

    • Given the complexity of these systems, how important they are for adequate carrier protection, and the impression I get that we’re not yet even at the stage of detailed specifications for a procurement I fear that this is going to be more of a capability chasm!

      • Yep, old enough to remember it although I was only a kid at the time.

        We always knew crowsnest was only an interim solution so why in the hell are we only looking at a replacement now?

  5. Cool…. so that’ll be a good excuse to retire about 10 Merlins then….. Saving lots of money and no longer needing so many Pilots…… It’s all good.

      • Agree, if HMG genuinely have woken up, as reported recently by our defence secretary, to the need for more frigates then the Merlin’s will need to be retained for ASW platforms.
        Believe it when I see it. I see nothing but cuts cuts cuts and incompetence.

    • MOD obviously getting all the s**t news out before the chancellors budget next month, which is a bit of a change seeing as they normally try and ‘bury’ such news along with big exciting announcements. 🤔

    • Back to ASW mate. Which is what the most Merlin should be doing if they’d got on and properly replaced the S King ASCS7s with the 11 or so Merlin that didn’t get the HM2 upgrade.
      They’ve stated as such regards drones, to get Merlin cabs back to their main role.
      Let’s see, I try to be positive.

      • They need to really make their minds up about avoiding gaps that A blind man and his dog can see, The repurposing of Merlin’s was never going to be anything other than a short term and inadequate stop gap. And it’s bombed, 5 years late and still hasn’t passed into official IOC.
        I know they have Vixen and Ark Royal on the go but they need to work at pace or bite the bullet and not deploy them anywhere that isn’t covered by land based AEW. And Yes my tongue is firmly on my cheek about that one.

        As for Merlin if anyone on this or any other site can point me in the direction of any present or projected future platform for Manned Helicopter ASW then please do so. I’m damned if I can think of one.

        Through what I know about the un modified HM1 the vast majority of what was left is now not a lot. Most of them are now parts of the ones presently flying.
        It’s time to just quietly speak to the other users including Poland and put New Updated Airframes into low volume production. I suspect we would be pushing at an open door because ours are wearing out and there just aren’t enough of them.
        All we need is us buying 5 a year and slowly build the numbers up to @50 HM2 / 3 and then replace the older ones 1 4 1.

        Its what the Yanks have been doing for decades with Chinooks, Sea Lions etc etc.

        • Yep Lusty mentioned years ago the HM1s remaining became spares cabs. Tragic.
          I believe Japan also buy small numbers year in year to keep fleets numbers.

          I just don’t understand our country.

    • Frank,

      Hi, personally enjoy your rather droll sense of humor, but suggest that you may wish to include the 😉 emoji to cue the broader audience not to interpret comments too literally.

    • The problem is money. £200m per aircraft, say 8 of them, plus converting both carriers to full cat and traps – not the lightweight systems proposed now, 2Bn per carrier. Even if we had a spare 3-4Bn, not convinced that’s the best us of it or – more fundamentally – that single node AEW, however capable, is the future.

      • Just notice the cost point has been made and countered. And, more embarrassingly, that I added my cost guesses up wrong.

  7. Another brillian UK programme. We’re now looking at Drones…for how long before we gat around to thinking of ordering something.

      • When the MOD issued its request for information for electromagnetic cats for QE drones it specified a max of 29,000 kg. I think the gross weight of E2D is 19,000 kg.

        • Yeh that isn’t happening for a decade or more. If the money is even available, again, got a couple billion spare in the 10 year budget plan?

        • Did a bit of googling, earlier article on here listed a MTOW of 24,000kg, max trap of 21,000kg. At 90m long the “Stingray” cat might be able to loft a mostly loaded E-2, MTOW for them is apparently 26k kg. The CdG does it with a 75m cat but maybe their E-2s tank after launch to top up their fuel? No idea there.
          Point is, looks practical, but just adds weight to the “why weren’t they built as CATOBAR to begin with”?

