Project Crowsnest (RN)

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

SW1 wrote:It’s the OSD for the entire Merlin fleet at present
Which is just a programmatic date based on a submitted and approved business case. It will of course be inevitably moved right once someone does the new case...

SW1
Senior Member
Posts: 2686
Joined: 27 Aug 2018, 19:12
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by SW1 »

Timmymagic wrote:
SW1 wrote:It’s the OSD for the entire Merlin fleet at present
Which is just a programmatic date based on a submitted and approved business case. It will of course be inevitably moved right once someone does the new case...
And ponies up the cash to extend it

User avatar
ETH
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 08 Apr 2021, 23:28
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by ETH »

Interestingly it also requires operation from ‘littoral strike groups’ which, to my understanding, don’t necessarily have a carrier as part of the group. So does this mean limited to VTOL only?


Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jake1992 »

Said it before and I’ll say it again why not go for this with all the different roles it can be used for it could give a better AEW and a reaper style capability to the carriers.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ft-system/

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Yep the Royal Navy should join up with that programme as soon as possible, and have it also built in the UK, not just for the Royal Navy but the Army and Royal Marines, replacing watchkeeper for the former and providing a full spectrum of support facilities for all three branches covering not just the capabilities listed by also logistics, casualty evacuation, CAS and more. We must always try to re invent the wheel in this time of restricted resources. Becoming a partner in the programme would give it additional credibility and possibly allow us to influence it capabilities.

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Jake1992 wrote:Said it before and I’ll say it again why not go for this with all the different roles it can be used for it could give a better AEW and a reaper style capability to the carriers.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ft-system/
V-247 is dead. Killed off when the USMC totally revised their MUX requirement last year.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jake1992 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:Said it before and I’ll say it again why not go for this with all the different roles it can be used for it could give a better AEW and a reaper style capability to the carriers.

https://www.naval-technology.com/projec ... ft-system/
V-247 is dead. Killed off when the USMC totally revised their MUX requirement last year.
It may be dead in terms of the USMC but if the RN are looking at a new unmanned system for AEW then why not go for the V-247 ?

Timmymagic
Donator
Posts: 2300
Joined: 07 May 2015, 23:57
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Timmymagic »

Jake1992 wrote:It may be dead in terms of the USMC but if the RN are looking at a new unmanned system for AEW then why not go for the V-247 ?
Cost of development....it would make buying V-22 look cheap, and we can't afford that.

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Timmymagic wrote:V-247 is dead. Killed off when the USMC totally revised their MUX requirement last year.
Such a shame.

Jake1992
Senior Member
Posts: 1845
Joined: 28 Aug 2016, 22:35
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jake1992 »

Timmymagic wrote:
Jake1992 wrote:It may be dead in terms of the USMC but if the RN are looking at a new unmanned system for AEW then why not go for the V-247 ?
Cost of development....it would make buying V-22 look cheap, and we can't afford that.
But they’re already planning a new unmanned AEW system for the carriers so that will involve cost development arguably more than would be required for V-247 since you’d be starting from a blank piece of paper instead of carrying on from where V-247 has stoped.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Ron5 »


User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jensy »

'Stone the Crowsnest..'



Although never exactly a first class AEW solution, less than nine years in service would make Crowsnest appear a rather wasteful misadventure.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Out of service dates seem to be rather flexible. Why would Crowsnest go out of service before Merlin does?

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jensy »

Ron5 wrote:Out of service dates seem to be rather flexible. Why would Crowsnest go out of service before Merlin does?
Not exactly a perfect comparison, but you could double the expected service life of Crowsnest and still be shorter than Gannet AEW.3.

I thought the whole rationale behind the new medium helicopter project was that Merlin is going to be sticking around for a while yet and a wholesale replacement wasn't going to be seen this side of 2040 (if joint European add another decade).

Suspect from that future concept graphic going around last month that the HM2s are going to be focused solely on ASW for their twilight years as their availability drops.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:Merlin is going to be sticking around for a while yet and a wholesale replacement wasn't going to be seen this side of 2040 (if joint European add another decade).

