Osprey tiltrotor lands on British aircraft carrier

RN and RAF are better at ‘office politics’ than the army. I remember the RAF replaced Harriers with Tornados in Afghan even though the former were better at the role and cheaper to operate, just so they could prove to politicians and the public of the utility of Tornado in modern combat and to set the pre-conditions for Harrier to be sacrificed due to the impending rule that they could only have two fast jet types (they picked Tornado and Typhoon – at the time).

Army is not in the public’s eye – previously they were. The People think the Russian Army are a spent force so we do not need a strong ‘heavy metal’ army to front up against them. They do not really see the army doing the eFP deterrence piece in Estonia and Poland.
They do not see the utility of a strong Infantry as we do not currently have large number of troops on IS/COIN/CTerr operations – as we once had.

Duker, thanks for the post. You are right. I read more into AUKUS than it actually is. It still demonstrates US and UK interest in Australia’s ‘back yard’. I wouldn’t be surprised if it evolved into a naval/military (deterrence-centred) alliance.

Ah, funny you should mention aircraft spares above, Dern. Good lead in to another, modern concern in its own right, impinging especially on F35s (know you’re well aware). That’s Lockheed, Northrop & suppliers so restricting tools / parts access that trying to get those parts in order to keep the jets operational to anywhere near required availability rate is proving ”problematic’ – on a jet costing us £100m thereabouts. Suspect similar would hit Osprey.
Mentioned a while back, that under current security trends, we’d soon enough need a new ‘Lord Beaverbrook’, with the political backing to match.

I mean, when I referred to spares I meant they litteraly used to hang spare airframes from the ceiling so that if they lost an SBD they’d just take a fresh one down and set it up.

https://i.redd.it/kx1kv8ij82wx.jpg

Yes, that is definietly an issue, I’d term it as US protectionism, we could get around it if we could produce and maintain F-35’s without a US foot in the door, sadly the DoD is very anti that.

Cheers, Dern. Knew where you were coming from on the Essex – case of vertical thinking!
Been frustrated by commercial protectionism as a means of yet further enhancing companies already significant bottom line to the detriment, generally, of taxpayer value for money &, specifically on this site, security. So used your ‘in’ to that end.
The older you get, the more reactionary you become at what’s effectively endemic fraud. There’s a reason why there are ever wealthier individuals – & ever more states that cannot complete essential projects.

I’ve replied to both of you but because I included image links the replies are stuck in approval hell.

British carriers hangers were restricted by their armoured decks, came in handy during the war mind. Swings and roundabouts that needed a rethink post war in terms of scale to compensate.

Actually that’s a bit of a myth, Eagle and Ark Royal (and Hermes for that matter) post war both had armoured flight decks and they had hangars large enough to accomodate F-4 Phantoms.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/68/Phantom_FG1_892_Sqn_on_HMS_Ark_Royal_%28R09%29_1972.jpg

Plus a lot had double decker hangers, which also restricted the plane size.

By the end of the war not very many had double decker hangars. It really only was the three weyrd sisters (HMS Glorious, HMS Courageous, and my personal favourite and wyerdist of the them all, HMS Furious) and HMS Unicorn that was built with them, and, my love for Furious aside, there where reasons why they where being retired at the end of the war beyond the double decker hangars.

Unicorn was more modern but she never was intended as a fleet carrier and was really a floating aviation repair facility, and yes the double hangar might have just been the straw that broke the camels back for her modernisation since she’d only been commissioned in 43.

