CROWSNEST

[ZH844]

Does anyone know how the Crowsnest programme is progressing? The NOE report suggested concerns about the performance of the radar? I also understand that Westlands have had to recruit the senior engineer from Boeing to ensure the programme succeeds? Hope the SK7s haven’t been sold yet, they may be needed for the QE...

[Lordflasheart]

...
Must be a slow day today ZH ? Unless you are of a strong disposition, I'd be inclined to be sitting down before reading some of the links from this gurgle search for 'crowsnest helicopter radar'

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffnt&q=Crowsnest+helicopter+radar&atb=v204-1&ia=web

The current state of play seems to be merely several feeble shuffles (I cannot bring myself to use the word 'improvements') from the original Searchwater/Sea King fit and at least one generation displaced from reality. It's way out of date and way out of control.
Good for decorational flypasts only.

If it ain't AESA - it ain't gonna win.

LFH...

[tucumseh]

I agree with Lordflasheart. There comes a time when you must stop modifying modifications. The AEW Mk7 was seen as a great success, and it was in a programme sense, succeeding against all the odds given how many fought so hard throughout to scupper it. (Including a signifcant part of the RN, MoD(PE) hierarchy, and AMSO/AML). But it was far more than the radar - which was not selected, but imposed by political over-rule. Searchwater upgrade didn't come close to winning the competition, and the company 'awarded' the contract didn't even bid. But some of the 'peripheral' elements were groundbreaking.

[SLXOwft]

I got a Crowsnest article on Save the Royal Navy 'suggested' to me by my phone: The strike carrier’s eye in the sky – update on the Crowsnest project (https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-strike-carriers-eye-in-the-sky-update-on-the-crowsnest-project/)

Slightly odd as the conclusion seems at variance with the content. More interested/amused by the readers comments.

Despite the overdue introduction into service, Crowsnest should ultimately deliver an effective ISR at sea and over land, if needed. When the capabilities of the F-35’s sensors are fully exploited and paired with Crowsnest, the situational awareness of the Carrier Strike Group will be excellent. Critics will doubtless bemoan that this is not the gold standard E-2D Hawkeye or speculate about non-existent V-22 Osprey-based AEW solutions but this is an affordable and attainable solution, given the RN’s resources.

I have my doubts that "the situational awareness of the Carrier Strike Group will be excellent", good but in need of improvement. If the carrier group is not supplemented by land based or USN AEW/ASaC I just don't think Crowsnest on Merlin can get high enough to provide the range - if the danger of attack is real, doesn't F35s providing the picture beyond Crowsnest require sending them down the correct threat axis 100% of the time?

[XL189]

I've heard it has a lot of "repurposed" old kit from the Sea King. Just how much life can you expect to squeeze out of kit that is 30+ years old?

[tucumseh]

I've heard it has a lot of "repurposed" old kit from the Sea King. Just how much life can you expect to squeeze out of kit that is 30+ years old?

While the RN only endorsed a quite minor upgrade to the AEW Mk2 (with Fleet embodiment planned over a single week-end, with no training necessary), what became the AEW Mk7 and then ASaC Mk7 went way beyond this. I'd be more worried about the older and less capable kit that's retained from Merlin. Many tend to think of 'ASaC Mk7' as being the radar (which is indeed old but it was a political decision to retain it), but that was actually a quite minor part of the programme, both in technical and financial terms. What I'd be most concerned about is the (reported) failure to appreciate systems integration (and hence functional safety) is quite important. My view is that if any company seeks to extracate itself from this obligation (as happened on Mk7), they should be struck from the list of approved contractors. Thank goodness Westland and GEC-Marconi were around to do the work.

[ORAC]

https://twitter.com/andynetherwood/status/1402186372119678976?s=21

[chevvron]

I've heard it has a lot of "repurposed" old kit from the Sea King. Just how much life can you expect to squeeze out of kit that is 30+ years old?
The radar in the Shakleton AEW2 was re-purposed from the Gannet which in turn was re-purposed from the Skyraider.

[NutLoose]

Damn Chevron, you beat me to it.