Suspect from that future concept graphic going around last month that the HM2s are going to be focused solely on ASW for their twilight years as their availability drops.
That is roughly it: the ASW is so bloody expensive , so better keep it around
... whereas the AEW was made mobular from get-go
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jensy »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... whereas the AEW was made mobular from get-go
Not 'modular' enough in my opinion:

Image

Switching Crowsnest to the HM2 from the HC3/4 fleet (much less buying/converting dedicated AEW platforms), for cheapness and easiness, was what appears to be another MoD classic.

Edit: wanted to put modular in inverted commas.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Jensy wrote:for cheapness and easiness, was what appears to be another MoD classic
I quite fancied the TWO radars, v sleek against each side
... did not win, so: that was that
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by serge750 »

Well if the QEC are getting small cats n traps then a fixed wing unmanned aew should be on the cards mid to late 2020's, which could be a better solution than rotary,

But if needed they could always use the merlin Crowsnest on frigates etc

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 6315
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Ron5 »

Jensy wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote: ... whereas the AEW was made mobular from get-go
Not modular enough in my opinion:
Image

Switching Crowsnest to the HM2 from the HC3/4 fleet (much less buying/converting dedicated AEW platforms), for cheapness and easiness, was what appears to be another MoD classic.
Yeaah but Crowsnest is built on top of the ASW systems which aren't present in the junglies. Like power supplies and 'puters.

In other words it might be mobular(sic), whatever modular means in this context**, but it's not self contained.

** I suppose because it's made up of modules. But modular usually has a broader meaning that modules are built to some standard that makes them interchangeable with other modules e.g. STANFLEX.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 15912
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Ron5 wrote: built to some standard that makes them interchangeable with other modules e.g. STANFLEX.
Ahh, your pet hate (until LCS 'bettered' on it)?
Ron5 wrote:Crowsnest is built on top of the ASW systems which aren't present in the junglies. Like power supplies and 'puters.

In other words it might be mobular(sic), whatever modular means in this context**, but it's not self contained.
Troop transports cost well under a half of these more 'nuanced' ones ... folks don't seem like me calling them flying frigates (but, with the hangar thrown in, putting one on a T23 upped the unit price by 54%
... so, a fair deal: a half frigate :D , each and every one?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Lord Jim
Senior Member
Posts: 6241
Joined: 10 Dec 2015, 02:15
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Lord Jim »

Having all the Merlin HM2s including those currently earmarked for CROWSNEST allocated to ASW would be a good move. It is one of the most capable ASW assets in the world, a comparison with its main western competitor the MH-60R Seahawk would be interesting. Buying half a dozen Merlin HM4s before the line closes and use the for permanent conversion to AEW using the radar from CROWSNEST , and new consoles etc. and arranged like the pictures above would be a way to provide AEW&C cover for the life of the Merlin Fleet. WE could also add a few dumbed down HM4s to provide COD for the Carriers and future MRSS.

Alternatively we could use existing HM4s and marinise twelve or so Chinooks to allow them to be operated form Ships routinely, actually increasing the vertical lift available to the Royal Marines.

User avatar
Jensy
Member
Posts: 551
Joined: 05 Aug 2016, 19:44
United Kingdom

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Jensy »

Have also posted relevant sections to the main AW101 thread.

From Flight Global:
https://www.flightglobal.com/helicopter ... 23.article
The Crowsnest system, with radars and mission systems supplied by Thales, is still set to retire in 2029, however, just six years after full operational capability is scheduled.

MoD plans currently call for the Crowsnest AEW capability to in future be provided by unmanned aircraft. However, the ministry is also researching potential alternatives though a contest led by the Defence and Security Accelerator.

serge750
Member
Posts: 823
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:34

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by serge750 »

Was that the plan all along ? temporary conversion of a few merlin to crowsnest then a unmanned solution ASAP then revert back to ASW when UAV in service?

User avatar
Pseudo
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 21:37
Tuvalu

Re: Project Crowsnest (RN)

Post by Pseudo »

serge750 wrote:Was that the plan all along ? temporary conversion of a few merlin to crowsnest then a unmanned solution ASAP then revert back to ASW when UAV in service?
If it wasn't the plan all along I'm pretty sure that everyone will be saying that it was now.;)

Post Reply