The Royal Navy’s Crowsnest airborne early warning system, mounted on Merlin Mk2 helicopters, will retire as planned on 31 December 2029, the Ministry of Defence has confirmed.
The system is expected to achieve full operating capability next year after a spend of £425.7m.
The confirmation that the new Government will not be changing the decision made by the previous Government came in response to a written parliamentary question by Mark Francois, Conservative MP for Rayleigh and Wickford, who asked about the system’s out-of-service date.
Maria Eagle, Minister of State for Defence, stated: “The CROWSNEST programme delivers the Royal Navy’s Merlin Mark2 helicopter Airborne Surveillance and Control capability, which includes Airborne Early Warning. There has been no change to the current out of service date, and the planned retirement date remains 31 December 2029, as the capability was not extended in the 2021 Integrated Review.”
The Crowsnest system, operated by the Royal Navy’s Merlin Mk2 helicopters, provides critical airborne surveillance and control capabilities, including early warning of airborne and surface threats.
Despite its importance, the 2021 Integrated Review did not extend the system’s service life, leaving its retirement date unchanged. The decision reflects broader strategic shifts towards next-generation technologies, though questions remain about how the capability gap will be addressed.
The replacement
By 2030, the Royal Navy plan to have moved carrier based ‘Airborne Early Warning’ capability from Merlin helicopters to ‘Vixen’ fixed wing drones.
According to a presentation on the ‘Future Maritime Aviation Force’, the Royal Navy will move airborne early warning capabilities to fixed-wing carrier launched drones called ‘Vixen’. They say that this will “rejuvenate” the Merlin fleet. Currently, airborne early warning capabilities are delivered by Merlin with ‘CROWSNEST’ pods, you can read more about that at the link below.
The presentation states that “by 2030”, the Royal Navy will have:
“Added mass to the Carrier Wing with additional LIGHTNING and medium FWUAS (VIXEN)” and “will have rejuvenated the Merlin fleet, to synchronise with replacement capabilities, transferring PWAS/AEW/Data Node to VIXEN and ASW FIND to medium RWUAS (PROTEUS)”.
The text accompanying the ‘By 2030’ slide is as follows:
“We will have added mass to the Carrier Wing with additional LIGHTNING and medium FWUAS (VIXEN). We will have rejuvenated the Merlin fleet, to synchronise with replacement capabilities, transferring PWAS/AEW/Data Node to VIXEN and ASW FIND to medium RWUAS (PROTEUS). Wildcat will be augmented with additional ASUW/Littoral FIND capability, also by PROTEUS.
Maritime Protector will provide complementary support where teamed with POSEIDON in the North Atlantic. Small UAS capabilities will be spirally developed to encompass EW,UW and target training support. Successful payload and weapon integration will also be key to the success of FMAF.
In 2030, medium organic UAS will deliver most FIND in the Littoral and Maritime, teamed with crewed air for FIX/STRIKE, and complemented by Maritime Protector. ASW Merlin will regain mass with the transfer of AEW capability to an alternate platform. Together with enhanced FW in the Carrier Air Wing, Maritime Aviation will be reconstituted to match evolving peer threats.”
How might the drones be launched?
Earlier, we reported that the Ministry of Defence is currently seeking information on the potential for industry provide assisted launch and arrested recover systems for a range of air vehicles, which would be suitable to fit to a vessel within 3 – 5 years.
The Ministry of Defence say that this request for information is to support the development of the Royal Navy’s Future Maritime Aviation Force (a presentation on which is where the slide above came from) with potential for use with both crewed and un-crewed air vehicles.
The Ministry of Defence add that it is looking to assess the availability of electromagnetic catapult, and arrestor wire systems for the launch and recovery of air vehicles.
While the Request for Information looks to assess the “availability of electromagnetic catapult and arrestor wire systems to launch aircraft” from a ship, words associated with the previous effort to explore converting the vessels to ‘CATOBAR’ in order to launch carrier variant F-35Cs, it shouldn’t be taken as indication that the Royal Navy are abandoning the short take off and vertical landing F-35Bs and returning to catapult launched fighters. On the contrary, they’re looking to augment the F-35Bs.
The Royal Navy is driving hard to introduce a range of un-crewed air vehicles and to “give wider options for the use of different air vehicles types within the Fleet”.
Money well spent when its not even fully in service yet, scrap it but still spend trying to fully field it. No wonder our Armed Forces are a mess with so much of this going on, Scrap Puma helicopters to save money then have pay for some thing to fill the gap until we buy new helicopters.
I am fully behind scraping out of date kit if you replacing it with some thing better, but as a nation we scrap things , leave a gap or have buy in some thing to fill the gap until we order some to replace what we got rid off, its madness
It is hard to understand, from the outside, how this was so comprehensively messed up.
The initial plan was a light rework of the Sea King system with better software to control it. These appears to have got carried away into the Good Idea Club territory. So rather than do the thing in a totally modular and incremental manner it appears to have turned into a monolithic mess.
OK IRL the project is a lot, lot more complex than it sounds because it isn’t just a radar.
It will have cost a lot more than that when you take account of Merlin’s being taken from other essential duties – T&E hours….
I’d say it will have cost £1Bn in real money for four years of effective service.
I’d say a bit fat NO to a capability gap given that it make the fleet a sitting duck as we have so few P8/RIVET/E7s and we can’t AAR them anyway which is daft as they are long range planes to start with.
With no organic AEW you don’t have a CSG it us as simple as that and ‘mitigations’ don’t help one jot as you can’t see over the horizon.
Agree you cannot run a carrier without AEW.
Unfortunately Jonathan, this is typical of way we piss money against the wall.
We would have been better off simply retaining the Seaking AEW7 and sending the helicopters to Carsons for refurbishment and maintenance.