Furious was magnificently weird, I mean, it literally spent some time as a 18in gun armed aircraft carrier which pilots had to fly alongside of and then slip sideways onto the deck, dodging the bridge, in order to land (and yes this was exactly as lethal as it sounds), but by 1945 she’s been made a bit more sensible, she’d even gained a small island (she used to have a collapsible tent that could be erected when not flying aircraft for better visibility since the bridge in the hull didn’t have great visibility, this is the level of madness we are talking about). Despite being 240m long she only had a 175m flight deck due to a quirk of her design, to put that into perspective, her flight deck was closer in size to an escort carrier (150m) than a fleet carrier. Despite gaining an island in the late 30’s, nobody ever corrected the trunking of her funnels that had been directed down the sides of the carrier in a misguided attempt at limiting deck obstructions (mad but not the only carrier from the 20’s and 30’s that had this feature *looks at the IJN and USS Ranger), which meant that anybody landing on her would suffer horrendous turbulence from the exhaust.

Because of all of that she was already pretty obsolete by the end of ww2 (not to mention techinically being a WW1 veteran she was physically old) to the point she’d been put into reserve in 44, and then actually decommissioned in April 45, which is sad, but at least it took until 48 to actually scrap her.

All of that is basically to say that, while yes her double decker hangar did limit the size of aircraft she could take, she was leaving service long before that became an issue.

Glorious and Courageous where (slightly) more sane than Furious, but their modernisation was kind of curtailed by both of them being on the bottom of the North Sea within a year of the war starting so *shrug*.

So yes that leaves Unicorn, but it’s worth pointing out that the Royal Navy built, or started to build, 35 carrier during the war. If you add in Argus, Hermes, Eagle, and Ark Royal, that number climbs to 39 aircraft carriers with a single decked hangar. Basically, it was not a widespread problem in the RN.

Behold the madness that is the changing design of HMS Furious:
From first to last:
-As designed in 1915, a lightly armoured Battlecruiser that could reach 31knots, was armed with 2x18in guns, but had a 3 inch belt (by comparison HMS Hood had a 12 inch belt)
-As initially operated, a hybrid battle carrier with 1x18in gun and a impossible to land on flight deck with a hangar that could somehow allegdely fit 10 aircraft
https://i.imgur.com/y4FWd5A.jpeg

-As made slightly more sensible with it’s guns removed, a landing platform build and two random little bridge things that are perfect for loosing an aircraft over the side, and best to god hope that net stops your before you hit the funnel!

https://i.imgur.com/B4yyHAv.png

-As an really strange aircraft carrier with all the flaws I mentioned above but with TWO launching positions so you can fly aircraft directly out of the hangar while another one takes off above it and then somehow you have to hope they don’t collide:

https://i.imgur.com/tyjLNvL.gif

-And finally her somewhat sensible WW2 form where a lot of the madness like the second flying off position are undone (lower launch position is now a big anti aircraft battery), and has a small island so she can actually be steered, but still bearing the scars of all that madness.

https://i.imgur.com/tsEIMlP.gif

Derp forgot about the Implacables that also had a double hangar. Ah that’s why you shouldn’t reply tired XD

Not so. The Essex class hanger height was 17 ft 6in, HMS Eagle/Ark Royal were 20 ft plus had 2 decks for hangars
The UK carriers designed before WW2 and had armoured decks and sides were between 14 and 16 ft
What you are thinking about is modernisation after the war . Essexes had the whole flight deck as a ‘bolt on’ to the main deck which was the hangar floor, so many were modernised with a complete new build deck, especially steam catapults and angled decks
The British design had the flight deck as part of the hull, much more difficult to upgrade

Yes. I had read something similar to this. Personally I think it’s something we should stay well clear of, as it’s not cheap to buy or maintain either.
Given the direction we appear to be heading, believe that ‘drones/UAVs’ are probably the way ahead for us wrt CS.
I think the two most pressing needs in this area are a AAR and AEW variants before anything else.

Yes good to hear common sense, the US are stuck with them though as I previously said they are already planning getting rid they are bad in so many ways even if on paper they have advantages. Fact is they are a flawed design which the next generation has learned from and aim to correct like not trying to tilt whole engines making for a change in flight characteristics that’s makes them so difficult to handle esp in non perfect conditions.

the US isn’t “stuck” with them. the army is buying the future lift helicopter- but the army has never operated them. they’re used by the marines and air force who don’t have plans to replace them- in fact they’re still being produced. the navy just started operating their variant of the V-22 in 2021 actively replacing the greyhounds.

the ospery is a great example of how the media hyping a few incidents 20 years ago warps people’s opinions to this day. like i said above they’re the safest rotorcraft by flight hour in the us military.