          • The reason they weren’t built with catobar is history…arguably because BAe share of F-35B won out over F-18 or the ultimately indignity of Rafale 🙂
            Anyway, we are where we are. Hawkeye and a refuelling tanker would trsnsform QE capability. Maybe Uncle Sam have been frank about our cheeseparing solutions.

          • A lot was to do with the then cost of EMALS and the recovery system. However, along with that, specifically EMALS wasn’t ready. To be blunt, it still isn’t fully ready. The USS Ford still can’t launch F35s. The EMALS is only cleared to launch F18s and E2C/D.

            To put that into context, if we’d gone down the EMALS route. The carriers would have to operate F18s to this day, the Rafale possibly if it was cleared (though we would have had to pay for the clearance). Though it does mean the carriers could have had Hawkeye.

            One thing I am still surprised about. Is that the carriers weren’t built with the angled deck extension? If there was an option for the carriers to go CATOBAR in the future, why not include the extension at build? Rather than later in life during a modification.

            There is a safety device which I am also surprised hasn’t been fitted since coming in to service. Which is a safety barrier. If a F35B has a problem where it can’t do a vertical landing (or rolling vertical landing) due to a problem with the lift fan doors for example. How does the F35 recover to the ship, if it is too far from land? The barrier may damage the aircraft, but it is recoverable. Whereas ditching in to the sea, is not!

    • E2D is expensive and requires a lot of crew, although they’re excellent platforms.
      Ultimately, though, they’ll be replaced in the USN in the next decade with drones with the same purpose that the RN are looking for now- so we may as well skip the step and get in on the drones. Bringing E2 into service along with the Cats and Traps could take as long as a drone platform when you factor in all the crew training.

        • It’d make a nice change for us! There is always the risk of trying something others haven’t, but I don’t think that there’s loads of that in this instance. The airframes are mostly there, it’s just optimising. It’ll likely be the launch gear that takes the longest to get right, and the RN are already moving towards wanting that anyway.

    • No longer in production and according to head of USN are already obsolescent tech wise. Drones and CEC are the future.

      • “No longer in production and according to head of USN are already obsolescent tech wise. Drones and CEC are the future.”

        Based on the latest reporting that I’ve seen I’m fairly certain that you are mistaking here. France just signed a contract for 3 E-2D just last year. Northrop who makes the aircraft and Lockheed who makes the radar also signed contracts last year. Northrop was for the latest lot 11 tranche of airframes. The usn has also already funded 80 of the planned 86 aircraft with the possibility of the additional orders as they plan to keep the line open into the late 2020s and the E2 flying in to the they plan to 2040s.

  11. Interestingly Bae have just shown a mystery drone at World Defense Show in Riyadh with no further explanation. No idea what it’s for mind but at least good to see the Taranis and Manta technology still being further developed it seems.

    LINK

  12. Let me guess, as is the way of the MOD, Crowsnest will be retired early in which to save money with its world beating replacement coming on line 10 years later. No doubt to much fanfare by the people in charge that the replacement shows the Government is spending money in the right places regards defending the country.

  13. Interestingly Bae have just shown a mystery drone at World Defense Show in Riyadh with no further explanation. No idea what it’s for mind but at least good to see the Taranis and Manta technology still being further developed it seems.

    (hopefully this contribution with the link will be approved soon)

    • Yeah, looks pretty cool- good write up on the Warzone on it.
      To me, it looks more like a loyal wingman to F-35B/Typhoon/Tempest; compared to most AEW platforms it’s pretty fast with 5 hours’ mission time, So may not be what we’re wanting for sustained overwatch. It does have 500 kg internal payload, so could fit a fairly decent radar in there, I would think?

  14. I see that in your article about the “current proposal” for Crowsnest replacement, the deadline for submissions was July 2021. So knowing MoD as we do, it’s 100% safe to assume that tremendous progress has been made in the last two-and-a-half years, thinking is mature and things can speed ahead in a way that will deliver the replacement on time and on cost. And no, you can’t have some of what I’m smoking.