It would have been a fraction of the cost fir something that actually worked!
We need a fixed wing, much higher flying and long endurance system, UAV carried.
We never learned the lesson from the Falklands.
Yes they got rid of the gannets are
and we lost ships
Spot on and those sezking were rushed in ,after we had lost the Gannets when the Ark went in 79 .it seems that the MOD is run by the ethos of ” trow away we can manage ?” It’s only the Armed forces and taxpayers , Were in line for a good pension when it should be ” make hay whilst the sunshines make do and mend.
2 or 4 F35s networked together can cover a huge area. And create and share in real time
a huge ISTAR picture with air and naval assets. Technology in this area has moved on massively from the Seaking AEW MK7s
However, do you really want to handicap 2 to 4 F35s with maintaining a 24/7 AEW picture? Agreed technology has moved on apace. Using F35s for this role would significantly reduce the F35s fleet airframe hours and increase your maintenance burden. Not only the number of sortie changes that would be required to do 24/7 coverage. A significantly cheaper airframe, that maximizes the sortie duration, whilst being able to carry a UHF, L, S or C band radar is crucial for the CSG AEW role.
After not even 1 week you don’t have any F-35 in flying condition…
We ran one in the Falklands conflict.
Regardless of the losses, it was done.
No it was not. Did not arrived in time.
decent shipborne AEW without assisted launch & recovery is the weak point. it costs £££ to have emals, unproven during QE design. for european waters they can rely on land based AEW but not so much further a field. we wait for decent AEW drone option. my preference was a STOVL drone operating same as a F35b and partner with other F35b navies.
Simon, General Atomics put out a story regarding their compact drone launcher via its EMALS technology, which has been successfully implemented on several United States Navy platforms. Gary Hopper, Vice President of Strategic Development at General Atomics, asserts that their EMALS configuration can effectively launch various fixed-wing drones, requiring only a takeoff distance of 22 metres. A reduction compared to the 91 metres necessary for the EMALS aircraft launcher for full size aircraft. Furthermore, the launcher occupies a minimal footprint of just 1.2m by 0.6m.
Hopper has indicated that the Royal Navy has been presented with the Gambit series of drones, designed for deployment via this EMALS system. The Gambit series comprises four collaborative combat aircraft, starting with Gambit 1, which functions as an intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) platform. Next is Gambit 2, an air-to-air combat drone equipped with several air-to-air missiles. Gambit 3 serves as a trainer, capable of executing sorties against sophisticated U.S. systems, including integrated air defence frameworks and modern fifth-generation tactical air assets. Lastly, Gambit 4 is a stealth-optimized flying wing for combat reconnaissance, equipped with RADAR that can detect surface targets, such as a Type 45 or Type 26 ship, from up to 30 meters above sea level and has an 80 nautical mile range due to its AESA antenna, facilitating direct communication with a mother ship for Airborne Early Warning (AEW) capabilities. All variants share a common core architecture.
General Atomics claims that the EMALS system can launch the MQ-25 refuelling drone, which has been validated within the U.S. Navy’s operational framework. Hopper posits that this capability would enhance the Royal Navy’s ability to refuel its F-35Bs. Notably, BAE Systems has recently finalised the next-generation Vertical Motion Servo Control (VMSC) upgrade to accommodate the control surfaces required for short EMALS launches, making it compatible with the MQ-25.
However, while the specifications illustrate the launcher’s capabilities, the documentation lacks details regarding the recovery operations for the aircraft, I can only assume its there. The visual representation in the General Atomics EMALS article shows the launcher installed on the HMS Prince of Wales, positioned adjacent to the ski jump, but does not elaborate further on recovery protocols. Given the technological advancements, would this system be operationally viable for the Royal Navy?
Any fixed wing non STOL aircraft will require an angled deck. Otherwise we’re back to WW2 types of operations where, you can’t do concurrent take-offs and landings. Plus there will need to be a lot of aircraft movements to clear the deck for landings etc. our carriers would need the modification for an angled deck, as well as the rounded down deck tail for landings. I would then fully expect arrestor wires and a barrier to be included.
The MoD’s request for information on the catapult and arrestor system alluded to a max weight that the MQ-25 matched. Be interesting to see where it leads.
Civil servants and ministers who don’t have clue other than looking at cost
Puma is now very old and must cost an increasing amount to run. The Searchwater derived radar on the AEWC is also very old although it has got a new flashy interface. The F35 radar is better than Crowsnest. By the time it retires it will be a museum exhibit. The only way it will discover a 6 generation intruder is if it bumps into it.
Ministry of cuts, they,re working hard to get the goal of an unarmed country.
Is this simply face saving admission that it simply isn’t up to the job?
I don’t know, but if it works, why would you not keep it until its replacement was actually being fielded? ( will vixen be up and running in that time scale?)
No, this is the Ministry telling us that it had a planned end of service date and that it hasn’t bothered to update the plan in the last five years. It’s so much easier to report out-of-date plans to Parliament than admit things have slipped. Those are the dates on the plans so no need to lie.
It was never going to work. Operational capability has been pushed back way to many times. Everybody from the flying World new it was bloody useless. After all these years and millions spent, things will not improve. Next years date will be fudged. For me I think it will be axed before 2029.
So in less than 5 years Vixen will be fully developed to take on the role of Crowsnest?
AA
Personally I imagine Crowsnest will see its service extended by a couple of years as I am sure there will be a delay in getting Vixen and the catapults installed on the carriers.
We already have the Merlins so I cannot imagine it would be very expensive to keep a few radar sets and inflatable bags in service for a little while longer.
I suspect your right, Vixen will be a big capability increase over crows-nest especially if supplemented by Proteus. If it’s not ready in 2029 which it won’t be it’s pretty easy to extend the life of Crowsnest. The navy won’t admit to that now as it wants project Ark Royal working ASAP.
