The Ministry of Defence say it remains confident that Merlin Mk2 helicopters fitted with the CROWSNEST early warning system will be available to support the first operational deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021.
Stephen Morgan, the Shadow Minister for Local Government, asked via a written Parliamentary question:
“To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, whether the Crowsnest radar system will be operational when the Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier deploys.”
James Heappey, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, responded:
“The Ministry of Defence remains confident that the Merlin Mk2 helicopter, fitted with the Crowsnest system, will be available to support the first operational deployment of HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2021.”
In 2017, Lockheed Martin was awarded a £269m contract to deliver the Royal Navy’s CROWSNEST Airborne Surveillance and Control (ASaC) programme. As the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin is responsible for the overall design and development of CROWSNEST, which will provide a vital surveillance capability to support the Royal Navy’s new Queen Elizabeth Class carriers.
CROWSNEST uses a high power radar to provide long-range air, maritime and land tracking capabilities that will ensure early detection of potential threats and vital surveillance for the entire fleet.
This capability will be role fitted onto the Merlin Mk2 helicopters and deployed in support of various Royal Navy vessels including the fleet flagships HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales.
Lockheed say that CROWSNEST incorporates an updated version of a Thales Searchwater radar and Cerberus Mission System which are deployed as role fit kits along with the Merlin Mk2 helicopters.
This will allow the Royal Navy to adjust the configuration of the airframe depending on the mission.
Question: could an AWAC version of the Osprey be developed? QE can’t operate a Hawkeye so I understand the requirement of something else but if the Osprey could be developed for the role then would it not be a better solution than a helicopter?
there was a proposal for one, but then who would fund its development?
It would be a waste of money when we can’t even afford more Merlins.
I would prefer money to be spent on upgrading Crowsnest’s radar.
And if we were to look at another aircraft for the system I would look to Chinook.
In a world with better budgets yes it would be sort of obvious choice.
Interesting idea. I hadn’t realised that the service ceiling of Chinook is 5,000 ft higher than Merlin. 5,000 ft lower than Osprey but still a worthwhile improvement in a role where altitude is so important and it is an aircraft we have in service.
It also has a big payload capacity. If it could also host the roll-on/roll-off AAR kit that the USMC is developing for Osprey would Chinook have the speed to be able to be a platform for that as well? In fact with (I believe) the Chinooks bigger payload capacity vs Osprey it could even potentially carry bigger bladder tanks on the AAR rig than an Osprey could.
One problem though is that Chinooks would take up a lot of precious hangar and deck space.
As much as I love the Chinook, it would have a few issues and a few benefits:
1. Granted the Chinook could fly higher, the crew will still need to be on individual oxygen sets as the aircraft is not pressurised.
2. The aircraft does not have folding blades, so would take up a lot of deck space. Boeing have investigated designing a rotor head that will allow the blades to fold. However, because of the CH53, there has been no market for it. So we would have to pay for the development costs.
3. The aircraft when empty or fully loaded with fuel will not be able to fly fast enough for air to air refuelling. The F35B would have to fly at about 160 to 170 knots, as that’s the max a Chinook can realistically go.
4. With the extended range fuel tanks fitted inside the cabin, the aircraft can have a duration of about 6 hours, which would be good for being on station.
5. The radar could be lowered down through the centre hatch, but that would limit the antenna size and thereby limit its attainable range. Also the undercarriage is fixed, so they would obscure some angles.
6. Due to its lift capacity a large AESA panel could be fitted under the airframe that folds flat for landing, much like the one used on the Kamov Ka-31 AEW helicopter.
7. Having the antenna mounted below the centre line of the aircraft, would mean it would have a balanced view when looking up, unlike the Merlin fit. Depending on how low the antenna hangs below the aircraft will dictate its look-up angle.
Space is the one thing QE isn’t short of……
I wasn’t saying move to Chinook I was saying in preference to a hypothetical never to happen ever move to MV22.
A Chinook with folding rotors would be a competitor for CH53. The latter is bigger yes, but the former is more numerable and cheaper.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CCEEx-VXIAEvqj9.jpg
I am not really interested in AAR for F35b only Crowsnest.
And I was thinking of something Kamov-esque.
If more we no object then yes MV22. We need more Merlin. Simple as that.
What sort of witchcraft is this? you posted an image!!! how….the ….FU…….?