I agree. If the USMC are having problems we can well do without it. I don’t know where we re going with AEW and ASW either. On AEW we are 18/24 months behind with Crowsnest and now there is a suggestion that they’ll be retired by the end of the decade? Fairly typical I suppose. On ASW it’s down to airframes and pilots again.

To be brutally honest, Crowsnest is 10 years too late and should have been sacked off years ago. The problem is the front end of the system, the Searchwater radar. The basis of this radar have been around since the 1970’s. The issue is that it is a mechanically scanned pulse doppler radar. that has an upper and lower fairly wide angle beam. Therefore requires more filtering and signal processing to spot small stealthy targets.

The RN should cut its losses and look to a new replacement AESA based radar mounted on a large UAV. And no I don’t mean a UAV like the Sea Guardian, as that will only be able to carry a radar similar in performance to Searchwater. But something that can carry a L-band instead of/or as well as an X-band radar. So something the size of the MQ-25 Stingray.

If Stingray or similar will do the job I agree with you, as long as we don’t take twenty years getting it done. If it’s true that there is talk about retiring Crowsnest by 2030 ‘ish we need to get our a..e in gear now.

An MQ-25 sized drone (20 tons) with a top of the shop L-Band AEW is unlikely for us. Unless the USMC play with it to make it STOL or STOBAR, Stingray itself is out and I don’t think there’s anything else that will do that job. I just can’t see an 3 ton 10-11m E7 MESA L-Band antenna flying off our carriers. A half ton 4m S-Band antenna, maybe.

Given that AESA is made up of lots of little antennas in the first place, it’s beyond my tech understanding as to why the overall antenna needs to be any specific length. Is it just bigger to squeeze more elements in as the elements grow with wavelength? Aren’t the individual elements tuned to resonant frequency anyway?

Hi Jon,

The physics behind how antennas work is very dry, so I’ll try to simplify it. In my yoof, I struggled to understand how basically an open circuit wire can be used to transmit a signal. AC electrical as well as eletcro-magnetic theory plays a big part here, so bear with me.

To get the maximum transmitted gain (amplification) but also to maximise your receiver sensitivity. You need to match the antenna length to the wavelength of the signal that is either being transmitted or received. If the antenna length is not matched, part of the signal will reflect back to the transmitter, or you will detect less of the signal. This is called impedance matching and gives rise to the standing wave ratio (SWR). Th aim is to minimise the SWR to 1:1, the greater the ratio the less matched the system is, thus more of the signal is reflected or not picked up.

Therefore, you need to match the antenna length (which is the load for the transmitter) to the transmitter or the received signal wavelength. For a L-band (1 to 2GHz or 30 to 15cm) signal as used by the Wedgetail’s multi-role electronically scanned array (MESA) radar, each of the array TRM antenna elements would need to be 30 to 15cm long and thus 15 to 7.5cm apart.

Luckily as the signal is a variation of a sine wave. You can get away with using only half of it. Which also goes for the antenna length. Which is great for the antenna sizing, but you still have to have the 1/2 wavelength space around the antenna. Further, you can actually use 1/4 of the wavelength, e.g. the leading slope of the sine wave, for the antenna length.

The individual antenna elements of an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar that make up the array, are called transmitter-receiver modules (TRMs). The TRM’s can contain a separate transmitter antenna and receiver antenna, or they can use a combined antenna. However, like any antenna they must be spaced at least 1/2 a wavelength apart from each other. Otherwise, you introduce unwanted interference.