That’s the way I read it as well, Jim.
I think the move to Vixen sounds pretty exciting but I’m not up enough on the tech side to understand how much of a capability improvement it will be. Relying on helos for AEW was a fine stop gap but the world’s moved on.
I also wonder if we’re in the middle of an accelerating tech revolution (especially for drones, electronics and AI) which means that it increasingly makes sense to move on from existing technology much earlier than before. There’s no point sitting on out-dated tech and using sunk cost as a rationale for inertia.
General Atomics claims to have offered their drone launching EMALS system and the GAMBIT drone series, plus the MQ25 as a tested and working solution for the Royal Navy.
I cannot post the link here, its on the GA and SimpleFlying websites. If correct, why wouldn’t the RN snap it up?
I suspect the RN won’t snap it up because it doesn’t really exist, it’s just another US defence contractor with its hand out looking for development funding for a US project.
The QE was started to be built with cats and straps but then the Givernment decided the boot lick the yanks again and buy in the F35 at a much greater cost , so scrpped the cats and straped at another cost the the build program
Such a cock up, more time berthed for the QE and POW carriers whilst they retrofit a launch and retrieve system
No? F35s were the plan form the start, we didn’t have any other naval aircraft
To be honest it could have been worse.
I can imagine had we gone with CATOBAR that the accountants at the MoD and Treasury would have just navalised half our Typhoons and spread them across RAF and RN, without any additional orders!
That is not correct.
QECs were designed for F35B from the off.
There was a hiatus when changing the design was looked at mid build.
The three main reason for F35B is that it is much:-
– quicker to deck qualify a pilot with VTOL than Cat-n-traps and so much cheaper to generate force; and
– RN could not afford a fleet of dedicated F35C; and
– F35B can perform the ground support role of the Harrier although why you would want that these days is open to question.
Well it’s rather more nuanced. The Harrier replacement and cancellation of the ‘Big wing Harrier’ in favour of the AV-8B got us into the F-35B programme as a tier 1 contributor. That put pressure on us choosing it for our carriers and costs pressured us into concentrating and compromising on a single variation. The carriers went through various design studies presenting options offering CATOBAR, nuclear and the option we ended up with clearly influenced in the end by the above. However added to that set of circumstances and obviously complicating that is the blatant fact that had we gone for EMALS it would have been a disaster due to the technical problems and delays in that US technology. Obviously there was work on a uk system back then but how viable it was I can’t judge but hardly likely costs would have looked good even if it were technologically fundamentally sound. As US and China with their resources, have had very difficult problems and years long delays it’s not easy to have confidence in any uk system developing smoothly. So we either would have gone with a dated steam system which the likes of the Daily Mail would have had a field day over or gone with a EMALS system with likewise Daily Mail responses, ie a brick wall and a hard place. But the point is that in the end design for the carriers the space for CATOBAR below the deck was never removed it’s still there.
So once the design was agreed upon, the carriers were it’s true designed thereafter specifically for F-35B but their overall concept design did not change much between the various design concepts presented for each of the options proposed (some of the design options from both Thales and Bae can still be found online) and one can see from the width of the carriers only modest design changes towards the port forward area were made where the angled deck details would have modified the form in that area a little.
America Derangement Syndrome. It’s always the US’s fault. Get a life.
Where did anyone say that? Go back to your crayons.
AMERICA, F*CK YEAH!!!
How goes your conquest of the America’s, have they drafted you yet?
Wrong, it wasn’t being built for cats and traps. The design just left space to add it as a possibility in future.
Aah now that’s a very important differentiator. It was designed in general form to incorporate either with modest changes to that overall design, but once the decision was taken was further perfected in detail for STOVL and then built specifically for that purpose. The design left space for Catobar because it was flexibly designed to go in either direction right up to a late stage, with little modification at the design stage up to that point. What they (Thales or Bae) design two near completely different designs or concepts for each. The nuclear version which was discarded much earlier would have been a longer heavier ship however to accommodate that propulsion concept.
My understanding (admittedly from many threads on here) was that Cats & Traps was always supposed to be considered as a design option , Indeed at one point Cameron flipped from the B variant to the C variant and then shortly afterwards flopped back again. I believe that was because he baulked at the costs that were being quoted to fit Cats & Traps (However there are those that suggest the Yanks inflated those costs to keep us committed to the B) Following that at some point during the plethora of meetings the initial requirement to accommodate the space and basic design to allow retro fitting was ‘forgotten’ and we ended up with a design that can no longer retro fit Cats and Traps – thus tying us into the F35B and all its current constraints (engine power, missile compatibility etc.) if we want to continue to fly fixed wing/piloted aircraft from our carrier group.
Now it really doesn’t matter what rationale is used to justify the choice of the B variant , fitting the argument retrospectively (as if it was an inspired choice from the start) its a moot argument as there is nothing else available to us.
I did look at the WIKI content on the UK version of EMALS which If I recollect (?) was GEC based tech- but ultimately sold off and ‘lost to the annuls of history- The Free Market strikes again as always…
Either way regards this Crowsnest again there have been many on here suggesting it was an ill fitting choice from the start but the issue is if we do not have that functionality then the Carrier Group is pretty much blunted as a force.
I’m sure they’ve had a plan to deliver this capability all along….
Nope, not correct.
Funding was withheld by Defence Secretary Hutton, which added over 1 Billion to the cost, and then the incoming Tory government looked at the possibility of altering the design.
That was, rightly, shelved, and F35B remained the aircraft of choice.
As for “buying in the F35 at greater cost” the UK paid billions towards the JSF R&FD program to get Tier 1 status. The ongoing industrial benefits to the UK of BAES at Samlesbury ( interestingly also the new home of the NCF ) building parts of every F35 built far exceed the costs of buying the aircraft for the UK.