The Power of Christ Compels You,The Power of Christ Compels You,The Power of Christ Compels You!!!!!
BV
Good photo – how by the way? This was a trial on the QE about a year and half ago, to make sure a Chinook could fit downstairs. What the photo doesn’t clearly show is on the forward head, the blade is still attached and pointing forward. With a Chinook you have a choice of having a blade on the forward pointing forward or a blade on the rear head pointing backwards.
The Chinook’s rotor head design is different to that found on its baby brother the CH46 Sea Knight. To fold the blades on a CH46 it uses electric motors fitted to the rotor head, the blades vertical pivot point is further out than the Chinook’s, so there’s abetter sweep angle and have a enhanced degree of movement in the z axis. On the Chinook on each blade is a fixed metal blocks designed to prevent the blades from drooping, especially when the heads are slowing down, so they don’t strike the cabin. The electric motors on the CH46 do the same job, but once the heads have stopped and in the correct position allow the blades combined with the further away pivot point to droop either side of the airframe.
I believe Boeing have investigated the feasibility of designing a folding blade design for the Chinook (in case CH53K failed), but at the moment only the UK and Australia fly Chinooks from ships, so there’s very little profit in it for them.
Chinooks are not marinised and it’s a significant job (expensive). Thye’re OK for very short term use as I understand it but long term, marine deployments are a no no
I wouldn’t bother with Osprey, better one of its successors, the V-280 Valor or B-247 Vigilant.
Are they not complimentary to the Osprey, both being smaller? But agree in one sense – the V-247 seems an obvious choice for carrier-borne AWACS.
The Osprey is 20 years old, expensive to buy and maintain. The Valor incorporates a lot of lessons learned from designing and operating the Osprey. (Plus it has an autonomous mode too.)
Will be interesting to see if the US Army chooses it for it future vertical lift requirement.
The RN previously looked at the EV-22 an Osprey variant for airborne early warning but previously rejected it. Presumably the cost of training and supporting a new airframe was the deciding factor.
Given a general purpose drone capability would be useful, even when we eventually have a full complement of F35s, it would make sense to have something like the V-247 equipped with a version of Crowsnest. Easier to have 24 hour coverage and multiple airborne at any given time.
That would be the logical course. So probably unlikely.
Well by the laws of chance the MoD has to make the correct decision every once and awhile by pure accident ?
If Crowsnest is a bolt-on, could it be fitted to fixed wing?
The only fixed wing aircraft that can operate from the QEs are VTOL aircraft. We’ve none except for the F35. A newer tilt rotor aircraft would be a major improvement on using helicopters.
Thought this was meant to be the low risk option and utilised work /kit? by the older Sea Kings. So what is the real problem?
Agreed MadMatt, there’s no real reason why this shouldn’t be ready for carriers’ operational deployment. In fact, it should have been one of the first air systems tested and certified on the ships.
The Crowsnest concept was agreed upon from the early stages, and should have been low risk, featuring a similar concept to the previous Sea King ASaCs, an airframe (Merlin) in longstanding use by the RN and the donor radar set being from the existing, in service radar (Searchwater).
They knew when the carriers were supposed to be coming into service, so that should have been the target for Crowsnest to enter service, plus they have had all the delays and hold ups to the carrier programme to give them extra time to be ready, and it’s still going to be touch and go whether or not it is ready for the Queen Elizabeth’s first operational deployment.
But it’s just typical UK Govt penny pinching and leaving it all to the last minute, trying to get away with not spending anything and pushing spending decisions to the right.
In fairness to LM and Leonardo though, given they only got the contract 3 years ago, if they do make next year’s target they’ve done a good job to turn it round so quick!
i cant understand why its a role fit option. we need at least 5 helos per carrier to provide 24 hour surveillance, thats 10 helos plus a training flight. in addition the helo needs long range fuel tanks to enable it to remain on station for 4 hours. That really impacts on the ASW role of the Mk 2s. which is its main purpose on the carrier. Also are the same aircrews expected to role change between ASW and ASaCS? i THINK NOT. We need to resurrect 849 squadron and have dedicated Merlins. 15more would be nice.
Same; I didn’t even realise this capability was gapped? I could’ve sworn it was meant to role right in to being operational after SKASACS?
I think the QEs will be flying a tiltrotor based AEW platform as soon as partners emerge to spread the costs around…
Cheers
Who? The Italians already have Merlin AEW. The Japanese and Koreans?
