Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Ron5]

Couple of question I have - 1 hasn’t the dragon fire system been shown to be able to be fitted to a phalanx unit ? If so wouldn’t keeping the phalanx system be better.

One consortium in the competition that was won by Dragonfire, proposed a Phalanx based system with the gun mount and tracking mechanism reused for the laser. But they lost. Dragonfire has no relationship to Phalanx and wouldn't be reusing Phalanx mountings.

Physically Dragonfire being used in trials is in the same ball park as Phalanx regarding size, but a production weapon would undoubtedly be a lot larger to handle the extra power required.

2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM

Me too and no answer. I'm pretty sure that it's a no. It would be quad pack because the ER container has the same cross section but obviously is a lot longer, probably too long for ExLs. Mind you, how hard would it to lengthen ExLs? It's mostly steel girders.

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

I have a feeling when it comes to CAMM-ER and ExLS it’s going to be a chicken or the egg situation in that which one will push the development the sale of CAMM-ER or the increased use of ExLS. It only makes sence to me as CAMM and CAMM-ER together make a real competitor to RAM and ESSM but only if they can be densely packed anywhere on the ship.

I agree 100%.

[Caribbean]

80% would be the probability of one defending missile hitting the incoming missile. Fire two missiles and the probability becomes 96%. Fire three and it becomes 99.2%.

If you look at it from the other end of the equation, if you have 3 layers of defence, each taking one shot, with an 80% chance of intercept each time, the chance of a missile getting though all three layers is 0.2^3 (i.e. 0.8%). , so an attacker would have to fire, on average, c. 125 missiles to be sure of one getting through (not simultaneously, but in a single engagement). Swarm attacks have a different calculus, as they may overwhelm the targetting capability of the unit under attack, changing the possibility of intercept to 0% for missiles that exceed that limit.

Even if you take a more conservative 60% chance of intercept for each layer, it's still only a 6.4% chance per missile, so 16 missiles to be reasonably confident of one getting through (Lady Luck is still a major factor, of course - we're talking averages here - the one that gets through might be the first one that you fire).

In reality it will be a little more complex, since each defensive layer will have a different chance of intercept and some layers may be able to make more than one shot.

[Ron5]

And you have not factored in the impact of soft kill defenses.

By the way, all of your layers will be able to take multiple shots assuming enough ammo/missiles left.

[Roders96]

I'm not entirely convinced on the quality of ESSM, the only engagement I have memory of had 3-4 of them being fired without success.

ESSM has only been used in combat once (that we know of), when the USS Mason was engaged off Yemen. No-one knows if the attacking missiles crashed into the sea, were decoyed or were destroyed by SM2 or ESSM.

But it is worth noting that there have been an enormous number of ESSM expended in realistic tests over the years, certainly compared to Aster, the countries who operate it don't seem to have an issue with it. The new Block 2 will also have an active RF seeker.

Suspect the incident you're thinking of was HMS Gloucester's Sea Dart shootdown of a Silkworm in 1991. The ESSM didn't enter service until 1998.

You restore my faith in this forum! Actual knowledge! For once!

Hahaha

[Roders96]

There's been a few mentions of putting 15 EXLS silos in the space reserved for the 16 MK41, and similarly replacing the harpoons with the same exls on the Type 45s, in the harpoon's place.

This is all important because it reduces the vulnerability of the main AAW escort to air based saturation attacks.

However, some have said EXLS in the space designed for MK41 would be a waste, as it's designed for strike length cells and EXLS doesn't penetrate that far, importantly - EXLS can't launch the larger missiles this space is designed for. There's also been concern that there isn't space underneath the harpoon mounts for deck penetrating VLS.

So my question: How far does EXLS penetrate? Could the vast majority of the cells be stored above the current deck (in a stepped configuration) similar to Type 26 / 31, where the harpoon launchers currently are?

The current Sylver silos already protrude above the deck, below the bridge level, could EXLS between those and the bridge section protrude even further?

Would leave the nose looking a bit like a staircase I'm sure - but would it fit and would the hull bear the weight? Is EXLS that much heavier than harpoon?

Could put upwards of 120 missiles on the Type45 and drastically change the game. Is it feasible to add both?

This is all parking the space abreast of the main mast for mk57..

[NickC]

If you take the a success rate of 80% with your AAW system that implies one in five of attack missiles wil hit ship?

No.

80% would be the probability of one defending missile hitting the incoming missile. Fire two missiles and the probability becomes 96%. Fire three and it becomes 99.2%.