Doesn’t that depend on how many F35B’s we buy ?
Also would that also offset against the A or the C variants (I’m not sure what ‘bits’ we make and what variants those ‘bits ‘ are used on).
Hi Daniele
Did you see Jon Clarks point on this thread?-
“All the mk2 Merlin’s have been modified to be re-rolled to the AEW role.
So it means it will at least take some of the stress from ASW fleet”
That’s good news to me- the RN does need the extra ASW helo capability.
@Grizzler. I believe we make a % of every F35 built, regardless of variant.
Hi Klonkie.
Yes, there don’t seem to be any dedicated ASCS cabs like the Sea Kings were.
Though having had 44 HM1, then 42, then only updating 30 to HM2 standard has left the Merlin fleet overstretched.
I’d take more Merlin over F35, for example.
The “new” comment section makes accurate, direct reply awkward.
Isn’t it about time that the MOD stopped stating definable dates for equipment to go OOS, unless that capability is to be removed total from the services. Examples that spring to mind; air launched nuclear weapons or mechanical trench digging machines.
The OOS date for Crowsnest is surely predicted on the introduction into service of Vixen.
It would be better is they stated: The OOS date remains the same (insert date), on the understanding that the new replacement system is up and running.
It’s an odd nuance of Defence funding, but what it really means is that the funding line for operating the capability on this platform runs out at that date. What you then tend to see in the budget is the new funding line appear for the new platform / capability.
So, they don’t actually mean planned out of service date – they actually mean that’s when the current plan stops funding it.
They always have these OOS dates as a default. Typhoon was suppose to be OOS in 2030 then 2040 but it will be in the inventory until well after 2040.
Retirement of a critical asset prior to even PoC testing of the replacement in just a few short years of service.
Idiotic and a further example that the UK does not care about the military.
It is also laughable referring to “…additional Lightening”, when no additional orders or statements of “…more than 36 Lightening onboard” have been made by the Labour Government. Use of any of the before mentioned 36 F-35B that can be embarked is a reduction in strike capabilities; noting further any expansion of the F-35B numbers embarked should be to increase strike and CAP capabilities for the Fleet …They (Labour Government) seem to be taking copying the modus operandi from that orange american 🙃
Also, no further information on what is to become of the Crowsnest Merlin. The statement in the article is vague and doesn’t confirm the re-roling of these platforms back to their initial ASW mission.
All the mk2 Merlins have been modified to be re-rolled to the AEW role.
So it means it will at least take some of the stress from ASW fleet.
I know it was intended to modify all 30 Mk2s for Crowsnest. I haven’t seen whether this was completed to all airframes and what the intention is moving forward, as I wouldn’t be surprised if the HMG took the opportunity to reduce the fleet further to save costs, all under the auspices to use them (the Crowsnest mods) as a source of spares…. It’s not like the Merlin fleet hasn’t experienced that before!
Surely the Carrier deck will need a change to CATS and TRAPS first so the can safely land these Vixen Fixed Wing Aircraft we seem to be going down the route of scrapping first with no replacement in place
In reality yes. We need to fully implement Ark Royal with an a
Angled deck.
Landing fixed wing aircraft straight down the deck was abandoned in the 1950’s, for good reason!
A British invention too!
Does anybody seriously believe that a replacement can be put in place by that date?
It depends. There are a number of compact AESA radar and mission systems that could be integrated off the shelf into a drone as long as the Government is not too precious about “Made in the UK”. The two main challenges are adequate power generation to power the radar plus its systems and a suitable data link. Considering most of the serious processing will be done on the Carrier or the Type-45 in Escort the data-link issue is the most critical problem. The QE class has a woefully inadequate data-link that can’t take in the vast amount of data that the F-35 can share, the addition of an AEW drone exacerbates the issue. Ideally, at the very least you would want the QE class and Type-45 to be able to take in the data from this AEW drone not forgetting that it will also need to be controlled flight wise from the Carrier.
Is that right Fedaykin? Surely the data link and processing would be handled by a T45 that’s dedicated AAW? After all, it’s the T45 and not one of our Carriers that will be launching something to take out the incoming aircraft or missiles.
We don’t yet have a fixed wing drone of a suitable size that can operate off our carriers.
There are potentially two drones that could fulfil the requirement. The first is the European Medium Altitude Long Endurance Remotely Piloted Aircraft System (MALE RPAS), or Eurodrone. This is a twin turboprop drone that is 16m long with a 30m wingspan, to perform a similar role to the MQ-9B. It’s first flight is expected in 2027. Importantly it has an endurance up to 40 hours and is supposed to reach nearly 45,000ft altitude, whilst carrying a 2300kg payload. This makes it quite a bit bigger than the MQ-9B, which is 11.7m long, with a 24m wingspan, but with a similar payload and endurance.
The second option is the Boeing MQ-25, which is originally intended for the air to air refuelling role. However, it will have a secondary ISTAR role. The MQ-25 is powered by a single turbofan and is 15.5m long, with a wingspan of 22.9m. Unlike the Eurodrone or the MQ-9B, its wing shape has been designed for stealthiness not aerodynamic efficiency, as you’d get with a high aspect ratio wing as used by the others. The MQ-25 however has been designed for carrier/maritime ops from the outset.
There are number of issues that need addressing, the first is airframe size. The drone must be large enough to carry lots of fuel to give at least 24 hours coverage, but also have a sufficient payload to carry the radar plus datalink. This raises the question of what type of radar is required? It would be very easy to fit something like Leonardo’s Osprey 50 X-band AESA radar to a drone. With four of these panel mounted to the airframe it will give you a 360 degree view and they don’t take up much space due to the smaller antenna size. However, irrespective of Leonardo’s blurb stating it can detect a target at 250 miles. It crucially does not describe what that target is. X-band radars do suffer significantly from atmospheric attenuation, which is where the air “resists” the EM wave passing through it. So this stated range is unlikely to be something like a cruise missile or even a fighter aircraft sized target.