There is nothing wrong with what we have got. Apart from the better radar would have been nice. And single purpose airframes and more of them.
Survivability of course! In AEW altitude and endurance are critical to see as far out as possible and remain there without break. In the USN, the Hawkeyes are the first aircraft to launch and last to recover. That was one the lessons of the Falklands for the RN – the limit of radar coverage with the Sea King based radar. The USN version of the Osprey has a much higher altitude capability and much greater endurance than the Merlin. It can also be used for that critical AAR mission as well
Remember, one of the points of the upcoming defense review is to ensure Britain can fight on its own without outside help. Without a long endurance, high altitude AEW and AAR ability the QEs will be survivable in in a medium threat environment. Not in a peer to peer shooting match or one where the enemy has numerous long range antiship missiles that outrange the F35s without allied support… Which may not be forthcoming (though I doubt that situation will arise).
Cheers!
The Sea King based AEW was developed as a result of the Falklands campaign. There was no AEW in the Falklands, hence the use of T-42 and other destroyers as pickets.
You’re absolutely correct Paul, I wrote that badly.
Cheers!
Actually the Italian Merlin ASH (AEW) was a failure. They’ve been hangared for some time now. They tried to do it on the cheap.
Crowsnest should suffice for now but long term we will probably be looking to miniaturisation onto a drone platform rather than Osprey in conjunction with cheap Ultra-low LEO satellites.
The radar on the T46s are supposed to spot targets, multiple targets, at huge distances, aren’t they? Is crowsnest that much better? I suppose it is!
No, Crowsnest is not better than Sampson, far from it. For starters Sampson is a minimum of 20 times more powerful. It has more space on the ship allocated for signal processing and cooling. But more importantly the issue with any ship’s radar is the relative radar horizon, which is fixed dependent upon the height the antenna is mounted above the waterline. Crowsnest by comparison has its radar mounted to the side of a helicopter, which can fly at 10,000ft. Thus its relative radar horizon is leagues further than the T45’s Sampson. The Merlin’s Crowsnest is hampered by the relatively small surface area of the antenna and the amount of power it can generate or data it can interrogate. Sampson by comparison will be able to spot stealthier targets at similar distances or targets further away above the horizon, purely due to the amount of power it can put in its beam, but also because it has significantly better signal processing.
A good comparison would be Crowsnest is like your Focus ST, the E2D Hawkeye is like a Nissan GTR, whilst the Sampson is like a Veyron.
The searchwater used in the Crowsnest is not that advanced, it is not an electronically scanned phased array and is not in the same class a Sampson. However all it really needs to do is to provide over the horizon targeting data for Sea Viper and F35 intercept. This is so that Sea Viper can use the full reach of tge ASTER 30 to kill fast sea skimmers early.
Rather then a better lift platform for the AEW money should be spent on updating the radar to cope with fast stealthy targets.
I suspect the current radar choice was political rather then buying the best.
This is one of the major issues with the Searchwater radar. Granted it has provided good service over the last 20 years and shown it was capable operating in environments such as Afghan, where it was never intended.
The original Searchwater fitted to Nimrod operated in the X band and had a maximum range of 200nm, it was originally designed to find submarine periscopes hence the high frequency. Over the years the signal processing was improved so it could do different modes. However, its range never really got much better. This was because it had a smallish antenna, limited by the size of the aircraft’s nose. The Sea King had the same antenna pinched from the Nimrod. Due to the antenna size restriction, the processing and software had to be developed to compensate. At the sets maximum range it has very good target discrimination against surface clutter. When it was first introduced and used on the Invincible class to support the Sea Harriers, the radar was amongst the best then available.
Today the radar is dated, not yet obsolete, but not far off. Against Russian Bears, Tu22s, Mig31s or Su 35s etc, the radar will detect these aircraft near its maximum range. Smaller targets are not a problem due to its frequency and enhanced software, so cruise missiles and some stealthier targets will still be detected, but not at the sets maximum range. This is the issue, to provide decent early warning, we need an AEW platform that can detect small stealthish targets further away.