Yes

Not even the IDF with Iron Dome claim a 99.2% successful interceptions, have seen claims for 75, 85 and 90% with Iron Dome and remember each Iron Dome battery has three or four 20 round launchers, 60 or 80 missiles in total, so would presume if the time/seconds available for system to reset and re-target Iron Dome would launch another two AA missiles at target if the original pair missed, normal Israeli operational practise is to fire two missiles at one target. Claims made outside IDF say actual success rate maybe 32% or even lower. The IDF has stressed that "no system can offer airtight protection".

The other side of the coin, envisage a scenario with a flight of four aircraft with six Spear 3's each, 24 launched imultaneously in attack on ship, including six of the EW variant able to jam any AA missile with RF homing heads (eg similar to EW jammer in BriteCloud), think high probability a fair a number of Spear 3 would impact on ship.

Note the British Army has bought the Battle Management & Weapon Control centre by mPrest Systems of Israel as used in Iron Dome for Land Ceptor/Sky Sabre.

PS Anyone have any source/ref where manufacture of any AA missile claimed a 99% hit rate.

[Timmymagic]

Jake1992 wrote:
2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM


Me too and no answer. I'm pretty sure that it's a no. It would be quad pack because the ER container has the same cross section but obviously is a lot longer, probably too long for ExLs. Mind you, how hard would it to lengthen ExLs? It's mostly steel girders.

Have a look at LM's data sheets for ExLS and the 3 cell ExLS version. There's no lengths listed, and the photos of the different versions are positioned in a difficult manner to actually get a feel for additional space. But....looking at them they would just appear to have enough length for CAMM-ER, and if not it would cost peanuts to get them lengthened as its just a frame and steel. Nothing critical is mounted at the bottom of the ones shown that would require an expensive redesign.

[Timmymagic]

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

It wouldn't be able to use both systems simultaneously though....think about the 'lead' required for 20 mm cannon shells...the laser requires no lead whatsoever.

[Jake1992]

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

It wouldn't be able to use both systems simultaneously though....think about the 'lead' required for 20 mm cannon shells...the laser requires no lead whatsoever.

No it wouldn’t be able to do both at the same time but the ability for a system to use either has an advantage.

At the moment both systems have disadvantages that the other makes up for so changing one for the other only changes the advantage disadvantage around.

[Timmymagic]

As a note as the RN will have 20mm , 30mm , 40mm, 57mm, 114mm , 127 , why would then add 35mm millenium

Might as well try and go for the full house....

The UK currently fields (or will shortly) the following cannon calibres below 105mm, the UK has a whole mess of calibres at the moment...and its getting worse.

20mm x 102 (Phalanx)
20mm x 128 (Oerlikon)
25mm x 137 (GAU-22 for F-35, not ordered but may be in the future)
27mm x 145 (BK-27)
30mm x 113 (M230 and ADEN)
30mm x 170 (RARDEN and DS30B)
30mm x 173 (Bushmaster on DS30M, was used on Goalkeeper)
35mm x 228 (Oerlikon GDF, apparently still in storage believe it or not, no idea why)
40mm x 365 (Bofors 40mm for T31)
40mm x 255 (CT round for Ajax and Warrior CSP)
57mm x 438 (Mk.110 Gun for T31)

Personally, I think we missed a trick with 27mm Mauser. We use it on Tornado and Typhoon. The German's have put it to sea with the MLG27 mount. We could have gone for a re-chambered M230 on Apache for 27mm, used BK-27 for the ASCG and DS30B mount, even put a BK-27 in the external pod for F-35. No reason why everything in red above couldn't have been covered by 27mm x 145, and everything in dark blue covered by 40mm CT. Phalanx would just be allowed to run until its OSD.

As for 57mm? It's a good gun, but for me 76mm makes more sense if you really need a medium calibre gun, particularly if you want guided rounds. I'd prefer for the T31 to have a 5 inch gun though...

[Ron5]

Jake1992 wrote:
2 do we know yet if CAMM-ER can be fitted in ExLS in any form ( quad pack or double pack ) Iv asked a few times and tried to find info on it but its hard to come by. If can be then IMO it’d make much more sence than ESSM


Me too and no answer. I'm pretty sure that it's a no. It would be quad pack because the ER container has the same cross section but obviously is a lot longer, probably too long for ExLs. Mind you, how hard would it to lengthen ExLs? It's mostly steel girders.

Have a look at LM's data sheets for ExLS and the 3 cell ExLS version. There's no lengths listed, and the photos of the different versions are positioned in a difficult manner to actually get a feel for additional space. But....looking at them they would just appear to have enough length for CAMM-ER, and if not it would cost peanuts to get them lengthened as its just a frame and steel. Nothing critical is mounted at the bottom of the ones shown that would require an expensive redesign.

