Future Carrier (Including Costs)
That could be embarrassing..................
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Dundee
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now the thing that is really serious is it is a system that is a FUNDAMENTAL element of force protection that has never been operated under the duress of operational conditions.
To simply say it will be ready 2020 IOC is putting a great number of lives on the line.
Surely the carrier[s] would not sail if this system was not in place and operationally proven.
Marvellous what the threat of imminent action can stimulate.
Think Vulcan and Falklands.
When my Boss CMetO HQSTC phoned to say "The bastards have invaded!" I asked "what can we do about it?" His exact words [expletives deleted] were that "The received wisdom here is: nothing".
I suppose the problem with Crowsnest is an order of magnitude different because the complexity is inherently difficult to speed up.
Think Vulcan and Falklands.
When my Boss CMetO HQSTC phoned to say "The bastards have invaded!" I asked "what can we do about it?" His exact words [expletives deleted] were that "The received wisdom here is: nothing".
I suppose the problem with Crowsnest is an order of magnitude different because the complexity is inherently difficult to speed up.
"Surely the carrier[s] would not sail if this system was not in place and operationally proven."
they'll sail around behind a CVN................
they'll sail around behind a CVN................
If you mean Crowsnest the information above is in the public arena.
But the interpretation of the system - on which you guys are waxing lyrical - is not...
And let the enemy try and work it out for themselves.
And let the enemy try and work it out for themselves.
Last edited by Auxtank; 23rd Jan 2020 at 07:11.
What interpretation of the system Aux? I can't see a single technical or operational detail in the posts since ORAC posted the news - just a resigned air that something like this was likely and it might be very embarrassing to the RN.
And if the People's Liberation Army (naval) or the Russian Fleet are reduced to making plans based on PPrune posts I think the UK has already won.................
And if the People's Liberation Army (naval) or the Russian Fleet are reduced to making plans based on PPrune posts I think the UK has already won.................
Welcome to the club!! 
...
Some might argue that this is only an iteration of the previous version, which sadly, failed under the duress of operational conditions, on 22 March 2003 ....
Is this 'little hiccup' an attempt to punish us for not selecting the AESA EL/M-2052 ?
Strikes me these days, if it ain't AESA it ain't gonna win (under the duress of operational conditions.)
LFH
...
Now the thing that is really serious is it is a system that is a FUNDAMENTAL element of force protection that has never been operated under the duress of operational conditions.
Is this 'little hiccup' an attempt to punish us for not selecting the AESA EL/M-2052 ?
Strikes me these days, if it ain't AESA it ain't gonna win (under the duress of operational conditions.)
LFH
...
Flash is refereing to this incident:-
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, two Royal Navy Westland Sea King ASaC7 AEW helicopters, XV650, 'CU-182', and XV704, 'R-186', collide in mid-air five miles (8 km) from their aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal while one had been leaving on a mission as the other returned from the same operation. One American exchange pilot on board, a former E-2C Hawkeye pilot formerly from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron One One Five, was killed.
During the 2003 invasion of Iraq, two Royal Navy Westland Sea King ASaC7 AEW helicopters, XV650, 'CU-182', and XV704, 'R-186', collide in mid-air five miles (8 km) from their aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal while one had been leaving on a mission as the other returned from the same operation. One American exchange pilot on board, a former E-2C Hawkeye pilot formerly from Carrier Airborne Early Warning Squadron One One Five, was killed.
Is this 'little hiccup' an attempt to punish us for not selecting the AESA EL/M-2052 ?
Terry Pratchett‘There are ways - extremely honourable ways - of assuring confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest, my lord,’ said Mr Slant.
‘Ah, this would be . . . what is it now . . . the glass ceiling?’ said Lord Vetinari brightly.
‘No, my lord. That is something else. I believe you may be thinking about the “Agatean Wall”,’ said Mr Slant smoothly. ‘This carefully and successfully ensures that there will be no breach of confidentiality should, for example, one part of an organization come into possession of privileged information which could conceivably be used by another department for unethical gain.’
‘This is fascinating! How does it work, exactly?’ said Vetinari.
‘People agree not to do it,’ said Mr Slant.
‘I’m sorry? I thought you said there is a wall—’ said Vetinari.
‘That’s just a name, my lord. For agreeing not to do it.’
‘Ah? And they do? How wonderful. Even though in this case the invisible wall must pass through the middle of their brains?’
‘We have a Code of Conduct, you know!’ said a voice.
‘Ah, this would be . . . what is it now . . . the glass ceiling?’ said Lord Vetinari brightly.
‘No, my lord. That is something else. I believe you may be thinking about the “Agatean Wall”,’ said Mr Slant smoothly. ‘This carefully and successfully ensures that there will be no breach of confidentiality should, for example, one part of an organization come into possession of privileged information which could conceivably be used by another department for unethical gain.’
‘This is fascinating! How does it work, exactly?’ said Vetinari.
‘People agree not to do it,’ said Mr Slant.
‘I’m sorry? I thought you said there is a wall—’ said Vetinari.
