Monday, April 14, 2025

UK Airborne Early Warning

Despite glowing claims by some UK carrier fanboys, the UK’s carriers are not, and have never been, capable of meaningful roles in high end combat scenarios due to the lack of Airborne Early Warning (AEW), tankers, and electronic warfare (EW) aircraft.  The small size of the air wings (even after surging – a dubious concept) and the fact that the aircraft are the ‘B’ models of the F-35 further diminish the combat capabilities.
 
Now, though, the UK is beginning to explore the possibility of enhancing their carrier AEW capabilities.
 
The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) has issued a Request for Information (RFI) notice seeking feedback on the solutions offered by the manufacturers to replace the airborne early warning (AEW) systems currently operated by the Royal Navy to protect its carrier strike groups (CSG).
 
The new systems would replace those currently operating from the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers, and would have significantly enhanced capabilities. Indeed, the MoD is looking for a system capable of operating from the carriers and providing “persistent 24 hours surveillance” with significant detection capabilities to spot both surface and airborne threats, including anti-ship missiles.
 
Currently, the Royal Navy operates Merlin helicopters fitted with the Crowsnest radar as an airborne surveillance system. However, this system should be decommissioned at the end of the decade, despite entering service in 2021.[1]


Merlin AEW Helicopter

While this is a nice step in the right general direction, no one should be under the impression that this will solve the UK’s AEW problem.  There will still remain two severe, unsolvable problems:
 
1. Lacking catapults and arresting gear, the UK’s carriers are constrained to operating helos in the AEW role which means that the size of any radar and operator station is severely limited.  Further, helos have significant altitude limits.  The Merlin, for example, has a service ceiling of 15,000 ft as opposed to the US E-2 Hawkeye which has a ceiling of 35,000 ft.
 
2. AEW, as practiced by the UK, is only half of what is needed.  US AEW E-2 aircraft are not just early warning aircraft, they are battle management assets.  The operators direct the air battle and it is this function that is as important or more so than the early warning function.
 
US Navy E-2 Hawkeye


E-2 cabin for a crew of five

 
 
Conclusion
 
The UK’s decision to go with a ski jump carrier instead of a conventional cat/trap approach consigned its carriers to lower end combat roles due to the inability to operate the crucial AEW, EW, and tanker support aircraft.  A new, better AEW helo radar system would be nice but won’t significantly alter the limited reality of the UK’s carrier capabilities.  Those who would advocate using the UK carriers as models for the US Navy are failing to recognize the requirements for high end aerial combat.

 
 
________________________________
 
[1]Naval News website, “Royal Navy seeks new airborne early warning capability for its carrier strike groups”, Martin Manaranche, 12-Apr-2025,
https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2025/04/royal-navy-seeks-new-airborne-early-warning-capability-for-its-carrier-strike-groups/

22 comments:

  1. Presumably what's being hung off the helicopter can't be reshaped and placed in pods in one or more F-35 underwing positions? Particularly since there isn't anyone doing battle management on the aircraft? Seems like a project to consider that could be valuable in lots of situations.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuffed into a fuel tank or missile size pod, the resulting radar would be very small - smaller and presumably less effective than the aircraft's own radar!

      Delete
  2. The Royal Navy doesn’t try to (nor currently needs to) match the USN’s standalone capabilities, instead it supports and acts with allies. However if Trump’s abandonment of historical alliances proves permanent the Royal Navy’s role must change, and it providing the Europeans with Naval AEW does seem one logical task for them.

    Helo-based AEW will always be limited though Crowsnest’s 5h endurance vs E-2’s 6h isn’t too bad. The 15,000ft ceiling does however limit it to a 150 mile range Vs E-2’s 229 miles.

    First thought would be resurrecting the EV-22 project (AEW Osprey). But the unprecedented 24h endurance requirement suggests something more like an MQ-9 Reaper-like platform. As it happens a UK Carrier-compatible STOL kit for that is already available https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/naval-reaper-upgrade-will-let-reaper-drones-fly-carriers-202372

    Presumably the Battle Management aspect would be done aboard ship or offloaded onto their E-7 Wedgetails (in-service later this year).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "providing the Europeans with Naval AEW does seem one logical task for them."

      Not really. If you're talking about supporting European forces then, presumably, this would be done relatively near European shores in which case land based air support would be a much more effective way to go.

      If you're talking beyond European land based air range then you're talking global and, in that case, you either need full fledged support aircraft or you need to be extremely careful about limiting your involvement to threat scenarios within your limited capability.