An antenna array, be that using passive or active scanning usually has an azimuth limit of +/- 60˚ either side of the array’s centre and in elevation +/-45˚. They can scan further but the gain significantly drops off, plus they start to have more interference between the TRMs. Which negates going past these values. Additionally, the gain of the antenna can be likened to the shape of the positive side of sine wave. Where the maximum amount of gain can be generated, is when the beam is centred along the array’s boresight axis. This is because all TRMS are acting together, thus maximising the gain. As the beam is steered towards the extremes, there are less (in a simplistic view) TRMs acting to boost the signal. Thereby the gain drops off like the shape of the upper sine wave. Realistically there is a lot more involved, but the gist is that at the extremes the beam has less power than when it was centred.

Therefore, for an array to generate a narrow pencil like beam. That is narrow in both elevation and azimuth. You need a balanced number of TRMs either side of the direction you want the beam to point. By having an equal number of TRMs around the centre, you can squeeze the beam and thereby make it narrow, the more TRMs around the centre the narrower the beam. Which leads to circular style arrays, as seen with the Typhoon’s Captor-E and most other fighter radars. But also how the SPY-1D antenna arrays are arranged on Arleigh Burkes.

For larger aircraft this circular shape would be impractical, so as per the Wedgetail, you’ll see rectangular side-arrays. Which is the next best option. Though at the extremes, the beam will start to flatten out.

To get the most out of the array and still be able to fit on an aircraft, you have to make compromises on the antenna sizing that’s used. This is why, each of the Wedgetail’s MESA side arrays are 7.3m x 2.7m. But the forward and aft arrays that are located in thee “top hat” of the antenna have to be squeezed into the aerodynamic fairing, so have considerably less TRMs. Which are probably enough to get a decent enough positional location from a target. But they won’t have the same resolution as the side arrays. The side-arrays, which I have to presume are so sized to maximize the transmitted gain and received sensitivity, based on what the aircraft can carry and aerodynamic effects on the airframe. Some sources say that there are 288 TRMs in the MESA’s side-array. For a ground-based radar, you wouldn’t need to make so many compromises and make the radar array either squarer or rounder.

With this knowledge, if you look at the Sentry’s/Hawkeye’s rotating antenna. You notice the radar’s disc fairing on top of the aircraft is fairly wide, but actually pretty thin. So, the antenna array inside the fairing will be rectangular, but with a long top/bottom and short sides (a bit like a letterbox). This will generate a narrow beam in azimuth but a wide one in elevation. As there’s less antenna elements shaping the beam shape in elevation. For Top Trumps, the MESA will generate a tighter narrower beam that either the Sentry or Hawkeye.

For the Royal Navy they require a carrier-based aircraft that can carry a radar, that can detect extremely low flying anti-ship missiles, or very small suicide UAVs against heavy clutter generated by the sea. Long range detection is not so important, as the ships 3D radar will be substantially more powerful. The MoD’s request for information (RFI) on an electromagnetic catapult at 24,948kg (55,000lbs) is fairly low for manned naval aircraft, but right in the ballpark for unmanned largish aircraft.

Clearly aircraft like the MQ-9 Sea Guardian could operate from our carriers. It can carry a radar, but this will be limited to an X-band due to the smaller antenna size. Its likely that the aircraft will only be able to carry a single antenna array. However, the range of the radar won’t be much greater than the Crowsnest Searchwater radar. If it’s an AESA radar it will have better resolution and multibeam capability.

But could we do better? The Navy wants a carrier-based air to air tanker. Its very unlikely that the V22 Osprey will be purchased. It’s more likely that a UAV will be cheaper, and the Boeing MQ-25 Stingray is the obvious choice. Being a Boeing product, it won’t be cheap, but it will likely be cheaper than an Osprey.