By comparison the E2D Hawkeye’s AN/APY-9 AESA radar can detect fighter sized targets well over 400nm away. But this uses a much lower frequency/longer wavelength radar in the UHF band i.e. 0.3 to 1 GHz. It is good for early detection, but not so good for target identification/discrimination. The reason for this is a radar phenomenon called the “resonance effect”. It occurs when a feature on an aircraft, such as a tail-fin tip, is less than eight times the size of a particular wavelength. The omni-directional resonance (scattering) effect produces a “step change” in an aircraft’s radar cross-section. This means that small stealthy aircraft that do not have the size or weight allowances for two feet or more of radar absorbent material coatings on every surface are forced to make trades as to which frequency bands they are optimized for. Which is generally tracking radars operating in the Ka, Ku, X, C and parts of the S-bands.
The problem with a UHF radar is the required minimum size of the antenna. This is one of the reasons the Hawkeye has kept is rotating dish and does not use a fixed panel array, as the antenna is the full diameter (width) of the dish. Being so long, it has to be mechanically rotated to make sure it has 360 degree coverage. One of the benefits of using the UHF longer wavelength is that for the equivalent amount of transmitter power of an X band radar, its maximum range can be four times the distance. This is the catch 22 of using a longer wavelength radar, its great for finding stealthy objects, but won’t give you a firing solution for a missile. For this its best to have a smaller wavelength radar. However, the Hawkeyes have been shown to provide enough data for both SM3 and SM6 missiles to put them in the right area, so the missile’s radar can take over the engagement when it gets close enough.
The Russian and Chinese stealth aircraft such as the Su57 and J20 have been predominantly designed to hide from X band radar in a frontal aspect. So from the top, bottom, side and rear, an X band may have a greater chance of detecting them. A UHF radar such as the Hawkeye’s shouldn’t have a problem from any direction.
What does all this mean for the RN. Well we won’t be launching Hawkeyes off the decks of QE or POW any time soon. Crowsnest with its dated Searchwater radar will struggle to protect the fleet against stealthy targets optimised to hide from X band radar. So a replacement will be required sooner rather than later. The aircraft will have to be VTOL and be sufficiently large enough to accommodate a large antenna. There are a possible number of options ranging from a new radar fitted to the Merlin, using one of Bell’s tilt-rotors or out of the box thinking by using a hybrid airship like the Airlander.
Wouldn’t the idea be to rely on the T45’s radars for long range detection of aircraft and the Merlin’s Searchwater for its look down capability to spot sea skimmers in rough seas.
Its all to do with the radar horizon. The T45’s Sampson is about 50m above sea level, which gives a relative radar horizon of 25.3km or 13.66nm. If we draw an imaginary line from the Sampson to the horizon, then extend it to space, everything below this line is blind to the Sampson. This is why we need a radar that is flying up near 10,000ft to move that horizon further back.
We have established that the Searchwater radar on a good day has a maximum range of 200nm, as published by the manufacturer. Designed to spot periscopes, it uses a X band pulse-doppler radar, so it won’t have problems detecting standard cruise missiles or sea skimming anti-ship missiles such as Exocet. It has a great view down and looking up on the port side. The aircraft blanks its view looking to starboard and up, therefore it has to do circuits to get a decent all round picture.
Now we introduce the J20 aircraft armed with anti-ship missiles. The Searchwater radar will be detected at least 100nm beyond the range at which it can detect targets, due to the inverse square law of the returned signal. If the J20 is cleaver, it can approach from the blind side at near to the same height as the Searchwater. Now if this also coincides with the ship’s blind spot from behind the horizon, the J20 with its stealth optimised against X band radars, can get very close before its detected.
I have yet to see any publication that says the Crowsnest system using Link-16 can control or give direct targeting information to the T45’s Viper or the F35’s Meteor missiles, but theoretically it should be able to.
For an aerial platform to give us the best coverage, it needs to carry a combination of two radars. The radars would be operating in UHF and X bands. This would give both detection of stealthy targets, but also the ability to generate engagement parameters for missiles. The UHF band would give very long range, whilst the shorter range X band would give better target identification. Also if the approaching target is stealthy and can only be detected using the long-wave radar, just like the Hawkeye it can give enough information to put a missile in the right area.
Would there be scope for a antenna carrying blimp/sir ship to give persistent OTH coverage? What about Zephyr?
The Zephyr unfortunately cannot carry a radar that has over 200nm range. The Zephyr 8 for instance can only carry a 5kg payload. You would have to significantly scale up the airframe to carry something that weighs over 200kg and still be able to reach 70,000ft. Then because the wings would be so long there would be serious issues manoeuvring it on the ground.