Looking at other AEW aircraft, The E2D Hawkeye uses a UHF AESA radar, the E7 Wedgetail uses a L-band AESA radar and the Saab Erieye uses an S-band AESA radar. Neither the E2D’s or the Wedgetail’s radar would fit the two drones mentioned. However, the Erieye radar at 9m long, might just about fit above the fuselage of the two drones. It will need a lot of CFD and wind tunnel testing to see how it interacts with the airflow that could affect the flight dynamics.
The second issue is detection range, what is the minimum required and against what type of target? The Erieye blurb states that it can detect fighter sized targets around 260 miles away. Clearly Saab won’t publish what the fighter’s RCS was when it was detected. But it will likely be greater than 1m2, as that’s the norm for 4th gen fighters. Additionally Saab, don’t currently have a stealthy 5/6th gen aircraft to physically test against, though modelling simulation can do probably 90% of what’s required. The latest version of the Erieye radar as used on the Globaleye, has according to Saab a 70% increase in detection range over the original version. So in theory should push the detection range of a fighter sized target well over 300 miles.
The other problem that needs addressing, are long range air to air weapons like the Russian R37, which has a published range of 250 miles. Ideally you would want to detect the aircraft before it launches the weapon. Giving the AEW platform time to to classify the launched weapon as a valid threat and then respond to it. If the launch aircraft was a Mig-31 or even an Su-35, these have an RCS bigger than 5m2, so should be able to be detected long before they can reach the maximum release range for the R37. The Su-57 will depend on the production variant. As the latest version has a lot tighter manufacturing tolerances than the earlier ones. So its RCS is likely below 1m2, possibly 0.1m2. Which means it can get a lot closer to a radar before being detected. But how close? This will be a similar problem facing Chinese J20 with the PL17.
If the drone was operating an X-band radar such as the earlier mentioned Osprey. The AEW platform would not detect the launch aircraft, it should be able to detect the missile though, but likely well below 200 miles. Which then puts the AEW drone at a severe risk. Without an enormous amount of input power, X-band radars, simply do not have the effective radiated power to overcome atmospheric attenuation, which governs your detection range, especially when you require 250 miles plus detection ranges. Whereas the lower frequency UHF, L and S band radars do. As they use a lot less power to reach equivalent or further detection ranges. The problem with these radars though, is the antenna shape and size. The lower the frequency the larger the required antenna. Additionally if you want a more circular and narrow beam, then ideally you want a circular antenna array, or at least a orthogonal one, like the Arleigh Burke’s SPY radars. The E7’s radar has the best shape out of the three mentioned. It will deliver a better narrower and circular beam shape, whereas the other two are more flattened. However, the drone required to carry such an antenna would be huge and probably too big for a carrier deck. The UHF radar used by the E2D will give you the best detection range. But requires significantly more signal processing, especially for very small targets near to the sea. I feel the Saab Erieye radar is the best compromise for size, beam shape and detection range. However, as per the Globaleye, I would team it up with a dedicated look down/horizon search X-band radar. As X-band radar are much better at detecting really small targets (such as sea skimmers) against the sea’s background, whereas, lower frequency radars struggle.
Knowing the MoD and their past history. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a MQ-9 derivative using a X-band AESA radar, as the new all singing all dancing AEW platform. Yes, it will be better than the Merlin using Crowsnest. However, it will be a crap AEW platform, for the reasons I mentioned above. You will need at least 4 of these flying to cover the same area that a E7 Wedgetail covers for instance the Erieye, will depend on the version of the radar, but at a minimum 3. Additionally, if facing a Russian or Chinese aircraft that’s carrying R37 or PL17. It won’t detect the launch aircraft only the missile when it gets within a “too close” range. Which means the AEW platforms will be easy meat for our adversaries. The fundamental use case requirement, is that the AEW platform MUST be able to detect the launch aircraft before it can launch its long range air to air weapon. If it can do this, then there is time to vector the CAP to interfere with the kill chain.
Cheers Davey B- good informative post, well written!
Unfortunately neither drone accommodates V/STOL, so they can’t work off our carriers (unless the carriers are converted to CATOBAR).
I quite like the new Embraer P600 AEW as an alternative to the Erieye (also delivering an S-Band radar, from Elta). The Elta antenna looks shorter than the Erieye’s, about 4 metres, and could be an easier move to a smaller drone.
I mean all this says is the last status update on crowsnest was in the 2021 IR. This isn’t reporting anything else.
Chances are it will be ran until vixen is working. But there’s no need to change the timing until the next IR.
That’ll be the Merlins currently carrying Crowsnest in the bin then. The Navy won’t want that, but HMT will.
Shame we gave up on our electromagnetic launcher project.
SeaKing AEW was put together in a few weeks but then we had intelligent folks that new what was needed back then. Should have kept the SeaKing’s going with an update to them as required and saved a fortune but the MOD and Service Leaders just love to burn up money for absolutely no gain, just look at all the programmes in the recent past, the RAF being great at that. The UK Armed Forces are weak and cannot even deal with peacetime requirements these days a disgrace. This Gov will add the final nails to the once proud services coffin and spend the money on their tosh ideas for the state. The UK is lost and a third world state.
It was very much upgraded in the following years.
There are plenty of people who know how to do this kind of thing.
The problem is the solution would appear to be over specified and not a simple lift from the old system.
The system developed in ‘82 was largely analogue as you couldn’t physically lift a computer capable of processing that much data in ‘82. Bear in mind the size of T42 /22 computer *rooms* for similar.
