CROWSNEST
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...
|
It's an embarrassment .....
...
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=Cro...=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 It's way out of date and way out of control.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... |
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.
|
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
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'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?
|
Originally Posted by XL189
(Post 10894302)
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?
|
|
Originally Posted by XL189
(Post 10894302)
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?
|
Damn Chevron, you beat me to it.
|
Originally Posted by XL189
(Post 10894302)
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?
|
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.... |
Originally Posted by chevvron
(Post 11059155)
The radar in the Shakleton AEW2 was re-purposed from the Gannet which in turn was re-purposed from the Skyraider.
|
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. 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. 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. 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.:E 3.5 Clarification of what we don’t want For this competition we are not interested in proposals that:
|
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 |
"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 |
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11501426)
"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 |
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.
|
Originally Posted by Asturias56
(Post 11501426)
"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 |
True - at least it has finally turned up - but was you say - like everything else in tiny numbers -
|
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crow...-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 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 (DASA) is pleased to launch the 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: “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.”…… |
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.