Home
RSS Feed
Categories: Analysis and Proposal
Tags: Royal Navy
The venerable Sea King ASac Mk7′s have been in the news quite a bit recently, especially given their significant contribution to operations in Afghanistan but the Crows Nest project which seeks to define a replacement has yet to step out into much of the public eye, it being officially a ‘non programme’ at the moment.
Given the Sea King Out of Service Date is 2016 there is a degree of urgency although given that we are currently enjoying a naval fixed wing aviation ‘capability holiday’ some might say given the rapidly maturing Type 45 and UAV technologies, coupled with a gap between 2016 and the introduction of carrier strike in the 2020′s there is less of a rush.
It surely would not be in any way ideal to expose the joint force to yet another gap in capabilities, especially given the excellent service that the Mk7′s have given.
A number of proposals have emerged, including buying a number E2′s and operating them as an enlarged joint fleet, replacing the E3 Sentry in due course, operating a joint UK/French E2 force, transferring the Mk7 equipment into a V22 and transfering the same equipment into a Merlin. Others have seen the Merlinn HM.1 airframes that are not included in the HM.2 upgrade programme as ideal candidates for this transfer but the proposal drawings seen so require a rear ramp, something the HM.1 does not have.
Lockheed Martin Integrated Systems have recently proposed another route, namely using the new HM.2 airframes and fitting them as needed with a modular radar pod called the Vigilance Pod.
LM Vigilance PodLM Vigilance Pod
The Vigilance Pod contains a Northrop Grumman AN/APG 81
Aviation International reported;
The sensor pod can be mounted on a hardpoint or a rigid frame and contains the radar antenna, processor and power supply, an IFF interrogator, GPS/INS, ESM sensors and its own cooling system. Two of them carried on either side of the platform can provide 360-degree coverage.
Up to four associated operator consoles are fitted inside the platform, running a tactical mission system that Lockheed Martin UK has already developed for the UK Royal Navy Merlin Mk2 helicopter. A system interface panel on the console connects to platform avionics, although Vigilance can be operated in an entirely self-contained mode. Thanks to the capability and flexibility of the fourth-generation active electronically scanned array (AESA), missions can include airborne early warning and control, anti-surface warfare, battlefield surveillance and search-and-rescue.
Lockheed Martin UK officials said that Vigilance is a company-funded initiative derived from a 2009-10 study of how the Merlin helicopter could be adapted to replace the Royal Navy’s aging Sea King airborne surveillance and control helicopters. The UK Ministry of Defence has yet to proceed with this requirement, but in the meantime Lockheed Martin has teamed with Northrop Grumman and developed a prototype Vigilance pod that has already been ground-tested at Northrop Grumman’s Baltimore facility. Flight tests will take place in the UK early next year on a helicopter
Where have we seen the APG81 before?
Of course, it’s the same system as fitted to the F35, which would of course makes for an interesting discussion on commonality, integration within the same battlespace, data linking and utilsing other aircraft.
With relentless pressure on MoD budgets and the obvious need to do more with less I wonder if this option has a very good chance of adoption. Training and airframe availability of course mean that it is far from ideal but that is not quite the point, it might be good enough and at an overall price that is affordable.
With newer surface radars and possible future unmanned systems (land or sea launched) this might be a reasonable way of delivering capability without taking much needed resource from other areas.
Seems like a very sensible solution
26 Responses
Del.icio.us
Digg
Technorati
Magnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
Interesting – so presumably this could receive the software upgrades touted for the F35 to include network attack and other interesting EW capabilities?
It is very sexy and promising kit.
But i really think that, if this is the way chosen to fill the requirement, the option for 8 more HM1 to HM2 conversions should be exercised with an economic effort.
Said upgraded HM1s would specifically get the software and console upgrade for the AEW role, and get the Vigilance pods.
Asking to the already small fleet of HM2s to take on yet another role is not going to work too well.
Enjoyed the video of the APG-81, looks like a nice bit of kit. Well if lockheed are developing this as a private venture at the moment, good luck to them. If the requirement is for six to eight Helicopters for the RN will it be more cost effective than fitting the existing radars to the merlin, somehow I doubt it.
This is a piece from around DSEI http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/dsei-thales-outlines-sea-king-7-replacement-proposal-362116/
People within industry dont expect a decision prior to 2015 on this capability though that may change now libya is over
Welcome to TD Robert
I actually like the concept of this on reflection, it is a capability that in reality we don’t actualy use that often (Watchkeeper and whatever comes after Predator will be providing the SAR/GMTI imagery) and it should provide a capability without tieing up valuable airframes
Plus, I would add, is 30 HM.2′s and roughy the same number of Wildcat OK for a future RN comprising 6 Type 45, 1x CVF, 1x Albion/Bulwark and (being pragmatic) 8 to 10 Type 26?
How about slapping a pair on an A400 or Shadow R1, some interesting options I think
- Upgrade for Sentinel?
- Commonality potential if we stick this on future Typhoons?
- How much to put one on Lynx Wildcat and make it a battlefield survelliance asset?
I like this a lot, interesting to see what it weighs and costs.
