I apologise for being somewhat adrift in rejoining this discussion and for the many quotes. I should probably just say I agree with tucumseh.
So DASA release an announcement that:
we are seeking a potential successor to the near-term capability, Crowsnest (an EW system fitted to the Merlin Mk2 helicopter), which has a planned out-of-service date of 2029.
A month later FlightGlobal is told of a previously unannounced decade long extension of Merlin's OSD. Are the left and right hands in sync?
So, does this competition mean there has been an outbreak of common sense and the AEW/ASaC penny pinching is at an end? Is the fact that they are looking for an alternative a good sign or window dressing for "We looked at the alternatives but nothing met the requirements of capability, timescale and budget."?
The current assumptions for a follow-on capability to Crowsnest are based around a single, large radar sensor mounted on a type of uncrewed air platform. The purpose of this competition is to investigate the potential of alternative solutions which are not based on this particular approach.
There is a requirement to develop a capability that provides air and surface surveillance to enable over-the-horizon situational awareness to Royal Navy assets deployed within the Carrier and Littoral Strike Groups, where not otherwise available in those formations. The capability should provide Commanders with a clear, detailed and enduring picture of the battlespace. It should also support Commanders’ decision-making by providing detection, tracking and recognition of surface and airborne objects within sufficient timescales to react appropriately.
This capability has historically been delivered by sensors mounted on airborne platforms to increase detection range. However, we are interested in any alternative proposals that could match or exceed these capabilities, particularly for low-level and/or signature-controlled threats.
Which, as tuc more eloquently said, suggests the current system has difficulties in doing that.
I despair that without support of an E-2D from a US (or shortly a French) CVN we have two carriers and the future littoral strike ships which will have to rely on a radar that is multiple generations behind the current AN/APY-9. I think a system similar to the proposed E-2D controlling mulitlple UAVs is the paradigm that should be looked at; probably it should based on an new generation tiltrotor. (I never was much of a realist.) I think the UAVs are best used as a force multiplier not a complete replacement for all manned capabilities.
"The capability must be able to support a range of Strike Group missions, be capable of doing so concurrently, and must be effective when used over land as well as the sea.
The system must also be capable of against peer and near-peer threats, and simultaneously not inhibit the Carrier or Littoral Strike Group’s Freedom of Manoeuvre, for example through reliance on air systems with limited range, speed or endurance, or those whose operational effectiveness may be constrained by being based on land.
(Though I will believe it when others see it.)"
Should we take "optimising efficiency by minimising workforce requirement through a reduced operator and support burden" at face value, or is it due to expected recruitment and retention issues. Presumably this means a reduction in available berths for Lookers and Maintainers.
https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ition-document You have until Tuesday 6 July 2021 at midday BST to submit your proposals.
3.5 Clarification of what we don’t want
For this competition we are not interested in proposals that:
- constitute consultancy, paper-based studies or literature reviews which just summarise the existing literature without any view of future innovation
- are an identical re-submission of a previous bid to DASA or MOD without modification
- offer demonstrations of off-the-shelf products requiring no experimental development (unless applied in a novel way to the challenge)
- offer no real long-term prospect of integration into defence and security capabilities
- offer no real prospect of out-performing existing technological solutions
- comprise platform solutions only, rather than EW solutions and an associated platform