  15. So long as we have a replacement up & running in time it shouldn’t be a problem. Heli AEW was a stopgap back in the 1980s. Hopefully a drone AEW will be far more capable.

  16. baffling when no alternative is actually operational! was the recent upgrade not fit for purpose?
    furthermore, wouldn’t a dedicated awacs drone also require some type of catobar system? orherwise i seriously doubt that a lightweight drone (not needing catobar) could have a powerful radar and carry enough fuel for extended range.
    my 2 cents

  17. Really?
    Well done HMG/MOD 👏👏👏👏👏 Great use of public funds.
    A few questions
    What is this capability being replaced by?

    Will the replacement be ready by 2029 when Crowsnest leaves service so there is no capability gap?

    How much additional funding is a drone or fixed wing carrier based AWACS going to cost?

    Is this being done to free up the too few Merlins we have, as our best ASW platform?

    I can see a lot of money being spent duplicating a capability.

    • Mojave is likely too small for the AEW radar, as it’s based on the MQ-1. They also have STOL kits available for the MQ-9B, which is the Protector drone we already have on order- that’s probably the better shout if we want to go that route.

        • No worries, I spent quite a long time thinking that the Mojave actually was protector- they look so similar! it’s hard to work out scale from a photo.

          • 😂
            Some of the videos coming out of Ukraine are terrifying in terms of multiple FPV drones tearing into Russian infantry- nowhere to hide, can’t run fast enough. I imagine the skies will soon be the same in terms of larger UAVs

      • MQ4-C Carries a AN/ZPY-3 X Band 360’ AESA Radar, along with lots of other kit that a purely AEW CEC node STOL drone wouldn’t.

  20. I note with interest that the request for proposals doesn’t state that will must replace Crowsnest with another airborne radar based system of some kind.

    While I’m no expert the performance of infrared search and track (IRST) technology does seem to be advancing at a notable rate and it is common knowledge that these systems are now considered indispensable on modern fighter aircraft. IRST offers significant potential benefits compared to radar, such as lower weight, cost, and electrical power consumption requirement – all extremely useful attributes for a relatively small and lightweight UAV one might think. One might posit that if such a network of IRST equipped drones could be made sufficiently light and inexpensive enough we could even envision a ‘swarm’ of such vehicles operating at some distance form our carrier – maximizing detection range perhaps. Another possibility is IRST detectors mounted aboard a ‘Blimp’ of some kind.

    Furthermore, as detecting surface or air targets in the infrared spectrum is an entirely passive business of course a IRST based AEW system would not betray a naval task force’s position to the same extent any technology based on electromagnetic emissions would. A useful benefit surely?

    • Sadly passive optical technology will always have a performance disadvantage to active. The sensor used in say a Pirate IRST, is similar to that used in a digital camera. Where you have a smallish square (1” to 3”) covered in photoreceptors. The higher the number of receptors increases the optical resolution.

      However for an aircraft target some 30km away. The IR based receptors are relying on the energy the aircraft is emitting. Be that from its hot exhaust, the atmospheric friction as it passes through the air, or the difference between the ambient air and the aircraft itself.

      This energy has to be transmitted through the air and received by the photoreceptors. Unfortunately, the air absorbs quite a bit of this energy. So even less reaches the receptors. The sensor has to use what’s left to form an image.

      This means to increase the image quality and the detection range, just like a telescope. You need to increase the surface area to fit in more receptors. Which for a fighter sized aircraft or more critically a missile. Places a physical limit on the size of the sensor. As there’s a finite amount of space that a sensor can be fitted to.

      A radar has a significant advantage over optical sensors. In that depending on the frequency of the RF signal propagating through the air, it isn’t as seriously affected from atmospheric attenuation. Bearing mind the higher the frequency the worse the attenuation. Therefore it’s range can be a series of magnitude greater.

  22. It looks like they announced the 2029 out of service in 2021 – it’s at the 2021 gov.uk page for new capabilities – so they’ve had a while to work this out.