      "Battle Management aspect would be done aboard ship"

      Not likely. That would require constant communication broadcasts from the ship and that's a highly undesirable thing to do in combat.

      Delete
    2. The British have three Wedgetails on order with the possibility of buying two more. That is not a lot to work with, especially in any kind of sustained operation.

      Then again, the British military is fast becoming a token force. Their regular forces total about 180,000 strong, with about 75,000 in the Army. The Royal Navy (6 destroyers and 8 frigates) can barely support their 2 carriers. The Brits currently operate 35 F-35Bs and are giddy over deploying 24 of them on PoW later this year. They just sold Albion and Bulwark to Brazil and have whittled down the Royal Marines to about 6,500 personnel. It wasn't that long ago that the British military was a force to be reckoned with.

      Delete
    3. Can the Merlin AEWs be refueled in mid-air like the latest version of the E-2 can? Will the UK deploy the 1 of 3 Wedgetail to a foreign destination to operate if one of the carriers is not in UK waters? Oh and because there are only 3 that means no 24 hr coverage.

      Delete
    4. Merlin can't be air refueled, and even if it could, the UK has no carrier-based tanker to refuel Merlin.

      The AEW V-22 makes the most sense for the UK and really is a concept that should be revived, but HM Treasury will kill it in the name of year to year cost savings, unless they can make it a joint UK-Italy-Japan project like Tempest. The Italian and Japanese navies would indeed benefit from having carrier AEW, although I suppose Japan feels they can make do with land based AEW support.

      Delete
  3. The Royal Navy lacks funding for full carrier groups, and really doesn't need them. It can operate from friendly shore bases, so focus funds on more aircraft and expeditionary airfields for sea control missions in the North Sea, Med, and Persian Gulf. Long-range is possible with the E-7s, and P-8s, 737 variants that can carry 35 cruise missiles, and tankers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jumped up airliners are useless in a real war especially with so few fighters availble for escort.

      Delete
    2. The E-7s have much longer range radar than fighters so can stay clear.

      Delete
    3. The Brits operate 9 Poseidons, some of which are used to support their Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD) mission.
      That leaves little excess capacity for other missions, especially oversea operations.

      Delete
    4. There are a lot more very long range A/A missiles now. The R-37, AIM-260 & -174B, PL-21. Data link fighters so they share radar tracks, zoom in, fire, dead E-7.

      Delete
    5. Nobody has ever thought that E-7s might be vulnerable and create plans for their defense...

      Delete
    6. Meh, most weren't making E-8 anyway.

      Lutefisk

      Delete
  4. Do you think the Marines would have a use for these ships? Possibly under some sort of lease arrangement?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Off topic but maybe a future post. The Navy needs more manpower to crew ships. The Marines seek naval missions and have lots of manpower. Guess whose mission statement is comes from:

    "Maritime Expeditionary Security Forces (MESF) operates ashore, at sea and in the waters of harbors, rivers, bays and across the littorals. The primary focus of MESF is to conduct maritime security operations across all phases of military operations by providing port and harbor security, and high value asset security inland, on coastal waterways and ashore."

    https://www.necc.usff.navy.mil/mesf/

    These two new Navy units appeared during the war on terror after Marine Generals told the Navy they want to play big Army in Iraq and Afghanistan so had no troops. Now they war seeking roles and this is perfect while freeing a thousand or so sailors for ships.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the Navy needs more manpower to man ships, they just need to eliminate unnecessary shore billets and then transfer those people to sea. The most recent numbers I've seen indicted that Navy had around 140,000 sea billets and a total of 340,000 personnel. That means that 200,000 personnel (59% !) are shore based. That's absurd! The Navy has more than enough people to fully man all ships. They just need to reallocate what they have.

      See, At Sea Billet Gaps

      Delete
    2. Those units are shore based so are what you refer to.

      Delete
  6. Back in the 1960's the Royal Navy had the chance of getting 2 modern catapult carriers in the CVA-01 program. To be named HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Duke of York. Think if even just one had been available in the Falklands with 18 Phantoms, 18 Buccaneers, and Gannet AEW (bet replaced by E-2s) instead of ski jumpers and Sea Harriers. Which did a great job but had a lot of limitations. In the 80s the Phantoms might have been replaced with F-18s.

    ReplyDelete
  7. China's first two carriers have similar issue thus it built type 003 so it can launch KJ-600:

    https://inf.news/en/military/fc641ef87ec0b7b834f65e19444bd369.html

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's ironic that they don't have catapults; it was the Royal Navy that developed the steam catapult in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As well as the angled flight deck, mirror landing system and the ski jump.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.