‘That’s just a name, my lord. For agreeing not to do it.’
‘Ah? And they do? How wonderful. Even though in this case the invisible wall must pass through the middle of their brains?’
‘We have a Code of Conduct, you know!’ said a voice.
Who's the Crowsnest Project Manager ?
...
Thanks for that Asturias
This article from 2015, tells much of the sorry story. https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/...nest-decision/
A nice one-liner from the above - "The decision has been made and the often described ‘low-risk, low-cost’ solution has won out"
"CROWSNEST goes back many years, originally starting out as the Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW) in 2001 ....."
A July 2000 parliamentary answer confirmed the particulars;
"We plan to acquire a Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW) system to replace the capability currently provided by Sea King airborne early warning helicopters. FOAEW will operate from the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) and complement the deployment of the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It will mount powerful radar systems to provide wide sensor coverage against both air and surface threats, and command and control for operations by the carrier air group. Expressions of interest for participation in the programme were sought from industry in February 2000. The planned in-service date for FOAEW is 2012."
And this from 2014 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...craft-carriers
"Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers will get helicopter-borne early warning systems 18 months earlier than planned, saving £22 million ......" followed by "... the Defence Secretary has accelerated the Crowsnest airborne surveillance and control programme to ensure it is operational by 2019.
Only in the land of Angst-More-Pork (pace TP) could we spend twenty years paying to rebuild an existing system and end up wondering if it will ever work at all.
'I have absolute confidence in Mr da Quirm's work, and I'm sure he has too.'
'Oh, dear. No, I never bother to have any confidence,' said Leonardo.
I wonder what the Crowsnest Project Manager would say ?
LFH
...
Thanks for that Asturias
This article from 2015, tells much of the sorry story. https://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/...nest-decision/
A nice one-liner from the above - "The decision has been made and the often described ‘low-risk, low-cost’ solution has won out"
"CROWSNEST goes back many years, originally starting out as the Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW) in 2001 ....."
A July 2000 parliamentary answer confirmed the particulars;
"We plan to acquire a Future Organic Airborne Early Warning (FOAEW) system to replace the capability currently provided by Sea King airborne early warning helicopters. FOAEW will operate from the Future Aircraft Carrier (CVF) and complement the deployment of the Future Carrier Borne Aircraft (FCBA). It will mount powerful radar systems to provide wide sensor coverage against both air and surface threats, and command and control for operations by the carrier air group. Expressions of interest for participation in the programme were sought from industry in February 2000. The planned in-service date for FOAEW is 2012."
And this from 2014 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/n...craft-carriers
"Queen Elizabeth Class aircraft carriers will get helicopter-borne early warning systems 18 months earlier than planned, saving £22 million ......" followed by "... the Defence Secretary has accelerated the Crowsnest airborne surveillance and control programme to ensure it is operational by 2019.
Only in the land of Angst-More-Pork (pace TP) could we spend twenty years paying to rebuild an existing system and end up wondering if it will ever work at all.
'I have absolute confidence in Mr da Quirm's work, and I'm sure he has too.'
'Oh, dear. No, I never bother to have any confidence,' said Leonardo.
I wonder what the Crowsnest Project Manager would say ?
LFH
...
https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/de...rriers-1369551
Crowsnest, the most advanced aerial early warning sensor ever built for the Senior Service, is reportedly ‘too sensitive to use’.
A high-ranking naval officer told The News delays were a worry and warned of a ‘reluctance’ within industry to seek ‘independent help’ when issues arose. ’[/color]
Crowsnest, the most advanced aerial early warning sensor ever built for the Senior Service, is reportedly ‘too sensitive to use’.
A high-ranking naval officer told The News delays were a worry and warned of a ‘reluctance’ within industry to seek ‘independent help’ when issues arose. ’[/color]
Auxtank has a point, and not only because a ‘sensitivity’ issue arose on ASaC Mk7, was solved, implementation cancelled by a non-engineer, and then immediately became an issue during trials. (Limited benefit in picking up targets if you can’t identify them. Can't say more in case this is the same problem).
The RN officer is probably aware that much of ASaC Mk7 was designed and delivered by a handful of RN aircrew in their spare time; and companies other than the prime, who often weren't under contract until after the event. Remember, the prime didn’t bid for the ASaC job, they were awarded it by political overrule, and later bought by Thales (who, as Thomson-CSF, had withdrawn in 1994 as it was too difficult). The solution, something never attempted before (like quite a lot in Mk7), was developed by another company, which is what really pi**ed off senior management, as the Minister's chosen company HAD to be seen to succeed.
What really intrigues me is how much attention did Crowsnest pay to ASaC Mk7, given the winning bid in 1994 (before the 1995 overrule, and the RN changing its mind back to Sea King) was.....Merlin. I wonder how close this 'new' solution is to GEC/Ferranti's drawings of the day?
But I wouldn't be too hard on MoD's project manager. If it's manned at the same level as ASaC Mk7, Crowsnest is a minor job to him, among many!
Last edited by tucumseh; 26th Jan 2020 at 07:26.