    It will be interesting to see how big an aircraft they need to launch, considering the size (and presumably weight) of the radars on the E-7 and GlobalEye. And how they manage with transmitting the data it collects over the distances needed. A BACN too?

  23. Well it is about time they replaced the Searchwater bassed system for something modern. An AESA solution should be looked at on a drone or other platform. We need to modernise our AEW. However I think we should have started building a modern solution some time ago so we could have skipped the whole Crowsnest saga.

    • A good idea would be to give T45 a Merlin helicopter with an AEW – that way the T45 can shoot over the radar horizon. Such a system could have won the Falklands war single handed.

  25. Yet another example of Ineptitude, incompetence and corruption regarding taxpayers money, politicians, business and military ‘stuff’.

    Why say this? because there will no doubt be something else foisted upon the MOD, to replace it.

    Why replace it? If it works, leave it be, and use it till it falls off.

    Right another zillion £’s saved… next!

    • I get the feeling that it’s really a disguised indicator that it isn’t really up to the job and even less so by the end of the decade. Fine tolerating it in peacetime but probably, now that they have to face a world of actual conflict, a chilling proposition to contemplate. I guess when it wasn’t crucial it seemed a cheap option that could be tolerated a little longer term but now feels anything but.

      • The Crowsnest Searchwater radar dates back to the Nimrod. Tr has had a few facelifts but basically it is the same system. One example of the early system was even sold to China. The F35 has a better radar then the one on Crowsnest. That should tell you something. I think the whole Searchwater saga was about saving money and giving jobs for the boys. There were alternative offerings for the Crowsnest a option based on the F35 radar AESA and an Israeli option, again AESA. We picked the same old thing with just a shinny new interface.

  26. AEW was going to be a problem from the moment the STOVL design was ordered in 2008. But it is astonishing that the RN has taken so long to get a less than satisfactory and now short term partial solution into service. A large part of the delay is the fault of the main contractor, Lockheed Martin, who else?
    Given how little the UK has managed to deliver by way of unmanned platforms, it seems inconceivable that a UCAV AEW will be ready by 2029. Or that an electromagnetic launch system will be designed, tested and installed by then.
    Whether an off the shelf purchase from General Atomics could deliver the necessary capability without the need for an EMAL system, I am unsure. Not much has been said about the Mohave trials.

    • Mojave is too small, with not enough payload and not enough power. Maybe an MQ-9B STOL can get a little closer, but it will be far from ideal. If there’s money, buy a tiltrotor soution; if not extend Crowsnest.

      • I realize Mohave would not be powerful enough. Just curious why nothing has been said about the trials that might give a hint about future plans.

    • I may have been slightly unfair to LM. According to a UKDJ article in July 2017, the RN only placed the contract in Jan 2017 after 17 years of planning. What was expected to then take 2 years dragged on until IOC in 2023. Essentially that was just to transfer an existing radar system to an existing helicopter.

  27. Just a thought but the USN has the MQ-4C Triton that works alongside the P8 Poseidon both they and RAN have ordered some.
    Big for a drone at 14,000 KG but they carry an Airborne AESA search radar right up to 56,000 feet. Endurance is 30 hours.

    And we just trialed a Mojave on POW so just I wonder if they are thinking of a carrier version like Sea Guardian (folding wings) but Radar rather than a weapon load.

    • Maritime search radars use less power than AEW ones. I have read that Triton has about 30kVA vailable, which might not be enough for AEW radar, but radar technology is advancing so fast, it might be, or at least enough to be substantially better than Crowsnest.

  28. Unless we already have a carrier-ready UAV platform completed, I can’t see them sticking to that 2029 timeline.

    I’d also question if any current UAV would have enough power for a relatively large radar or fuel capacity to give the required endurance.

    But more generally, why are we scrapping a system after only 4 years of being fully functioning? Doesn’t seem like a good use of money.

