UK Defence Forum

Pseudo wrote:

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.

Oh without a doubt.

"Interim capability, blah, waiting for the next generation, blah, sustaining Britain's world class helicopter industry... blah, blah..."

Sometimes wonder how much longer we could have kept the ASaC Sea Kings running. Still more than a few foreign operators of the type and would have saved the not inconsiderable cost of upgrading the entire Merlin HM2 fleet.

jonas wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 14:36 https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-04/29912

To be read as, we've no idea.

topman wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 19:12

jonas wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 14:36 https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-04/29912

To be read as, we've no idea.

Can't the MPs (those that are interested at all) pair up, and ask "what did that mean" as a follow-on question?
- there is the Committee... but as soon as Rory got to be the Chair and actually ask questions, he was "promoted" to a minister (of some sort)

lol don't bother answering the question you was asked

topman wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 19:12

jonas wrote: ↑12 Jul 2022, 14:36 https://questions-statements.parliament ... 7-04/29912

To be read as, we've no idea.

Crowsnest is still a shit show, CSG21 kits hardly worked and it's only in the past few months on PoW that they've gotten some software functionality. It's taken years to get to the same Sea King capability we had a decade ago. All for an OSD of 2029.

Folks may remember how the winner for the bidding was announced - only to be reopened after a v short time
- so the buyer knew that something was 'amiss' but still went ahead

I sure we were spending money on this back in 2014 time to try and de-risk the project and didn't we base it on what came before to try and keep things as simple of they could be?

well if decided it was short term plaster osd2029, they probably reluctant to spend money on it, if the bell won it would of more likely drained more money from the pot, perhaps they should of soldiered on with the seakingASAC until 2029......hindsights a bitch

Crowsnest OSD 2029 !!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crowsne ... vice-2029/

WTH ! willing to bet it will be extended

jonas wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 14:02 Crowsnest OSD 2029 !!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crowsne ... vice-2029/

OSD will be moved to the right. Obvs.

I think the RN is expecting/hoping that the grown up Mojave (Sea Guardian?) will be able to provide the eventual follow on. It would need a CEC quality network which would allow radar returns to be shared across the fleet.

jonas wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 14:02 Crowsnest OSD 2029 !!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crowsne ... vice-2029/

OMFG

abc123 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 16:21

jonas wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 14:02 Crowsnest OSD 2029 !!

https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/crowsne ... vice-2029/

OMFG

It has been so for a few years, this is nothing new.

Ron5 wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 14:27 I think the RN is expecting/hoping that the grown up Mojave (Sea Guardian?) will be able to provide the eventual follow on.

In which case the LRG will need to be able to launch/recover a MALE STOL drone without a CVF present.

In case of interest - the GA-ASI MQ-9B UAEW&C proposal - single facing pod on each side and a processing pod on the centreline. Also has some good stuff on the MPA proposal. And also makes it clear the Mojave on QEC was a demo for the full proposal of putting the STOL kit on carriers.

Would be pretty amazing if you put 6-8 on the carriers and could have an 80% MPA and AEW on orbit 24/7. With a few merlins for dipping and prosecution, would really be first class ASW.

Is amazing what you can find with Google!

https://cdn.asp.events/CLIENT_Defence__ ... tomics.pdf

Garlath wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 20:06

Is amazing what you can find with Google!

how did you find this, genuinly.
You just hit two treasure troves.

new guy wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 22:05

Garlath wrote: ↑13 Feb 2024, 20:06

Is amazing what you can find with Google!

how did you find this, genuinly.
You just hit two treasure troves.

Saw the slide on the are proposal on a news site, wanted to see the rest of the preso, use enough specific terms ("site: " and "type:.pdf" are your friend)... Bob's your uncle.

There's a few other good ones there if anyone has the time to look through.

On this though, seriously imagine how useful 2-3 task lines that can put up an mpa, aew, and isr/sigint orbit each would be. AEW not as good as an E3, but UAVs make it genuinely 24/7. The persistence of the MPA really would make it world beating.

On the AEW side, that size of antenna can probably get you under a degree of beamwidth in X band (suspect power reqs for a proper aew x band system would be too high for mq9b), and 2.5ish degrees in s band + perfectly fine if not 'super amazing'.

And this is an awful lot more 'real' than the vixen proposal which will probably need £Bs and a decade to design and develop properly.

Vixen: https://cdn.asp.events/CLIENT_Defence__ ... l-Navy.pdf

More on this at:

https://euro-sd.com/2023/11/articles/34 ... solutions/