I think the high altitude hybrid airship is probably the best answer. It could carry two radars protected within the envelope. It would also have the speed, range and duration to shadow a fleet.
The US Navy in the 50’s used airships for AEW and maritime surveillance, so it’s been done before. The issue the US Navy had was their airships of the day couldn’t go past 10,000ft as they weren’t pressurised or had enough lift.
The current Airlander 10 can fly up to 20,000ft and can have a duration of 5 days. It can also carry a 10 ton payload. At its maximum altitude of 20,000ft, it is still some 15,000ft shy of the Hawkeye’s maximum altitude.
I do think the Airlander as an AEW platform offers significant advantages over something like the Hawkeye. For starters it has the duration to operate for at least 5 days in most weathers. It can do hover refuelling and replenishment. But most importantly is the large payload. At 10 tons it could lift at least two radars, power and cooling systems that operate in different bands e.g. UHF and X bands. All other current AEW platforms only use a single band radar. The other benefit is there would be no compromises on the antenna shape or size. Fitting an AESA panel to an aircraft is always a compromise, for example the Wedgetail. It has a significantly longer profile than width. Yet there are transmit/receive modules in the sides, nose and tail of the “canoe” to give a 360 degree view. The sides with the increased length will have over a 1000 modules. Whilst those in the nose and tail will have about 100. By having less modules you decrease the range and fidelity of the radar. Therefore, the 360 degree view of the radar picture is rather lopsided (the aircraft will be doing circuits to compensate for this).
At 20,000ft this puts the Airlander’s horizon at 173 miles, compared to the Hawkeye’s 229miles, a difference of 56 miles. Airlander are supposed to be designing a bigger version, if it could get to a higher altitude, then I ‘d say its a viable alternative.
What do you mean by ultra-low LEO? For anything to be at all orbital it would be whizzing past at Mach 20ish…so in a ship’s AOR for about 4 min tops. And pseudo-sats might have satellite in their name, but are nowhere near LEO.
Several countries are working on developing the tech for Constellations of radar satellites working about 200-400km up, they would be over the target for about 10 minutes every 75-90 minutes and so by building a constellation can provide near continuous wide area coverage, spotting things before-they get close to a carrier group for example, or monitoring ground targets like mobile launchers.
The US for example has revived the defender 2 programme.
Gotcha, although never seen it referred to as ‘ultra-low’ LEO (but it is at the bottom of the maintainable altitude regime). Despite the constellations starting to go up and sensor / data use R&D, I still think we’re at least the lifecycle of an air breathing platform away from having ubiquitous, real-time data to surface asset surveillance networks reliably running.
I personally prefer the idea of pseudo-sats organic to naval assets but again, there’s an R&D wait time.
I worked as a Searchwater radar tech on Nimrods in the 2000’s, I had chance to work a little on the MRA4 programme, the Searchwater 2000 is just a fancier 60’s radar with some digital processing, its still capable but it hardly seems to make sense going forward.
I didn’t realise just how old it was. And for the MOD to be passing this off as new kit is ridiculous. In fact buying any radar capability now that isn’t AESA is ridiculous.
Its been modernised a large extent, if it hasn’t changed from the developed version for MRA4, its still a single parabolic dish with a non electronically steered beam, using the physical antennae to direct the energy. It was world leading at the time, and has performed all asked for it on the sea king variant. But I seriously doubt its ability to discriminate low profile targets, swarms of UAV’s etc…but it will perform a good basic volume air/sea search function.
It looks like jobs for the boys to me. One option was a variant of the F35 Radar but that was rejected!
You would think they would protect their carrier investment by spending a little extra and getting a modern system. You cannot mess around with super/hyper sonic sea skimming missiles. You need an AESA radar!
I’m somewhat surprised by the time it seems to be taking with Crowsnest. I remember how quickly Searchwater was fitted to Sea Kings in 1982… When push comes to shove…
Have the MOD / Navy considered existing STOL transport planes such as Britain- Norman Islander. These have very low stall speeds and takeoff / landing distances – could they land / takeoff on a carrier unassisted by cats / traps if modified or upgraded. I’d imagine these would have longer range and higher ceiling and be more suitable than a Merlin
Thinking way back, didn’t an AAC Beaver or similar carry the first CASTOR in trials for BAOR? Went on to become Sentinel.