[Sideshow Bob]

I've heard it has a lot of "repurposed" old kit from the Sea King. Just how much life can you expect to squeeze out of kit that is 30+ years old?
and a 45+ years old design, Searchwater was first fielded on the MR2 mid 70s and into service in '79.

[tucumseh]

I don't profess to know anything about Crowsnest. I gave up in December 2000 when MASC (one of its predecessors) was recruiting, and announced prior experience on AEW/ASaC was irrelevant as MASC would bear no relation to it. This, despite their plan at the time being to re-use the ASaC Mk7 kit in a Merlin. However, their costings didn't reflect reality, and it was all delayed. Again. When such a decision is made, one often as to wait many years for that person to disappear to allow resurrection. MPA is a good example.

MoD's recent announcement was:

"DASA is looking for ideas that can improve ‘horizon surveillance and/or target detection capability’, ‘operational effectiveness through timely processing and dissemination of information’ and ‘operational efficiency through optimisation of system functionality’."

To me, that implies more than the latest Searchwater derivative is lacking. If you were to ask what was lacking after the Mk7 programme, it was the refusal to integrate the aircraft with the ships (CVSs). This was #1 operational risk from day 1, and where the boundary of responsibility lay was a hot topic. The Mk7 teams (2 of them in the same Directorate, 2 engineers in each) were instructed to leave well alone, that FONA would manage it with FLEET. But if you're managing a boundary, both sides must be involved. Ultimately, and as confirmed in the Board of Inquiry report into the 2003 mid-air .... well, let's just say that MoD statement above is the best summary. In short, the ships' procedures and capability still reflected the old ASW Mk2. The aircraft was in itself capable, and in many ways exceeded the specification. But as a system of systems (aircraft & ship) there was a complete disconnect. In much the same way Nimrod and its tanker were, in isolation, reasonably safe, but when mated the 'system' was totally unsafe. (Tanker, after modification, delivered twice the flow rate Nimrod's fuel lines could cope with). There's obviously a lot more to this, but you get the idea.

This makes me wonder if the approach to Crowsnest was too simplistic. Their starting point should have been, at least, the ASaC Mk7 Post Project Evaluation Report, that laid all this out. (The report listed the three main contributory factors to the mid-air, 2 years before it occurred. It also, as a matter of interest, explained the 2003 Tornado/Patriot shootdown). Crowsnest would/should have used the Mk7's Risk Register as a baseline (the original one, not the two subsequent ones drawn up by senior admin management to conceal MoD-owned risks). I wonder if they were shown it. With MASC's rejection of ASaC staff in 2000, there was no-one in MoD after about 2004 who could explain this to them.

As to the comments about old equipment, there's an old adage - 'Don't modify a modification'. It's not a hard and fast rule, but a warning as to where your main technical risks will be. Searchwater in Nimrod had already been significantly upgraded. Searchwater LAST in Sea King had been upgraded in 1986/7 (G9 Autotrack and INS, which are loosely linked to the above problems, and which were upgraded again for Mk7 - itself a clue as to where technical difficulties lay). This baseline was studied very carefully during planning for what became ASaC, and the result was that a different radar won the competition. The political overrule, directing that Searchwater LAST be retained, meant an evaluation was necessary, for the first time, as to what would constitute 'Retained Searchwater Equipment' (RSE). The overrule meant a significant hike in costs, but with no more funding granted something had to give, and there was quite a bit of RSE that ideally should have been new. The very fact that Crowsnest retained ASaC kit suggests they faced the same restrictions.

In many ways, we're not discussing a system with an ISD of 2023. We're discussing something that is instantly recognisable to anyone who worked on the bid evaluation in 1993. Without knowing them, I think the Crowsnest teams have done a pretty good job given that background. But the standing risks and certainties were, it seems, insurmountable. Now, we could go back further and resurrect the hot air balloon idea....