That changed subsequently as more of the functionality became fully digital.
I’d assume that the Merlin version was fully digital which is, in itself, not a big step.
Seaking is a very old helicopter. There is a limit (at least in modern military’s), to how long you can keep some of these things going. Seakings are still flying. But if WW3 breaks out, they won’t be flying long at the rate modern militaries will require them to operate.
Crowsnest was a temporary solution to an immediate problem (serious thumbs up). The best way to fix it is to get rid of it. It is not (& never was) a good solution to the problem.
And what do you offer as an alternative? Cats and traps will not be fitted to the Carriers as the cost would be as much again as building new vessels which again will not happen.
To be blunt, trying to follow a hastily-cobbled together solution to lack of AEW cover for the Falklands War with a permanent arrangement was a daft idea.
As long as Vixen is ready by 2030, all good. RN gets its Merlins back for other roles. But I am not holding my breath about that ready date…..
I agree, anything will be a big step up over Crowsnest, with a system of system based approach with Vixen and Proteus we may have a superior solution to the E2.
Manned AWACS aircraft are already very vulnerable and that will continue to get worse. The USAF is very much in favour of a system of systems approach for AEW/AWACS.
Groundhog Day.
This just repeats what was planned (aspired to) in 2021 when the RFI on electro magnetic launch systems was issued. That set out an ambitious timescale of as early as 2023. 4 years later and ….nothing. Not even a mature design for Vixen.
The most likely solution will be a Mohave UAV, able to operate without cats and traps.
This offers nothing new, and still many of the commentariat are moaning.
Surely, Crowsnest is just extended a few years, if Vixen is not ready.
It’s needed, so these Merlin can return to their core task.
The cut was years ago when 849 NAS Sea King ASCS7s were cut.
Expensive for a short time in service, but better than nothing.
I think many, like me, are”moaning “ that in reality, apart from testing a Mohave, nothing at all seems to have been achieved since 2021. Information on the feasibility of and cost of an EMALs system – none. Development work on a heavy UAV – none.
Fair.
As PeterS say not a lot of testing has occurred.
The idea of landing UAV’s on a crowded deck doesn’t fill me with optimism as it is not an angled deck.
So I suspect we will be an angled deck sponson added and some arrestor wires.
But as that hasn’t started to happen and has no budget line I don’t see this materialising in 2030…
You are right about the real cut was in 2018 or so when 849 stood down. Admittedly they were worked hard in Afghanistan doing something like 3000 hours but despite what many say on here they were highly effective and valued. What is perplexing is the Crowsnest system was to be just an evolution of the well proven Cerberus tactical sensor suite and the Searchwater 2000 radar. We are now paying £42m for 10 sets. The cost increase is nearing 60% from the original order. WTF has gone wrong.
It would have been far cheaper to extend the life of the Sea Kings with some incremental upgrades to the systems if possible.
As an anecdote it is quite sad seeing the old 849 set up at Culdrose but no shortage of Merlin equipped baggers.
Hi M8,
Firstly given the timescales I can’t see a Cat in Hells chance of Vixen being ready by 2030, there are some decent articles on NL about this and they indicate mid 30’s, there isn’t even a prototype of the Airframe yet.
Secondly Crows Nest just isn’t good enough and we desperately need those Merlins back doing what they are designed for ASW. So I woukdn’t want to extend something that just doesn’t do the job properly.
Thirdly to operate Vixen requires EMAL and traps and we just don’t have the budget at present to convert the carriers and no idea of what to order even if we did. US have a working option and Alstom are rumoured to be getting there with an EMAL but either way it’s a decade of work.
I actually think the solution is just to speak to GA about their SeaGuardian version of the Mohave, we know it can work on a QE, it can stay up for 18 hours and can carry various radars including AESA so ask them if it can do AEW (seems able to do most things) and if it’s do able in the timescale GA just happen to want a launch customer.
Meanwhile that give us a usable capability and the breathing space to develop an enduring solution like Vixen.
Sea guardian isn’t a straight forward solution in regards to the challengers of unarrested landing
So…
Scrap Merlin Crowsnest in 4 years, to install the radars onto Vixen UAVs that currently don’t exist and likely won’t be built (let alone operational!) for at least 10 years, to be launched from an EMALs catapult, built for drones, that also doesn’t exist and probably won’t even start being built for another 5 years.
Does that about sum it up?
Yet another capability gap! Let’s just say I wouldn’t want to be a sailor on either carrier in a fight against the PLAN if it kicks off around Taiwan!
We seem have spent a ridicolous amounts of money on this for a few years of service- I think the Italians had a similar AEW system for the Merlin wouldn’t it had been cheaper to buy this or keep Sea Kings flying as plenty of spares etc for them?
They scrapped that because it didn’t work
AEW is certainly an issue to be faced by other nations planning to operate the F35B from ships. A common solution would reduce costs… but would probably slow procurement too much.
More critical systems on drones, all not fully tested. Capability gap will be massive not a few years.
Why not by Osprey and fit modulised radar system, could have 3 or 4 and they could do the AEW and COD duties. MOD seems to think drones could do COD, ok for stores but what about personnel?
Osprey is extortionately expensive, and no radar system exists for it
What about AW609? They’re much cheaper, around £20-30 million per airframe.
Would need to cancel a couple of T31s to afford this…
In the meantime, Japan has just ordered 23 MQ-9b SeaGuardians from GA. We still have options on more Protectors and, presuming GA’s work on developing the STOL kits progresses well, getting them into service by time Crowsnest is retired is not unreasonable.
Not really safe to operate from naval vessels, have only been tested in benign conditions
Another capability gap coming, the replacement is odds on to be delayed to 2040.