Unfortunately, the Islander doesn’t have the lift capacity to be a competitor for the Merlin. Britten did try to prototype an Islander with a side looking radar, but compared to the Searchwater it was quite short ranged. The other issue with Islander is its max altitude is actually lower than the Merlin’s. So in most respects it isn’t as useful as the Merlin.
To operate a STOL aircraft off the QE class it needs sufficient power to supply a decent radar, which is going to be large and heavy. The airframe must be able to accommodate either a single large rotating antenna or a number of flat panel AESAs. Then there’s the issue of the aircraft having not only sufficient power but also lift to take-off from a very short deck without catapult assistance. Landing will need either a arrestor wire and/or a barrier fitting to the ships, which should be done anyway.
Personally, I think the best option is to join the US marine program of developing their organic AEW platform, the Bell V247 Vigilant tilt-rotor drone. This is hopefully getting a derivative of the F35’s APG-81 radar.
The new Brit carriers deserve a proper AWACS aircraft that can fly at high altitudes, has a very powerful radar like the E-2D and can get to where it needs fast and stay on station for a long time. A helo can do none of these. Although for most contingencies I would guess the Brit carriers would use either the USN E-2Ds or a land based AWACS aircraft for maximum situational awareness.
QE’s should have built around E2 with the bomb truck the secondary consideration. But AEW/ASaC isn’t very exciting is it? They are strike not defence carriers don’t you know!?!? 🙂
Rubbish. The Brit carriers will be the only carriers in the world with an 100% 5th gen fighter air group. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it.
I remember you now. The offensive idiot who reads what he wants to read. The chap who can’t add up megawatts if I remember.
If a carrier can fly and land an E2 it can fly and land all carrier aircraft available today.
Only carriers with a 5th gen fighter group. BECAUSE THICKIE IT IS THE ONLY FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WE CAN FLY. And the few we have only make a group in the lowest terms in that more than 1 of anything is a group.
When the Chinese hypersonic missiles comes in through the side it will be a big comfort knowing that the jets that are about to sink are 5th gen.
Wrong again.
The French carrier Charles de Gaulle can operate E-2’s but it can’t operate F-35C’s.
BECAUSE THE CHARLES DE GAULE IS SMALLER THAN THE QE WHICH IS THE SHIP WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
You really are one of the most stupidist persons I have ever come across.
The CATs on the CdG don’t have enough power to launch a fully loaded F-35C.
I forgot to say, there have been generation issues with the CATs on CdG in the past.
Does anyone remember what their where?
E2 is very expensive!
The RN would have require a min of 8. Making it as expensive as the P8 program.
I think the RN would have needed to look elsewhere!
Only 9 systems being planned and paid for I believe.
Yes. That would be enough for deployment, training, and spares, but there would be little to no spare capacity. Say for example you wanted to cover a second group.
There’s no plan/strategy/aspiration/hope/belief/prayer that the RN will simultaneously operate two carrier groups. If two carriers are ever deployed together, they will be part of the same group.
Carriers aren’t the only thing that needs or should be given AEW.
Straws, grasping at.
So say an amphibious group won’t need AEW or support group of RFA / STUFT ? Magically they are invulnerable to attack……..
They are if your only AEW is an E-2.
10 not 9
I believe aw609 is approx £15 million a pop & once its available why not get SAAB to equip with latest erieye radar equipment. Could likely get 9 for less than £300m. It has higher speed than Merlin, higher/better ops at altitude to other tilt rotors due it being pressurised.
Endurance is unclear as the only figures I can find are on doing a flight a to b which is likely to be of higher fuel consumption than a AEW track but minimum is 3 hrs. With significantly faster transit speeds this would be less of a problem.
The Italians are looking at surveillance and special forces versions they have carriers also.
Other option maybe the valor tilt rotor.
Afternoon All
Whilst challenges continue in getting 90’s legacy technology integrated in to modern software (great short term savings at the time but like CAPTOR on the Typhoon will need to be replaced eventually) I would suggest that we are still following a route that is still “a one for one replacement” for a platform without fully working out what we want it to do.
The comments above talk about different sizes of airframe to carry different sensor payloads but the real question is “will the CROWSNEST system do all the things the RN want out of it?”