[Alabama boy]

The radar in the Shakleton AEW2 was re-purposed from the Gannet which in turn was re-purposed from the Skyraider.
Ans Grumman Avenger before that

[SLXOwft]

I apologise for being somewhat adrift in rejoining this discussion and for the many quotes. I should probably just say I agree with tucumseh.:ok:

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.:D (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/publications/competition-look-out-maritime-early-warning-innovations/look-out-maritime-early-warning-innovations-competition-document You have until Tuesday 6 July 2021 at midday BST to submit your proposals.:E

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

[SLXOwft]

IOC at last (in July) - contracted date was March 2020

The UK Royal Navy (RN) has achieved initial operating capability (IOC) for its much-delayed Crowsnest airborne surveillance and control (ASaC) capability.

Crowsnest is a role-fit for the Merlin HM2 helicopter, which swaps out the standard mission console and sonics suite for an ASaC mission system/radar package derived from that previously fitted to the Sea King ASaC7 helicopter. Lockheed Martin, as prime contractor, is responsible for integrating the Thales-supplied Crowsnest radar/mission system into the Merlin HM2. Leonardo Helicopters UK is supporting the modification of the 30-strong HM2 fleet to receive the Crowsnest fit.

Confirming the milestone on board the aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth on 8 September just prior to commencing the Carrier Strike Group 23 (CSG23) deployment – Operation ‘Firedrake' – Commodore James Blackmore, commander of the CSG, said that the IOC standard marked a major step forward.

“It's giving us integrated Link 16, the ability to provide a recognised air picture and, to a degree, a recognised surface picture as well that we can integrate into the combat management system and wider force,” Cdre Blackmore said. “This will deliver enhanced situational awareness – not only to the F-35, and other rotary-wing [aircraft besides the Crowsnest], but also to our principal warfare commanders.

“So when the F-35s are flying, we'll have Crowsnest up as well,” Cdre Blackmore added. “They will give us those enhanced ‘eyes' looking beyond the horizon, while also being able to perform fighter control.
Source:Richard Scott, Jane's Defence News 11 September 2023

[Asturias56]

"So when the F-35s are flying, we'll have Crowsnest up as well,"

Why doesn't that statement fill me with the joy it should??

Surely Airborne radar is to tell you what is coming before you launch an interceptor? Especially when you don't have much refuelling capability

[Not_a_boffin]

"So when the F-35s are flying, we'll have Crowsnest up as well,"

Why doesn't that statement fill me with the joy it should??

Surely Airborne radar is to tell you what is coming before you launch an interceptor? Especially when you don't have much refuelling capability

Possibly because you're over-interpreting his statement?

[SLXOwft]

My reading was it was a slightly misspoken unscripted comment and meant it will give enhanced situational awareness to the F-35 pilots when they are flying as well as providing enhanced AAW and ASuW picture to ships' warfare depts and RW assets with Link 16. Yes, it's late but it is something to celebrate, even given there were better options the beancounters weren't prepared to fund.

[andyy]

"So when the F-35s are flying, we'll have Crowsnest up as well,"

Why doesn't that statement fill me with the joy it should??

Surely Airborne radar is to tell you what is coming before you launch an interceptor? Especially when you don't have much refuelling capability

Trouble is that on current deployment there are only 5 Merlin. Of which only 2 will be CN capable at any one time.

[Asturias56]

True - at least it has finally turned up - but was you say - like everything else in tiny numbers -

[ORAC]

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crowsnest-early-warning-system-to-leave-service-2029/

Crowsnest early warning system to leave service 2029

The Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system will achieve full operating capability next year after a spend of £425.7m, only to be retired four years later in 2029.

The information came to light in the following response to a Parliamentary Written Question.

James Cartlidge, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, stated:

“The Crowsnest Airborne Early Warning system achieved initial operating capability in July 2023 and is on track to achieve full operating capability next year in time to support a Carrier Strike Deployment in 2025.

Under current plans CROWSNEST will retire on 31 December 2029. The capability was not extended in the Integrated Review 2021.As of 31 December 2023, the CROWSNEST Programme has spent £425.662 million. This is within the original approved whole life budget for the programme of £459 million.”