  29. wonder what the radar capabilities and data link on Peregrine are like in comparison to crows next? possibly could be a fill in, or a enhanced version on the coming larger cam-copter model. Alternately likely the STOL version of GA sea guardian drone but with an air optometrist ASESA radar.

  31. Another excellent example of pathetic idiotic MoD decision making (sic).

    Scrap the entire ministry and let the services manage themselves again.

    Could afford more across all services without that bloated mass, even if the RAF were kept around 😉

  32. I’d honestly be surprised if there’s a fixed-wing drone out there that can get aloft with an AEW radar and full fuel load, from the deck of a QE Class without Cats and Traps. Very happy to be corrected on that front though.
    I’d imagine that the launching mechanism will take more time to bring online than the drone though, given how much work there is in the UAV space at the moment. While we’re at it, would be great if the same airframe could handle airborne refuelling as well.

    • Agreed, finding an air vehicle able to mount a suitable radar, its power supply and the link back to the Carrier together with the necessary on-board management system will take a long time and probably much of this will be need to be entirely of new design to fit into the constraints of operating from our carriers. Consequently, the Integration and test activity will be similarly lengthy and very costly if done properly – as will have to be if it is to be viable. On top of this the fleet of AEW systems will be small so will it be affordable given other priorities not least of which must be the mid-life update of the carriers?
       
      In reality, the RN must be fully aware of this, which is why they keep punting it down the road because after crowsnest (which i really just a slightly updated version of earlier RN systems) it puts a serious question mark over the viability of the carrier without organic AEW.

      I note the RN are not showing any great enthusiasm to send a carrier to the Red
      Sea to defend our sea lanes. Is it a lack of T45s to defend it and/or or a lack of any really capable organic AEW. Of course, the RAF could have helped with AWACS and AAR from Cyprus but we took a Capability holiday for a few years and sold our E3s to Chile. An operational E7 is some years off and  at the moment I guess NATO is currently using its E3s in Europe given Ukraine. Don’t you just love it when a plan comes together.

      • To be honest, if we still had the Sea King ASaC’s. They would do a fine job, for what is required over the Red Sea.

        Even though the AsaC’s used Searchwater. Which is an old mechanically scanned pulse-doppler X-band radar, pinched from a Nimrod. It was very good at its job, which was primarily looking for sea skimming missiles. However, it was also found that it was also very good at ground mapping, where it did sterling service in Afghan.

        The Crowsnest is a development of ASaC. Where it kept the same front end, but replaced the back end with something a lot more modern. At the time of planning the requirement, there was an alternative. Where Northrop Grumman were proposing to use a variation of the F35’s APG-81 radar. But this was deemed too expensive and it was felt that just upgrading the backend of ASaC would be a quicker option. So it has been incredibly disappointing that Crowsnest has suffered so many delays.

        In essence, monitoring the Red Sea for sea skimming missiles, drones and small boats was what it was designed for. In some respects they would perform better than a E2C. The Houthis do however have some SAM systems, including the old SA-2, as Saudi and the UAE have found to their cost. As they have lost a number of aircraft, including a Typhoon to a Houthis SAM, though it might have been a MANPAD. Therefore, the Crownest Merlin, will need protecting.

        • We should have dumped Searchwater decades ago for a modern system, what we have today is a legacy system that is not up to the job. As AEW is a key element in carrier defence I think the MoD has dropped the ball again. Just as they did in the 1980s by not giving the fleet AEW. They hustled it up pretty quickly after ships started getting sunk….

          the lack of ability to put in place key defence components is staggering,

        • Interesting thought. Crowsnest surely has a missile detect range an order of magnitude greater than Manpads and Soviet era SAMs. And if it remained in Richmond’s Sea Ceptor umbrella could probably also protect itself with EW as a failsafe. It would be a great test for the system.

          Without at least two UK escorts present, it would be a bit difficult to keep a continuous watch. We’d need to add Argus to the mix for the hangar space.

