Alternative to the Sea King AEW

[Father Maryland]

A tethered balloon / blimp etc. with a radar crossed my mind as well along with tethered auto gyro type devices / small drone helicopters with electric motors etc. I suspect in practice these solutions may have been hard to realize with 1970's vintage technology.

Bi static radar Systems with a simple high power air borne transmitter (that would have a line of sight to the target air craft) and relying on suitable ship born receivers that could likely deal with non line of site progation from the target air craft to the receiver on ship also crossed my mind but such systems may not have been reliable enough in practice.

Edit to add:
-conceviably a system with receivers on satellites combined with high power airborne transmitters might have worked but the price tag would likely have been rather high. I suppose in theory the sattelites might also be able to have an ELINT function as well but that might be pushing the limits of 1970's tech ?

While not carrier capable the USN used AWAC blimps early in the cold war.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-class_blimp

 

[pdf27]

Realistically you're looking at alternative helicopters - any CTOL aircraft operating off a STOVL carrier is a recipe for pain, and Harrier is just too small to make an AWACS. There are a couple of potential alternatives though - the Super Puma for instance might be interesting, and if the Rotodyne had survived a Sea King sized derivative would be a very good option.

 

[Errolwi]

Aren't prop planes and ski ramps ... contra-indicated?

 

[sonofpegasus]

How about a version of this?

The Britten and Norman Islander in AEW Guise. Not ski ramp compatible I think?

Hers is the aircraft looking a little more Naval!

 

[La Rouge Beret]

What about an updated Gannett?

 

[StevoJH]

Fairey Rotodyne depending on when the POD is?

 

[sloreck]

The problem with helicopters and any jets is endurance. With the E1/E2 you were able to get a decent distance away from the carrier and stay there for a long time. While single/twin turboprops do give you endurance, the issue is what sort of radar can you carry, radio equipment for controlling/communications, and crew size. A minimum effective crew is four, pilot, co-pilot, radar operator, and controller. Any less and you basically have a flying radar antenna with command and control via data link back on the carrier - less than optimum. Having said that, a larger helicopter (properly navalized) is what you are stuck with on a ski ramp carrier.

 

[StevoJH]

The problem with helicopters and any jets is endurance. With the E1/E2 you were able to get a decent distance away from the carrier and stay there for a long time. While single/twin turboprops do give you endurance, the issue is what sort of radar can you carry, radio equipment for controlling/communications, and crew size. A minimum effective crew is four, pilot, co-pilot, radar operator, and controller. Any less and you basically have a flying radar antenna with command and control via data link back on the carrier - less than optimum. Having said that, a larger helicopter (properly navalized) is what you are stuck with on a ski ramp carrier.

Right, so what about the Rotodyne assuming that you can sort something out with the height issue? Has similar payload (weight) to a AW101, but should have much longer endurance and be able to reach higher altitude.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairey_Rotodyne

 

[Riain]

The problem with helicopters and any jets is endurance. With the E1/E2 you were able to get a decent distance away from the carrier and stay there for a long time. While single/twin turboprops do give you endurance, the issue is what sort of radar can you carry, radio equipment for controlling/communications, and crew size. A minimum effective crew is four, pilot, co-pilot, radar operator, and controller. Any less and you basically have a flying radar antenna with command and control via data link back on the carrier - less than optimum. Having said that, a larger helicopter (properly navalized) is what you are stuck with on a ski ramp carrier.

Unless the crew can work in a shirtsleeves environment with access to a toilet endurance is limited by crew bladder capacity.

A RAN bloke told me that the Tracker could fly for 8 hours but the crew was knackered in 6. Similarly the Gannet AEW3 endurance was about 5-6 hours and Sea King AEW2 about 4 hours, which is about as long as you'd want to be strapped into a seat in an immersion suit anyway.

 

[Cryhavoc101]

How about a tethered Blimp mounted radar - obviously would give away the fleets position as it is tethered to a ship but.....gives the AEW required!

 

[Blue cat]

How about a tethered Blimp mounted radar - obviously would give away the fleets position as it is tethered to a ship but.....gives the AEW required!

I'm thinking with 1970's tech, the blimp would possibly be large enough to require a dedicated ship to tether and sustain it.

 

[cpip]

Chinook was not really navilised, when operating in a maritime environment they needed regular cleaning with fresh water and corrosion control was a bit of a nightmare, they have a lot of magnesium alloy in the airframe which does not mix well with salt water.

I wonder why they didn't consider the Sea Knight instead, in that case.

 

[Crowbar Six]

Bigger than the Sea King and not already in the inventory, it would have added a lot of cost to the project and it had been out of production since 1971. You would need the US NAVY and Marines to give up a half dozen airframes at a time when they needed all the ones they had.