We have replaced an ASACS platform from the 90’s with an ASACS platform (with pretty much the same radar” for the next 30-50 years – to me that doesn’t sound like great value for money and doesn’t reflect what the user is asking for.
Questions need to be asked with regards what other platforms could perform the same tasks – could we use an F-35B, madness I hear people shout, but here is a stealthily platform with superior sensors and internal bays that could be used for all manner of sensor equipment sets. Could we use drones deployed in a mesh formation around the carrier group network fused together to provide full 360 cover? Could we not use a Zephyr type platform that sits miles above the fleet providing a full picture of everything below.
These are all questions that are lacking input from the user, what do you want, where do you want it, how do you want to use it, why do you want to use it like that and when.
Will the new CROWSNEST interoperate with new networks or will it just rely on Link 11 and Link 16? Does the aircraft have capacity to offload all the data it collects, does the aircraft have the capacity to upload and process all the information that becomes available to it in a fully fusion driven network.
Lots of questions – I would put it to the group though, think about what we want to do, then pick the sensor suite and communications infrastructure to do it – then start looking at what platform to do it from.
I see CROWSNEST as very much an interim step that will deliver something that allows the carrier to get to IOC and maybe limited FOC, but nothing else – its a gap filler.
“I see CROWSNEST as very much an interim step that will deliver something that allows the carrier to get to IOC and maybe limited FOC, but nothing else – its a gap filler”
Please justify your statement by telling us how Crowsnest falls short of the RN’s requirement.
You really need banning from this site.
One of the reason why sites like this aren’t taken seriously is idiots like you.
Hi Ron
Firstly I do not need to justify my statement – its an opinion. Secondly, failing short of the RN’s requirement isn’t actually what I said – stated “it doesn’t reflect what the user is asking for”.
However I will try and explain why I think the system will have a limited life.
The sensor, the updated Searchwater Radar, has reached the edge of what it can do – its a late 70’s/early 80’s rotating dish that whilst extremely good no longer has a place in the world where AESA type systems are now prevalent.
The mission system has been updated to mitigate as much risk as possible but, as it is software defined, can adapt to which ever sensor is added to it in the future. Within the wider network enabled environment you want your sensors to fuse together as one, giving the network controller the fullest picture possible. The days of radar tracks are long gone, this is a multi threat domain now where the information is fused together – not a single track being reported via secure voice back to an air controller on a T42 who then reports that to the aircraft.
The CROWSNEST system will stay, whether it has a rotating dish as its sensor in the long term, mounted on a helicopter loitering at 10,000ft is another matter.
Perhaps a better low-cost low-risk solution would have been to integrate the Saab GlobalEye radar system on a Leonardo AW609 – if it would fit. Long endurance, higher ceiling and with a capable, established radar. Could possibly even build them here in the UK. I believe Bell helicopters who co-developed did impose a ban on selling to the AW609 to military customers but I’m sure something could have been agreed.
I can’t understand why you would develop such a costly platform in the age of drones, if you could operate a drone with over the horizon capability you would save a tone of fuel etc and can be operated from the carrier or supporting platforms
Because Crowsnest as well as providing the radar platform, carries the fighter controllers and their consoles. It’s a self contained system with no dependencies on other platforms.
Ron5
No dependencies on other platforms, can you articulate what you mean by that please?
I think Ron means it is a self contained system that can pass on information to either ships or other aircraft.
A drone AEW would most likely be dependent on a ground station or a particular satellite.
Morning
The drone sensor, or any other sensor for that matter, to be fully utilised, needs to be part of the wider secure network enabled community. This secure fused network works in a meshed nature to deliver information back to a controller, where ever he or she may be.
We are moving from a 1980’s model of having airborne short range AEW LOS platforms, like Merlin CROWSNET to a fused network, multiple sensors working together to give, via multiple bearers, information to the user so they can use it to deter or defeat the enemy.
We have to move on from the mindset of the 80’s and 90’s – expensive single role platforms to systems where multiple assets are used to build the RAP et al.
People like CUMMINGS do not get impressed when presented with legacy solutions utilising newer technologies to fulfil roles that could be carried out by other means.
This isn’t to say the RN and RAF are not looking at to the future, they are – hence I see Merlin CROWSNET, in its current form a stop gap and that Project NELSON And other projects will continue working to develop solutions that gives the user the information they need to “win the fight”.