Current plans are to replace Crowsnest fitted Merlins with an uncrewed air platform… However, a notice issued by the Ministry of Defence (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/look-out-dasa-competition-seeks-to-enhance-royal-navy-early-warning-capabilities) is asking for viable alternatives.

“Royal Navy Carrier and Littoral Strike Groups need a capability that provides air and surface surveillance that enables over-the-horizon situational awareness. This capability ensures Commanders can detect, track and recognise surface and airborne objects, and respond to them efficiently.

So, in partnership with the Royal Navy, the Defence and Security Accelerator (https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/defence-and-security-accelerator) (DASA) is pleased to launch the Look out! Maritime Early Warning Innovations (https://draft-origin.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/publications/competition-look-out-maritime-early-warning-innovations) competition, which aims to develop alternative future concepts for the Early Warning systems currently deployed in Maritime Task Groups.”

Current early warning maritime capabilities are delivered by sensors mounted aboard airborne platforms, with the current assumption for a follow-on for Crowsnest (an airborne early warning system fitted to the Merlin Mk2 helicopter) being a singular large radar sensor mounted on an uncrewed air platform.

The notice goes on to say: (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/look-out-dasa-competition-seeks-to-enhance-royal-navy-early-warning-capabilities)

“DASA welcomes alternatives that are not based on this approach and match or exceed current airborne capabilities. We are seeking a potential successor to Crowsnest, which has a planned out-of-service date of 2029.”……

[pr00ne]

And we wonder why we have so little capability for the 6th largest defence budget in the world!

The MoD must be THE most inept manager of a budget yet known.

This on top of the recent urgent order for 500 trucks for the Army when there are more than 250 almost identical vehicles, some with almost zero milage, sat in a disposal facility…

[Asturias56]

"Current plans are to replace Crowsnest fitted Merlins with an uncrewed air platform… However, a notice issued by the Ministry of Defence (https://www.gov.uk/government/news/look-out-dasa-competition-seeks-to-enhance-royal-navy-early-warning-capabilities) is asking for viable alternatives."

ready , purchased and in service in less than 5 years?? It really is unbelievable.....................

[tucumseh]

Decades in the making, CROWSNEST has been given a 4-year life. The stopgap that was Sea King ASaC Mk7 got 16 years, was a much larger programme, delivered to time and cost, with much of its performance far exceeding what the RN asked for. Lessons to be learned?

[Speedywheels]

Steer clear of Crawley, for starters.

[Lordflasheart]

...
The MoD rationale for Crowsnest OSD 2030 is perfectly logical.

Based on the Merlin's recently extended service life to 2040, they're now anticipating a shortage of HM2 airframes after 2030, They have also just learned (thanks ZH844) that the 'Orphan 8 HM1s' at Gosport are too far gone to be of any practical use (sound familiar ?)

The first problem with Crowsnest is that it is an operational either/or choice on the day, complicated by the limited number of CN capable airframes. Having to decide which way to swing is clearly a serious distraction if you're 'unlucky enough' to be faced with simultaneous subsurface and air threats for an extended period of time.

There just aren't enough available HM2 airframes even now, to realistically fulfil both AEW and ASW tasks from a single Carrier and at the same time equip even the few available escorts and ancillary ships that expect to carry Merlin. Not forgetting training, deep maintenance and reserve requirements. And that's a plan that's now got to work until 2040.

Given that the choice of radar for Crowsnest arguably put it out of date even before IOC - expecting it to be still viable after 2030 would be hard to spin, even for MoD.

OTOH - These problems are easily solved at a stroke by -

1. Taking Crowsnest out of service in 2030, which releases 10 or so airframes for ASW.

2. Selecting a suitable carrier-based UAV with modern AEW radar, and making IOC no later than 2030, thus avoiding a boring capability gap.

When it's all gone TU and PT in 2029, the architects of this master strategy will be long gone (to the Lords etc) and will calling for someone to be held to account.

What's not to like ?

LFH
If it ain't AESA - it ain't gonna win.

[pr00ne]

...
The MoD rationale for Crowsnest OSD 2030 is perfectly logical.