“Maritime Protector will provide complementary support where teamed with POSEIDON in the North Atlantic. ”
So doesn’t really matter if Vixen is ready or not, its only a concern for the government if the carrier will be deployed far from our shores but we’re much more focused on Europe and north Atlantic going forward so delays in Vixen won’t be a huge upset for the government. Also, if the SDR mothballs one carrier the other will see limited deployments most being to the NS or NA where Protestor and Poseidon can provide ‘complementary support’. All part of the plan 🙂
What “plan” is this? A cunning plan thought up by a fox recently appointed to a professorship for cunning at Oxford University?…
A plan so cunning, you could put a tail on it and call it a weasel.
It is considered best practice to write out acronyms in full the first time they are used, so the reader has half a chance of understanding what the article is talking about.
Tick.
Thank you.
It’s all well and good if the RN can replace a Merlin with a Crowsnest radar with several Vixen drones performing AEW… but as far as I’m aware the RN has yet to select the drone platform for the Vixen programme. And this is before and development required to ensure it can fulfil the AEW role.
Having it in service for 2030 seems optimistic at best.
On the surface, it seems to me like a complete and utter lack of joined up thinking. The Falklands taught us an expensive lesson regarding operating without Airborne Early Warning Radar but surely there has to be a better way to ensure there is no capability gap.
I do question the value of the excellent UKDJ reporting all of these deflecting answers to PQs. Eagle has just regurgitated an answer from 4 years ago that tells us absolutely nothing. Maybe it would be better having a separate section to contain these QandAs rather than try to make a full article out of each of them.
Agree, l tend to haunt a few other sites for information now. TBH this site just winds people up most of the time.
I do tend to agree and I posted something similar a week or two ago. Unfortunately the term clickbait comes to mind.
So just as they get it working as it should they decide to scrap it . You couldnt make it up . It no wonder the mod has no money when it wastes it like this
This is nuts. Let’s face it there is zero chance the replacement will be ready by 2029 if the order has not yet been placed. Leaving yet another capability gap.
Let’s hope the SDSR has a different answer to the question.
Sounds like an incoming Capability Gap.
What stage is Vixen at?
Integration of radar and secure datalink both on the air vehicle an the RN platform(s) will be complex. Yet they are still unsure about how to launch and land it.
Certainly it will impact QE/PW big time in terms of fitting and EMALS type solution plus some arrestor kit.
Depends if just using the existing radars from crowsnest just attached to a different platform. If so then integration will be easier.
For the usual reasons they can’t say this, but the reality is that these Crowsnest Merlins will stay operational far longer.
Like this and almost every other system Vixen will not be ready in time.
Are there any developments of AEW pods could be attached to the F35Bs themselves? Or, a more dedicated AEW “Black Jack” type F35B, even an unmanned version? If not the Osprey does the newer Bell Valor have any AEW potential?
I think it does. Better potential than anything else we are looking at, that’s for sure.
Slightly off topic but what ever happened to the Britten Islander? Would this be carrier capable but maybe not supporting AEW? LOL
Morning Mate , how are tricks? A few still operating in Queensland? I got a ride from Bundaberg to a GB Reef island a few years ago on a BN .
Good day Klonkie, I’m still going okay here in Sydney. Hope all is well with you in NZ. I was thinking that there use to be an AEW or was it a ASW or some sort of surveillance type BN ages ago? But it might be the ☕️ I’m drinking!
Why do you think amything happened to it? I believe it gets manufactured in the UK and Romania. Military Intelligence and Maritime Patrol is the province of the more military focused B-N Defender. There was one with a bulbous nose radome shown off at RIAT a few years ago. I think more of these have been tried out in the past, so I doubt your memory is tricking you too badly.
Thanks Jon and yes it was the one with the bulbous nose dome i was thinking of. I was wondering then if the B-N could ever be beefed up for carrier ops? Good news that its still being manufactured. Is it on the Isle of Wight?
Just quickly looked it up. B-N reactivated in 2023 at Bembridge, Isle of Wight.
I hadn’t realized they’d gone into administration last year.
Just quickly looked it up. B-N reactivated in 2023 at Bembridge, Isle of Wight.
I don’t believe these should be beefed up for carrier ops and certainly not for AEW. It would be another constrained marginal solution; I fear MQ-9B STOL will be the same. I think we need to go to a proper hybrid STOL solution. The most mature of those at the moment is the V-280 tiltrotor, which is not optimised for duration but could deliver the necessary payload and power. It’s long enough to carry an S-Band antenna and would even be capable of working from other ships. It’s not a slam-dunk and we’d need to pay for marinization before we even started integration work.
A growth agenda upside is that with a centre of tiltrotor excellence, we’d be well placed to deliver Bell-Leonardo tiltrotors if they win the NATO next gen rotary competition. Otherwise that will just go to Italy and the US.
Would something like the Shadow aircraft that operates in an ISTAR role for the RAF work for the RN in an AEW role?
Doesn’t fit on/fly from/to carriers?
Cheers Davey B- good informative post, well written!
Second that! Brilliant!
Cheers guys. With the new comments format, it’s difficult to reply to everyone. But my assumption was that the RN do go ahead with the medium weight CATOBAR installation, that falls out from the request for information (RFI) the MoD released a couple of years ago.
To be brutally honest, I believe the CATOBAR is the best route to go down to provide the carriers with an aircraft early warning (AEW) platform. Not so we can at an exorbitant cost buy some E2Ds. But that it gives us the opportunity to go a traditional fixed wing aircraft that can use a high aspect ratio wing (HARW) rather than a V/STOL design. The HARW (as used by the likes of MQ-9B) will allow the aircraft to cruise at an altitude above 30,000ft, plus it’s more aerodynamically efficient and doesn’t generate so much drag. Which significantly improves the aircraft’s flight duration, as the engine isn’t fighting to overcome the drag so much. The main issue with a HARW for carrier ops is the 20m+ wingspan. If the catapult was put in parallel with the ski ramp. Then there will not be a lot of clearance between the ramp structure and the wingtip. However, it would work if the “cat” was placed in the waist position on the port side, where the angled deck extension would be.