  34. Maybe a silly suggestion, if they’re also looking at a manned solution could the F35B platform be stretched and modified to be more a AEW like I think the Harrier Blackjack project was? Are they looking at an Osprey AEW or even seeing if a Hawkeye could fly off the QE carriers? Or, more of a jet powered drone?
    And will these Merlin’s then be converted back to their ASW roles?

    • As far as I know the USN/USMC are not looking at making the Osprey in to an AEW platform. I think it was in the 90’s when they did a rough and ready trial. Where they used a S3 Viking radar mounted on a mechanism that was fitted to the ramp. The mechanism lowered the radar antenna below the ramp.

      From what I remember it didn’t work very well due to the vibration of the ramp causing the radar to malfunction.

      There was also a sketch of an Osprey with a triangular PESA antenna on the roof. Can’t remember the company that proposed it. But it didn’t go any further. The bigger problem is that the Osprey has an unpressurized cabin. So if it needs to fly above 10,000ft everybody on board will need to be on oxygen. Which on a 4-6 hour mission is not great for crew comfort.

      Some years ago the USN/USMC did an exercise in the South China Sea with the USS Tripoli carrying 20 F35Bs, plus some helicopters as plane guards. They has a Sentry providing AEW flying out of the Philippines. But found the Sentry could not provide 24/7 support.

      The USMC had the MUX UAV program. Which was for a large VTOL drone to provide close air support. However the requirements placed on the aircraft snowballed. As it also included a communications node, ISTAR and AEW. Bell were the lead developer promoting the V247 Vigilant. This was a twin tilt-rotor powered by a single engine. It could rotate the wing and fold the prop rotors as per the Osprey. It was about the size of a Wildcat, when folded for storage.

      Sadly too much was placed on the airframe and the USMC shelved it, needing a rethink. The USMC I believe have decided that their Gator carriers definitely need an organic AEW. But also need an airframe for close air support. Since the shelving there’s been very little published on what the USMC are doing to solve this problem.

      A bolt out of the blue for our MoD a few years ago. This was a request to industry for a single electro-magnetic catapult and a wire based recovery system. The weights requested were below that for a tooled up F35 or even the E2D. As we believe it’s for a large fixed wing UAV. The UK’s LANCA is an obvious choice. But do is the new USN Boeing MQ25 Stingray.

      The Stingray is being built to be a carrier based tanker aircraft, to remove F18s from doing buddy fueling missions. But it is also to be an ISTAR platform. It is large enough to be a credible AEW platform. It could in theory carry SAABs Erieye radar. Controlled remotely by the carrier, which probably does the signal processing remotely as well. This may be too expensive for the UK. But it’s the right size for a platform to provide 300 mile coverage.

      • Thanks again for your replies Davey, they’re top notch. Great education as are others here too. There’s always seems so much potential for doing and getting better all the time! Continuous evolution.

  35. No doubt leaving us with a capability gap for years.

    And one would have thought that AEW for the carriers would be rather important.

    Jesus H Christ.

  36. What a fabulous use of half a billion pounds, putting a slightly updated existing radar system onto another helicopter…..

    This sort of pissing money away has to bloody stop.

    What will be next I wonder, no doubt another wonderful ” minimum risk” solution 😣

  37. “Current plans”…So they have funding to support until 2029. If funding and contracts get raised between now and then , then its OSD will move right.

    Bit of a non-story really

  40. oh what a waist of money if only you had given the RFA that money you may not be in the mess you are now!!! You could have maintain people and had at least an additional new AO or evem 1 x FSS. You could have evem kept both one if no both Waves in service!!!!!

  41. Y’all know what the answer is. The Carrier becomes the escort strike element for what will likely be cruise shooter subs or frigates, as ASAC goes ashore to become Wedgetail and you run naval AEW&C/BMC2 the same way the Russians do with their A-50Ms.

    This only makes sense, given how poorly the Baggers will perform with their legacy Sea King kit on high fast threats like Tsirkon and YJ-21.