Based on the Merlin's recently extended service life to 2040, they're now anticipating a shortage of HM2 airframes after 2030, They have also just learned (thanks ZH844) that the 'Orphan 8 HM1s' at Gosport are too far gone to be of any practical use (sound familiar ?)

The first problem with Crowsnest is that it is an operational either/or choice on the day, complicated by the limited number of CN capable airframes. Having to decide which way to swing is clearly a serious distraction if you're 'unlucky enough' to be faced with simultaneous subsurface and air threats for an extended period of time.

There just aren't enough available HM2 airframes even now, to realistically fulfil both AEW and ASW tasks from a single Carrier and at the same time equip even the few available escorts and ancillary ships that expect to carry Merlin. Not forgetting training, deep maintenance and reserve requirements. And that's a plan that's now got to work until 2040.

Given that the choice of radar for Crowsnest arguably put it out of date even before IOC - expecting it to be still viable after 2030 would be hard to spin, even for MoD.

OTOH - These problems are easily solved at a stroke by -

1. Taking Crowsnest out of service in 2030, which releases 10 or so airframes for ASW.

2. Selecting a suitable carrier-based UAV with modern AEW radar, and making IOC no later than 2030, thus avoiding a boring capability gap.

When it's all gone TU and PT in 2029, the architects of this master strategy will be long gone (to the Lords etc) and will calling for someone to be held to account.

What's not to like ?

LFH
If it ain't AESA - it ain't gonna win.

Another solution?

Order/update the right number of Merlins in the first place!!!

[tucumseh]

Another solution?

Order/update the right number of Merlins in the first place!!!


To be fair to the RN, the cunning original plan was 108. Around half would role-fit Commando variants, to supplement, not replace, Sea King HC Mk4. All were to be ASW capable, which was the weak point of the plan, given it was predicated on 5 Merlins being able to do the job of 8 Sea King HAS Mk6. The Treasury walked all over the RN. A slightly lower 50/50 split would probably have got through scrutiny.

In 1994 the winning bid for what became Sea King AEW/ASaC Mk7 was a Blue Vixen variant in Merlin. Two things stopped this being awarded.

First, Merlin was late, and there could be no guarantee the airframes would be available, given the AEW avionics schedule would deliver quite quickly. It was a sensible decision to stick with Sea King, albeit expensive. At that point AEW/ASaC was deemed a stopgap, witness the refusal to allow surplus and much newer Mk6 cabs to be used. Instead, most were original Mk1s, further increasing cost and complexity of configuration control. Also, the RN only asked for 10, against a requirement for 16. The project office managed to change this to 13, plus a look-alike at Boscombe.

Second, a political overrule dictated Searchwater LAST be upgraded (yet again) and the contract awarded to a company who didn't bid. Who were then bought a bidder who had withdrawn as it was all too difficult. The official reason was that if Ferranti got the job, everyone in Crawley would be made redundant. If given to Crawley, it would make no difference because no-one in Scotland/Edinburgh made radars. (Sea Harrier, Lynx, EFA, the clever bits of Tornado, simulators, components, test equipment.... One of the few things that weren't were the displays in Birmingham, so Ferranti built their own facility at South Gyle after being let down).

What we know as CROWSNEST has taken the best part of 28 years to materialise. Externally, what you see is instantly recognisable to anyone who read the Ferranti bid of 1993 (which was 2-part; continue with LAST, or upgrade to Vixen). Internally, it is decades out of date. The wrong (political) decision was made in 1995 to eschew a world-beating solution. Thereafter, everything seems to have been done on the cheap, CROWSNEST being a minor task, in a financial sense, compared to the Mk7 job.

[safetypee]

Could use a couple of these flown from the radar pickets

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tethered_Aerostat_Radar_System

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ad/Aerostat_ship_Atlantic_Sentry_%2815004011277%29.jpg

[Davef68]

In terms of capability, how does the Italian Navy AEW EH101 with the Eliradar HEW-784 compare to the Crowsnest?