There has in the past been a lot of talk of using a tilt-rotor, such as the V22 Osprey, the V280 Valor, the V247 Vigilant or the AW609 as an AEW platform. The first issue with tilt-rotors is their service ceiling. They are generally limited to a max of 25,00ft which is down to the wing geometry and the inter-relationship with the prop-rotors. The Osprey in particular has a smaller wing surface area and prop-rotor length than it should for its weight. This is due to the manoeuvring requirement constraints it has when taxing on a Marine LHD/LHA past the island. The Valor does not have these design constraints, plus the engines are fixed in the horizontal plane and only the gearboxes transition from horizontal to vertical. Therefore, it doesn’t heat up the deck like an Osprey, nor does it ingest lots of FOD when turning and burning on the ground. Sadly the AW609 design is a generation older than the Valor’s, as it transitions the whole engine and gearbox assembly, when going from horizontal to vertical flight. The Vigilant has a single engine fixed in the fuselage, whilst the gearboxes then transition on the end of the wings. Neither the Osprey or the Valor have pressurized cabins, whereas the AW609 does, and the Vigilant is a drone so it doesn’t matter.
The main point of this, is that the tilt-rotor design precludes using a HARW, which then leads to a higher fuel burn, so its flight duration is a lot less. This could be mitigated by using air to air refuelling. But when you’re comparing say the Vigilant to the Eurodrone for example, it has an on-station time of 11 to 15 hours depending on what its payload weight is, whilst the Eurodrone is nudging 40 hours carrying a similar weight. Additionally the Eurodrone can cruise some 15,000ft higher, thereby give a much further extended radar horizon. This plays into the operational use of the platform and how often you need to replace it or replenish its fuel. If the Eurodrone could be mid-air refuelled, how much longer could it stay on station? These are the types of questions the requirements managers for the Merlin/Crowsnest replacement need to be asking. Which then dictates the path on which they’d be taking to provide a carrier group with 24/7 coverage.
Like I mentioned above, you want an aircraft that has the biggest radar coverage footprint, as that minimizes the number of platforms you require to be flying at once, whilst giving you a decent stand-off detection range. For example a single E2D Hawkeye can detect a fighter sized target over 350 miles away, according to published data (It’s more likely going to be closer to 400 miles due to it using a UHF type radar). A Ford class carrier normally carries 5 Hawkeyes. However, the Hawkeye has a relatively short 5 hours on-station time, so up until recently, it had to be replaced by another E2D and so on to provide 24/7 coverage. Recently for the E2D, it has had the mid-air refuelling capability added, which for operations could nearly double its on-station time. The issue for the Hawkeye, is crew fatigue. There’s not enough room on board for a dedicated crew rest area or to carry a spare crew. Which is where the unmanned drone has the advantage. But having the potential to have two aircraft flying extended sorties significantly extends the area to be covered by the radar. Compare that to how many Crowsnest/Merlins the QE’s carry and the area each of them covers? Pretty pitiful if I am being truthful.
For me, I believe drone based AEW, especially for carriers is the future. The main reason is the longer flight durations compared to manned aircraft. Therefore, either more aircraft can be used during the day to cover a much greater area, or less overall aircraft could be needed but stay up for longer. Though that’s wholly dependent on the radar that’s be used! If for example a QE carrier carried 5 of the Eurodrones with the latest Erieye radar. It would allow the ship to rotate drones around the carrier group, as well as a drone nearer the expected threat direction. Thereby almost doubling the expected threat vector being covered.
The use of drones being operated beyond the line of sight is fully mature now. The data-link via satellite has proven fairly robust and its antenna location pointing upwards, means its fairly secure from being detected. But it does raise the question of how much “raw data” could be passed via the satellite? As its very unlikely for the signal processing to be done on the drone, due to the lack of available space. The type of signal processing required for a multifunction radar, that is scanning the skies as well as the sea, looking for very small and fleeting targets, will require a dedicated cooling system, which not only adds weight and complexity, but now becomes a thermal hot spot, that would require controlling to mitigate thermal detection. By off-loading the signal processing aspect, a shed load of weight and space is saved, which can be better used for fuel, plus you don’t have to manage the thermal signature as much. Shipborne signal processing in this instance makes more sense, be that from the carrier or a type 45. Especially as there’s more space for a dedicated high performance computer with additional signal processing racks. But also any cooling requirements can be handled via a decent sized heat exchanger.
I guess the bigger question, is will the MoD really do anything with the CATOBAR RFI. This path will give the MoD better options for a carrier based AEW aircraft. Whereas a VSTOL (tilt-rotor) based AEW aircraft, will definitely be better than what the Merlin and Crowsnest can provide. But it is still a compromise, whereas a drone with a HARW that is launched and recovered using CATOBAR, could provide significantly better performance and coverage.
We don’t have enough kit of any sort. The russians and Ukrainians have shown old kit is more valuable than no kit so keep it. We are losing men at an astonishing rate because they are under paid, I’ll equipped, we are filtering out young white men who want to join as not diverse enough and protecting anyone that did their job it’s a bloody mess and frankly we need to start with scrapping ALL MPs, the labour part, the conservatives party and every single civil servant, judge and policeman in the country and starting again. The rot is too far in for any gentler tactics.
Crowsnest is fine, it’s Merlin that’s the problem
Explain.
If you gave MOD the Jamey’s to a brewery, they’d lose them, then spend more than the brewery was worth to buy a replacement set.