    The Russians routinely send their Mainstays into blue water to tail-chase their Tu-95/Su-35 forays up north, near Alaska, where they can see the Great White Raptors at reasonable range with the Schmel V.

    And I’ve been told, (never seen) they are also present, providing targeting for Iranian and Chinese SSCs in their ‘naval exercises’ out in the Arabian Sea.

    With E-7, you avoid the AAR fatigue problem as a whale mode on an HDLD (you will never fill out the F-35B order book on the promised 138) with limited loft and no qualified buddy pod.

    And the wall of Algernons will then serve as the FORCAP screen behind which the E-7 flies from say Butterworth or even Darwin on a carrier which is doing turns in the SCS as part of the latest ABDACOM effort to keep USN CSGs from getting side swiped from below or behind without really having to ‘get into it’ in a Taiwan Straits fight where survivability is going to be dictated by the 1,000nm combat radius of the F-35A/C and whatever CCA can be forcibly choked down the USN’s throat as ‘No NGAD for you until you first service a UCAV!!’.

    The F-35B is even more of a piece of junk than the normal F-35 and everyone knows it, with it’s a 460nm combat radius and questionable SRVL handling.

    Britain is going to look for a post-dollar reason to ditch the carriers as budgets get tight and they have to choose between fights abroad and riots in the streets at home. Welcome to third world immigration, which is rapidly emptying the U.S. major metropolitan areas.

    When that happens, the Tempest/GCAP will suddenly become the Vae Victus Vickers ‘new thing’ and war will be a for profit condition which feeds rather than drains the exchequer.

    You’re going to need a lot of power for a robo-CSA with MP-RTIP level radar and this plus the well-advised use of longspan wings to get HALE capability basically takes the drone right off the carrier, even without CATOBAR. As nobody is going to pay for a 100,000lb VTOL AEW&C, even if the technology base will support it.

    Brownshoe Air is in a losing fight with ‘but only we can control them!’ and having the ranged ability to supplant manned platforms which, along with costs, is going to be the big reason to ditch the huge over commit the USN now maintains with it’s constellation of support missions, none of which are really survivable in OPP. Even as the carrier itself is basically fork-done for any landbased, CAPTAM or Submarine launch platform which cares to employ modern ASBM (HGV) from edge-of-theater.

    They don’t need to hit the carrier, they just need to saturate the pickets and with a footprint area of 3-5 miles around the DDG to do high payoff BMD within (1:1 on SM-6 Blk.1A instead of 3:1 interceptor costs on a 12 million dollar SM-3) you are going to be right ontop of each other before VLS start to stack which means the abandoning the Midcourse defense.

    If the Chinese or Russians go nuke, you’re all dead. If you spread to the local horizon, without U.S. ABMD (PAAMS Aster is worthless even the upgrade will only be low-end capable) the ability to defend the carrier AND make radius will be seen as not worth the front end costs when ever cheaper subsonic cruise, targeted by lightweight (VARIOUS +) will allows smaller SAGs to play gunboat diplomacy in those parts of the world for which sub-launch is not the actual answer.

    Why pay for a carrier you cannot defend and whose early-life choices mean that you cannot project power because STOVL is a dead end (10-12,000lbs fuel in hot’n’hi = even smaller radius of action). Why pay for an enormously expensive CSG escort force when you sell-to-the-Indians the Capital Centers which give it meaning. Ghost fleet the lot of them with USVs, fly long range ISR drones out of regional allies like Australia, Philippines or Malaysia and use SSGN submarines as payload carriers to provide the muscle, as needed.

    You are discussing the best way to go broke paying for an anachronism like Britain was still A Power in a world where the dollar is about to lose 50% of its value and the MFN equivalent BRICS followon is going to be a frequent shopper account, opened with min balance in ECNY or some other Chinese held CBDC accredited exchange system which provides too much discount purchasing authority plus up to be ignored.

    Membership in which will require you to stay the hell out of their SOI.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here