[tucumseh]

In terms of capability, how does the Italian Navy AEW EH101 with the Eliradar HEW-784 compare to the Crowsnest?

CROWSNEST is only at Initial Operating Capability, so a bit of an unfair question!

Setting aside the differences between the relatively new HEW-784 and the decades-old Searchwater, and given the lesser funding spent on CROWSNEST compared to the ASaC Mk7, I’d be asking first what has changed between these UK capabilities.

On Sea King, the radar was the least of it. Much of the work had been done piecemeal since the late 80s, as individual tasks. The real advances were JTIDS/Link 16, the first use of a Ring Laser Gyro with embedded GPS, the new secure comms - the first to encrypt hoppers (a significant upgrade to the obsolescent Merlin HM1 system, which remained at a pre-1985 standard for many years), the first fully integrated Active Noise Reduction, Video Graphic Recorders capable of maintaining 1 pixel resolution (the BBC’s wet dream at the time), with MoD risking a 6-year punt on Moore's Law. Little things, like a new IFF and degaussers. All of this, and the airframe contract, was under way (and some delivered) long before the ‘prime’ radar contract was let, being technical and contractual prerequisites.

And, most impressively, the Man Machine Interface, designed from scratch by an RN Lieutenant at Boscombe Down; who also designed and built the twin consoles and ran it on Windows 95. An astonishing feat.

What the ASaC didn’t get, because the RN didn’t ask for it, was a self-protection suite. The old Orange Crap ESM remained, although upgraded to make it actually work; whereas Merlin had Orange Reaper. One of very few areas where Merlin led. ASaC was later upgraded though.

So, first question, was Merlin upgraded to at least match this? You can fit the best radar you can find, but it’s more or less useless without the other stuff.

[hoodie]

And, most impressively, the Man Machine Interface, designed from scratch by an RN Lieutenant at Boscombe Down; who also designed and built the twin consoles and ran it on Windows 95. An astonishing feat.
IIRC, he was rightly recognised in a subsequent Honours List for that.

[Just This Once...]

CROWSNEST is only at Initial Operating Capability, so a bit of an unfair question!


To be fair CROWSNEST is also approaching OSD, so will soon suffer the usual slicing away of funding in the final 5 years before 2030.

[Davef68]

In terms of capability, how does the Italian Navy AEW EH101 with the Eliradar HEW-784 compare to the Crowsnest?


Answering my own question. 'Not very well' seems to be the answer!
Italy’s navy is to boost its operational fleet of Leonardo Helicopters AW101 rotorcraft by removing the airborne early warning (AEW) system equipment installed on four stored examples.

“We are going to get rid of this configuration because it has not been very successful,” a source said at Defence IQ’s International Military Helicopter conference in London on 28 February. “Basically we have had four prototypes, which are not performing.”

The rotorcraft will have their current AEW radar installation and mission equipment removed, and undergo conversion to the navy’s amphibious support configuration of the three-engined type.


https://www.flightglobal.com/defence/italy-to-convert-stored-aew-roled-aw101s-to-amphibious-support-configuration/157182

[SLXOwft]

Some other interesting snippets in the article

101 OSD 2045!

The conversion work will be performed during a forthcoming mid-life upgrade activity on the fleet, which will enable the type to remain in operational use until 2045.

Italy also looking at the UAV route

Rome’s permanent removal of its AEW-adapted AW101s – fielded from 2012 – will leave its lone aircraft carrier, Cavour, without such an embarked capability. Instead, the navy hopes that future investment in unmanned air vehicle (UAV) technologies will enable it to re-establish the role.

The service expects in the coming weeks to begin operating the Insitu Scan Eagle UAV from its frigates. Leonardo Helicopters’ AWHero vertical take-off and landing UAV also will be introduced during 2025, with the lightweight type to carry a maritime search radar.

Marina Militare is looking at Tiltrotors

Meanwhile, the same source indicates that the navy hopes to later this year conduct a first embarked trial with Leonardo Helicopters’ AW609 civil tiltrotor aboard Cavour. This will support its exploration of a future intra-theatre lift requirement.