Like the Sea Guardian, the Stingray could easily carry an under-wing podded X-band radar. But at 19m (62.3ft) long and an empty weight of 6,400kg (14,100lbs). It has a max take-off weight of 20,200kg (44,533lbs). Which means after loading up enough fuel for a 8 hour mission, it has the capacity to carry a bigger radar. Clearly the Wedgetail’s MESA radar is way too large for the drone. But Saab’s L-band (2 to 4GHz, 15 to 7.5cm wavelength) Erieye would fit, at 1,985-lb (900-kg) the antenna is housed in a 29-ft 6.3-in (9-m) long box fairing. The new extended range version of the Erieye radar, as used on the Globaleye, can detect targets nearly 458km (247nau miles). Which is over 100km better than the previous version.
 
As per Globaleye, it would be best for our proposed carrier-based AEW aircraft, to have both an X-band and an L-band radar. Thereby giving long range detection and the ability to spot targets against the sea’s clutter. To operate two radars the aircraft will need an engine that can deliver a surplus of electrical power. Plus, as the aircraft is unmanned and is controlled via a data-link. Then the signal processing can also be done remotely. Which cuts down massively on the electrical power requirement along with the additional cooling requirements.

If and it’s a big if, the Navy do go for the Stingray to solve their air tanker requirement. Could the aircraft realistically be used as an AEW platform?  The USN have said the aircraft will also be used for intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition, and reconnaissance (ISTAR). But this won’t be wacking a huge radar on top of the aircraft. But fitting a reconnaissance or electronic surveillance pod under the wing. The single RR AE3007N pumps out 44KN (10,000lbs) of thrust, which is a variant of that used in the MQ-4C Triton and operates a multi-function X-band radar and wideband data-link. But it is unlikely to be powerful enough to power the Erieye as well. So, it will probably need an additional generator just for the Erieye radar. So in essence the Stingray could be both the Navy’s required tanker, but also a really decent AEW platform. But it is wholly dependent on whether it gets through the USN trials. But also if our carriers do get an EMALS or not!

Thank you for that. So if I understand correctly, if there are insufficient TRMs in a particular direction you won’t get precise enough beam forming. That requirement and the larger size of the TRMs and spacing as wavelength increases mean the overall length of the antenna has to get bigger too.

So MESA has something like 32×9 TRMs and 22cm x 32 x 9 is about 7m x 2m.

Yes, that’s correct, the configuration of TRMs within the array determines the beam’s shape and narrowness. You can make the array smaller, but then the antenna gain gets smaller so there’s less transmitted power, the beam will get wider and the receiver sensitivity gets a lot worse.

https://th.bing.com/th/id/R.940b6131f2f903b2e1cc7ff220a664b9?rik=WJMxv6hVy0pskw&riu=http%3a%2f%2fdefense-update.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2015%2f05%2famdr_ddg51_3_1021.jpg&ehk=sLKqVlFPsHvB5dfXHnnXvoQcsrSX1ZJ8ML8E821JFG4%3d&risl=&pid=ImgRaw&r=0

The above picture shows the SPY-1D radar on an USN Arleigh Burke destroyer. As you can see the array shape is octagonal, which tries to get as many TRMS around the array’s centre, thus being able to generate a fairly circular narrow beam.

On the Wedgetail, the MESA antenna array configuration is about compromises and making the best of a restrained situation. The physical size is constrained by not only aerodynamics, but also the aircraft’s shape and size.

For instance, they could have quite easily chosen a bigger airframe, like the Boeing 757 or 767. Which actually might have been a better choice for growth and endurance. As there’s more volume and space to play with. It may also have allowed for a taller antenna array. Or similar to the Israeli Gulfstream based CAEW G550-EL/W-2085, which houses a pair of L-band AESA array either side of the airframe and a pair of S-band arrays in the nose and tail.

Though the placement of heavy side arrays placed forward of the wings may have needed careful balancing of the aircraft. The placement of the arrays on the aircraft’s sides, does impose limitations looking backwards, as the wings will create a dead zone. Whereas placing the arrays on the roof, may have less of dead zone when looking down. Especially when your platform is based on the B737.

