Could leonardo offer radar pods for these too, be good to get more of these for the carriers to replace the baggers.

It has a name! LoyalEye is a bit weak, not great work from SAAB.
Just in time for the DIP, perhaps?

So the RAF could supplement the ridiculous low numbers of E-7s? Or replace them if it really is a flying Ajax.
The RN if Sea Guardian is viable from QE and POW could provide persistent coverage with 2 or 3 per carrier.
Wonder if the pods could be carried on either side of a Merlin?

Will we buy any? for the carrires and because just now we have NO working AWACs and only 3 to do every where when they finally do enter service.

I wonder how easy/difficult it is to handle these light, large winged aircraft in windy weather on a flight deck?
I suspect that F35 will be flying in conditions that we stop these aircraft.

So this would be significant for the UK..

1) carriers.. putting the Merlin’s back doing what Merlin’s do best..
2) covering the gaps for the UK
3) supporting our sovereign bases and wider EEZ.. a couple of these for the Falklands and Cyprus would be significant.

This MQ-9B AEW trial is surely focused on the UK as offering a replacement for Crowsnest, although India might also be interested. But the reality is that the Crowsnest replacement project has been in stasis for 2 years whilst awaiting funding in the DIP. It’s now impossible to see an order being placed before 2028. The RN seems resigned to that fact that CSG29 will be last swansong of Crowsnest, and then (at best) there will be a 2 or 3 year capability gap before a replacement enters IOC c.2032/33. It’s a good job that the UK is now on a “war footing”, otherwise the gap would probably be nearer a decade!

Incidentally, the estimated budget for the Crowsnest replacement project is £0.5 – £1.5 bn. Germany’s order for 8 MQ-9B’s cost €1.9 bn (£1.7 bn) including infrastructure, training, spares, support, etc.

Ok, before anyone gets ahead of themselves and thinks that this is the UK’s answer to the massive AEW capability gap and the next best thing since sliced bread. Time to use a little bit of logic and be realistic about what the MQ9 can provide, but also what it can’t.

As a replacement for the Wedgetail, no not even close! Radar performance is governed not only by the software and signal processing, but also by the frequency being used. However, the antenna plays a massive part in how far the signal can be propagated, but crucially how small a signal it can detect when receiving. If we are only talking about electronically beamed forming antenna arrays, the main factor that determines the performance is the array’s cross sectional area. As this determines the number of individual transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs) that are fitted in the given array area. Each TRM is a radar in its own right, but when combined the sum of the parts produces significantly better performance.

The image of the MQ9 shows a pod fitted under each wing, presumably the radar. I am assuming that the pods contain a flat panel active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Which then gives the MQ9 a field of regard of at least 240 (2 x 120) degrees in the horizontal plane to cover port and starboard views. Normally this will include a 60 degree blind spot in front and another 60 degree blind spot to the rear of the aircraft. An AESA panel can be used past +/- 60 degrees, but you start dropping in range/sensitivity due to less TRMS being used to generate the beam. There are other issues such as feedback that also need to be considered, but a lot can be overcome with software. Think of it like the positive wave of a sine wave, where either side of the peak of the wave, the signal drops off rapidly. A MQ-9 is 11m long, judging by the image the under wing pods look to be about 3m long, with the antenna array being approximately 2m long. The MQ-9 uses a mid-mounted wing, where a “standard height” person has to duck to walk under the wing. The electro-optical turret sits about 1m off the ground. So the depth of the pod is likely to be about 1 to 1.5m, thereby making sure there is enough clearance from the ground when taxying. So as a guess I’d say the AESA panel is around 2m x 1m in area.

The next question is what frequency will be used. I would definitely say its not an X-band (8 to 12GHz), as used by the Crowsnest’s Searchwater radar. Yes you can make larger X-band arrays. But due to the way the atmosphere absorbs (attenuates) the signal as its being propagated. You need a shed load of power to make it go past 200 miles (320km). Due to the power the amps need to draw, you’ll also need an active cooling system, which needs radiators, pumps etc, so adds weight and complication. You get better range performance when using lower frequencies, as the attenuation decreases with a decrease in frequency. Saab have a history of producing X band (8 to 12GHz), C band (4 to 8GHz) and S band (2 to 4GHz) radars. But I believe SAAB have only (publicly) produced S band and X band AESA radars. Therefore at a guess, I’d say the radar arrays are based on the TRMs used in Giraffe AESA 4A/8A radars.

The ground based Giraffe 4A antenna array weigh 640kg, the external “payload” weight of the MQ-9 is 1400kg to 2150kg depending on the variant, so it could lift the array. The 8A is at least twice the height of the 4A array. But the 4A array is about 3m squared, so too big to fit under the wing. Dividing the panel in half could be doable. But I suspect at 3m long, the array would interfere with the MQ-9’s take-off and landing angle. So it must be made smaller. Plus there’s the input power question. Saab, don’t say what the power requirement are for the 4A or 8A radars. But the radar sits on a large diesel genset fitted on the back of 6×6 or 8×8 truck. Which might explain what the third pod fitted under the fuselage is for. The MQ-9 is powered by a 900hp Honeywell turboprop, I doubt this would be sufficient for a pair of AESA arrays, as AESAs are very power hungry. So I suspect the centre pod contains an auxiliary power unit (APU), purely to generate additional electrical power.

Saab quote the 4A has an instrumented range of 280 (173 miles) against a fighter sized target. But don’t say what the target’s radar cross section (RCS) is obviously, as you’d be able to determine when it could see you. If the MQ-9 is carrying smaller half sized antenna arrays, then the performance won’t be as good as the larger ground based version. The Searchwater used by Crowsnest has a slightly worse performance than this. It could definitely detect something like a loaded up F15 near to these distances.

Wedgetail uses the L band (1 to 2GHz) MESA radar, which has a huge cross sectional area of 7.3m x 2.7m per side. Along with a much smaller array in the nose and tail of the “top hat” part of the antenna. Thereby giving it a 360 degrees field of regard. Its instrumented range against a “fighter” size target is 370 km (230 miles). Although the RAAF were quoted as saying they could detect Su-35s operating over Syria much further than this, as well as tracking the Su-57s further than expected.

The MQ-9 could be used as supplement to the Wedgetail, but definitely not as a replacement. As a Crowsnest replacement it would be good enough, better certainly than Crowsnest, but not ideal! Think of it as a bronze medal standard, especially when you compare it to the E2D Hawkeye 600km (400 mile) instrumented range. For example you would need at least 3 MQ-9s to cover the same area as a single E2D.

Unfortunately to carry a long range radar that is needed by our carrier strike group (CSG), you need a large aircraft, that not only can carry the necessary antenna array size/weight, but also provide enough electrical power to give it the required range. Otherwise you are not maximizing the capabilities of the F35.