CROWSNEST
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…
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…
The following users liked this post:
"Current plans are to replace Crowsnest fitted Merlins with an uncrewed air platform… However, a notice issued by the Ministry of Defenceis asking for viable alternatives."
ready , purchased and in service in less than 5 years?? It really is unbelievable.....................
ready , purchased and in service in less than 5 years?? It really is unbelievable.....................
The following 2 users liked this post by Asturias56:
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?
The following 3 users liked this post by tucumseh:
The rationale is perfectly logical
...
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Given that the choice of radar for Crowsnest arguably put it out of date even before IOC - expecting it to be still viable after 2030 would be hard to spin, even for MoD.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.
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.
...
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.
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.
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.
The following 3 users liked this post by tucumseh:
Could use a couple of these flown from the radar pickets
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether...t_Radar_System
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...4011277%29.jpg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tether...t_Radar_System
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...4011277%29.jpg
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.
IIRC, he was rightly recognised in a subsequent Honours List for that.
The following 2 users liked this post by hoodie:
The following 2 users liked this post by Just This Once...:
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.
“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...uration/157182
Some other interesting snippets in the article
101 OSD 2045!
Italy also looking at the UAV route
Marina Militare is looking at Tiltrotors
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.
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.
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.
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.