But what is without doubt, is that the Wedgetail’s MESA will significantly outperform the Sentry’s AN/APY-2 PESA radar based on the beam shaping alone.

We probably aren’t getting MQ-25 until the carriers have catapults/arrestors fitted. For all the feelers, I don’t see us going for that this decade.

And neat as that conformal solution looks, we are realistically looking at two AESA underwing pods for the MQ-9B STOLs, a solution GA are known to be working on. Which reraises your wing shadow issue.

We are told that MESA L-Band weighs 3 tons. Very finger in the air, S-Band will quarter the weight for the same number of TRMs on each side (pod). Add in a dedicated power source, say a new Rolls-Royce turbogenerator at 200-250kg and we hit 1 ton. That’s easily loftable by MQ-9B (2 tons+ external). Now the built in X-Band elements won’t shrink in weight so it won’t really quarter, but even so, there are low SWaP X-band solutions that come in under 100kg for fixed antennas, such as the Osprey.

To me this feels like a difficult but practical objective for the end of this decade when Crowsnest is scheduled to go. So how much worse is a modern S-band solution such as the P600 AEW? And how much worse will underwing pods be than that?

its actually the safest rotorcraft per flight hour in the US military- you can google that and see plenty of info. its crashes are just much higher profile because the media made a massive deal about it during development when it had a bad accident. keep in mind over 400 have been built and they’re not exactly used in the easiest environments (afghan, iraq, off amphibs etc). the marines actually praise its survivability due its its speed and altitude compared to regular helicopters making it less susceptible to ground fire.

japan operates them as well, i wasn’t aware that sale went through but it did.

Interesting. Just goes to show that what you read doesn’t always cover reality, as if that’s a surprise to any of us. If, as I suspect the days of beach landings are over, at least apart from anything very simple, maybe the range and speed are the answer for the infil/exfil role.

Tragedy of the commons. If the US is fighting a war, they won’t be able to lend anything to anyone. You guys need to get your heads on straight.

The idea that Ospreys will give us a serious capacity to land troops off of a hostile coast is fanciful at best. Only amongst an American task force would we ever even think about it and guess what that’s exactly why the Americans like to test them on our carriers so that they are well aware of the aerodynamic conditions in so doing so if such circumstances did arise they could as necessary operate from extra decks for flexibility and numbers. It’s the only way there will be Ospreys onboard our carriers in a conflict and in my opinion I am thankful for it.

A similar belief existed prior to the Falklands where we found ourselves wanting when it came to transporting troops by air……

You are guessing at a US lead. The Falklands coast was hostile in Apr/May 1982.

MV-22 has a major advantage in range and a far superior speed..

Ahh Our part time Valour salesman, the paper plane that has all the answers. There maybe good reasons its not projected to go to sea at all!

V-280 Valor, first flight 2017, retired to update to Army specs 2021. You have to admire its durability. None of my paper planes lasted more than an hour.

That was a technology demonstrator. The paper plane Im referring to is the US Army production model, and the sea going version which isnt even a program

The old name for that part of the programme was JMR-TD (tech demonstrator). Nevertheless, they built prototypes on which the production model will be based, not demonstrators.

The marine version would need practical work done before production, refining the design and building a prototype. That’s not a reason to avoid doing it. There’s nothing technologically new or risky to the marinisation.

Hi Duker, sadly I’m not on a commission.

Bell have a full scale “marinized” model of the Valor, that they’ve been showing to interested parties. This has the folding rotors and wing that swings through 90 degrees. To do this they’ve inverted the V-tail.
They have been promoting this as a Huey replacement for the USMC. Which would then meet their long range Pacific requirement.

Whether or not the USMC go for the Valor is a hurry up and wait situation. Though perhaps there may be legs in the marinized Valor, as US Marine pilots were seen flying the prototype last year.