HM2 already has a very capable mechanically swept AESA optimised for surface search, so add port and starboard pods and you a veritable flying Fylingdales!
However I wonder what two pods, say two consoles and two operators would do for cruising altitude, range and endurance?
I agree if we went down this route to fulfill the maritime AEW requirement it should be on remaining HM1′s upgraded to HM2 standard but without the sonar and acoustic processor etc
Off course being podded you get the flexibility tto hang it on fully ASW equipped HM2′s or HC3′s or Wildcats or a VTOL UAV of appropriate size -all in all quite nifty
LM’s pods do look a friendlier fit to a range of aircraft than the other option. Which could be handy if it’s decided once the carriers are in service that Merlin performance isn’t sufficient.
I doubt that it would find itself on a little Lynx though, fitting a single pod and a single non-standard operator console. Probably wouldn’t be worthwhile trying to put it in anything smaller than a medium helicopter.
It would be interesting to see the capability comparison between the new and old systems. And I wonder how much future potential Thales’ system will have by 2016, already a decade since the midlife upgrade of Cerberus.
Pods weight 280kg each and the apg81 will not be put on typhoon it will have a european aesa radar.
@ Mark
That European AESA isn’t in the bag yet. That’s why I’m eyeing up potential replacements.
Chrisb first link is older but gives the overview. Typhoon aesa will be different in its a/c fixing than the apg81. If it were to be install the a/c would need a mod and would come with us itar constraints when selling it overseas.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2010/02/22/AW_02_22_2010_p28-205565.xml
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Eurofighters-EUR-9B-Miltinational-Tranche-3A-Contract-05674/
The ability to interface directly with the f35C providing it with targeting etc would be a massive plus, and if some of the APG 81′s other modes could be utilised ie. Jamming, it would make a very useful system.
@ Mark,
There’s nothing there that really stops an APG/81 mod being made for Typhoon.
No it was a history of we’re typhoon and aesa radar is. The front end of typhoon would need redesigned for apg81. You then have a marketing problem on typhoon. If you use a us radar it will be subject to itar regulations and it’s worth pointing out the countries euro fighter is in the running for winning the us won’t at this time offer f35 and apg81 to and they want an aesa radar on typhoon. So your developing one anyway it seems only logical to use it on the platform it’s designed for does it not instead of paying twice.
Redesigning the nose of Typhoon would depend on how big the radars are. If the APG/81 is bigger than it might take some redesigning, if smaller then it’s not so much of an issue.
As for regulations, we’d be restricted by these anyway with the F-35. And I don’t see where the paying twice comes in. You’d be putting the same radar into both front line aircraft.
Chrisb
It’s not it’s size it’s the way it attaches to the bulkhead at the front of typhoon the aesa being designed for typhoon will do it completely differently.
For typhoon to sell overseas it will require an aesa radar. If you are using the apg81 you are introduction major itar restriction on typhoon which currently doesn’t have any such restrictions we don’t sell f35. Therefore euro fighter will have to design a aesa radar anyway and we will pay our chunk if we want more typhoons to sell so were paying even for a radar we won’t use and a uk only mod for the a/c to take the us radar. It will not happen
mark,
our chunk? Isn’t UK leading the AESA push, ie. is our chunk more than the normal share?
Paying twice – easy.
Current radar
AESA front-end working with the current backend
True aesa
and then ChrisB’s American one
Planes can’t come off the assembly line without a radar, and all the ones that have been built before 2013/ 2015 will need an upgrade
Sorry about the messy posting, the edit window that has always been working fine does not load (for me, at least) anymore?
Interesting piece of kit but I still think in the long term going for a Joint RAF – RN force comprising E2D is the best option. As per government assumptions any future operation will be NATO lead and using a force already operated by the only other two NATO members with AWAC’s capability must surely help in facilitating this. With small numbers and a tight budget we really have to make sure that most of our air capability can launch from the land or sea as required.
Must be a great radar – it even has its own Facebook page…seriously!!
https://www.facebook.com/pages/ANAPG-81/137088762980784
@ SR
That’s just brilliant. A radar that has its own Facebook page. Someone’s marketing department is pulling every string it can to get orders.
More likely to be some internet fans.
There are also facebook pages for F35, F22, Typhoon etc.
There’s even one for ISO containers.
“There’s even one for ISO containers”
yeah it’s called think defence
Very interesting however fitting it to another Lockheed product the S-3 Viking may be a better choice. There are several USN retired airframes around which still have plenty of life left in them. Which gives the advantage of the better performance of a fixed wing over helicopter platform.
Extra Vikings could be even be purchased to fill the problem AAR role for the carriers. A common airframe filling two roles for a relatively cheap price.
Jim
Lockheed, paid for by USN, undertook a fatigue study programme which proved that the Viking has plenty of airframe flight hours left.
What it does not have is cat and trap cycles, which is a reason why over a hundred (“several”) are in the desert boneyards.
So the Viking is not flying from any carriers again, but I wish someone would fine a good land based role for these magnificent aircraft
Agreed with a 2,000 mile plus range and five hours endurance, could be a mini MPA for the UK. But I can not see a role for them anywhere in the future. Shame.