Ahhh the Display models , anything is possible when you have fibreglass and never leaves the ground
The Marines dont have a Huey replacment requirement yet and when they do it wont be a tilt rotor because the Osprey is space hog on the amphib deck and dont need another – as you pointed out it has a bigger wing span.
The Huey is more like the Wildcat for RN , a smaller versatile but less capable helicopter than the heavy duty ones. The USMC dont have a mission even for a UH60 sized helicopter, so the V280 is major impediment.
But go ahead with your poster sized wall art of exhibition display models

Yes, it is now, but wasn’t back a few years ago when we were looking at CATOBAR. Its got nothing to do with risk either, EMALS didn’t work, took the US a while (and money) to sort out.

Have to agree with previous post, especially S-3, lovely plane, retired far too early (as were our Gannets). Its a capability that helicopters couldn’t match.

What happened to the large fleet of soviet submarines ? Thats why

No, thats not the reason we switched over to helicopters for ASW work at all. We retired our Gannets obviously due to age and didn’t field a fixed wing replacement because we retired our CATOBAR carriers and replaced them with the Invincible class/Harrier force structure.
I think you will find that in the 80’s the Soviets still fielded a significantly large SM force and did so up until the late 90’s/early 00’s.
The US S-3 fleet was much newer in terms of age so served past 2010 before being retired. The USN went from 4-5 carrier aircraft types to 1 (F18) essentially as a cost saving measure and despite attempting to replace the S-3 with a fixed wing aircraft, also went over to helicopters for ASW work.
What they lost was their area wide ASW surveillance capability amongst others. A capability which the USN is considering to reinstate by restoring some S-3s, given the advances China is making with its build up of SMs/ships and long range missiles.

The USN retired its fixed wing ASW but wasnt because of age
I dont think the USN is seriously considering bringing the S-3 back . A few …? thats completely out of bounds as its a complicated system that needs both trained operators and completely new avionics
My view is thats just wishfull thinking and P-8 and the Japanese P-1 are the fixed wing assets for east Asia

This is currently a discussion point for the USN CSGs, it’s two fold, one to use them in the AAR role to help extend the strike range of both F18+F35’s, freeing up the AAR F18s for strike missions. Also to bring extended area ASW back to push potential Chinese LR missile envelope further out.
It’s just a consideration that might gain traction, as the USN have realised they need something to fill these capability gaps, as they are considering a new fixed wing design, which would obviously take far longer to bring into service.

Discussions are about all sorts of things .
The carrier refueler has a different solution , a autonomous stealth jet is already in testing which is a new airframe.

Current AAR drone that is being progressed is MQ25 Stingray, which the USN is hopping to bring into service sometime this decade I believe.
S3 option might well end up nowhere, but an interesting idea all the same, as it brings more than just AAR/ASW capabilities to the party. Would certainly cost a fair bit to upgrade the airframes, but significantly cheaper then new ones. Nice option to have I imagine.

“sometime this decade’??

IOC is 2026, so in in the 2-3 years
“The MQ-25A Stingray, the first major unmanned aerial vehicle to deploy on U.S. aircraft carriers, will serve as an aerial refueling tanker on a carrier starting in 2026, Rear Adm. Stephen Tedford, program executive officer, Unmanned Aviation and Strike Weapons said during a presentation at the Navy League Sea Air and Space symposium.” USNI news

best of all , it doesnt need to rest between deployments, a detachment can be sent out again when the carrier comes home

So, IOC in 2026, later this decade then!! Im sure FOC will follow a few years after, possibly by 2029/30. If so a good result for the USN, but, that’s only one aspect of what they need to counter Chinese expansion.
They like the rest of NATO/western world have been caught on the hop by events over the last few years, and it is going to get worse for us(in terms of assets/capabilities/mass) before it gets better unfortunately.

So you have a ‘good idea of whats needed’ now. Its gone from just some ‘cakground’ chatter on the KS-3 which isnt even a test program , to they need more than the MQ-25.
Its very difficult to get money from congress for duplicate programs these days . It will be ‘more Mq-25’ in my view if that is the shortfall