I've studied available brochures, photographs and videos and have come to the conclusion that the current ExLs cannot accept CAMM-ER because of the extra canister length.

I'm also enough of an engineer to know that just looking at a picture will not let you determine the cost of upgrading the launcher. You could hope the cost is "peanuts" but that doesn't really mean much does it?

[Ron5]

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

It wouldn't be able to use both systems simultaneously though....think about the 'lead' required for 20 mm cannon shells...the laser requires no lead whatsoever.

No it wouldn’t be able to do both at the same time but the ability for a system to use either has an advantage.

At the moment both systems have disadvantages that the other makes up for so changing one for the other only changes the advantage disadvantage around.

I thought Jake was suggesting (in simple terms) when it's raining use the gun, when its sunny use the laser. Not wishing to put words in his mouth.

[Jake1992]

Shame, a system that could use both laser and projectile as a means of close in AAW would have a lot of merits IMO. Trading one for the other could see just as many loses as gains in what it’s trying to achieve.

It wouldn't be able to use both systems simultaneously though....think about the 'lead' required for 20 mm cannon shells...the laser requires no lead whatsoever.

No it wouldn’t be able to do both at the same time but the ability for a system to use either has an advantage.

At the moment both systems have disadvantages that the other makes up for so changing one for the other only changes the advantage disadvantage around.

I thought Jake was suggesting (in simple terms) when it's raining use the gun, when its sunny use the laser. Not wishing to put words in his mouth.

Not far off, since in the current a forseable laser set up they will be weather and atmospheric effected which could leave big wholes that with out a gun based system will have nothing to fill them.

[Roders96]

It might be that the high volume low cost swarm drones used by an aggressor aren't all weather capable. This may leave complex missiles the only alternative for an aggressor and guns cost effective again.

[Pseudo]

Is each antennae capable of both functions simultaneously or would each antennae have to perform each function separately?

Yes, Sampson is well capable of performing both roles simultaneously. The major reason for the S1850M radar is to satisfy the requirement to perform fighter direction tasks. The requirement spelled out how many different engagements, and at what ranges, the ship needed to handle. That overwhelmed the Sampson and the additional radar was required.

If there was no need for fighter direction, the ships would only have Sampson installed. A fact the Bae vigorously pointed out.

Thanks. So, would it be fair to say that beyond offering detection in a lower spectrum the S1850M is kind of redundant on the T45, particularly when operating with one of the UK's carriers since they have their own?

[NickC]

Thanks. So, would it be fair to say that beyond offering detection in a lower spectrum the S1850M is kind of redundant on the T45, particularly when operating with one of the UK's carriers since they have their own?

Not quite, the advantage of long waveband radars is detecting stealth sized fighter aircraft, stealth fighters optimised to counter high band radars, C, X & Ku.

Its physics, there is a step change in a stealth aircraft’s signature once the frequency wavelength exceeds a certain threshold and causes a resonant effect, resonance occurs when say tail fins is less than eight times the size of a particular frequency wavelength, one reason why some stealth aircraft have no tail fins.

The drawback with long waveband radars is the resolution cell is so large maybe one km or more depending actual waveband used, so not accurate enough to guide a long range AA missile to get its small dia active RF seeker within its basket range. To overcome the limitation you could network several ships radars together and or queue separate ships higher band S-band radar, digitally controlled AESA, to spend more dwell time/power on that particular resolution cell, in effect a form of stare mode.

Note to be remembered radar as are lasers is an electromagnetic wave subject to the inverse square law, where intensity/range drops by 1/d2, eg at 4 km its down to one sixteenth power at 1 km. The new long range USN S band SPY-6(V)1 radar uses megawatts of power and Burke fitted with five 300t refrigeration plants to mainly cool the water coolant used on radar antennas

Pic of a Chinese Type 052DL destroyer with its UHF Type 518 radar, tried to post the pic but failed.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27401 ... opter_Deck

[Roders96]

I was always told those s1850s could bounce their signals off the ionosphere also, delivering continent scale early warning to a certain extent.

Not sure how reliable that information is, however.

[Ron5]

Is each antennae capable of both functions simultaneously or would each antennae have to perform each function separately?

Yes, Sampson is well capable of performing both roles simultaneously. The major reason for the S1850M radar is to satisfy the requirement to perform fighter direction tasks. The requirement spelled out how many different engagements, and at what ranges, the ship needed to handle. That overwhelmed the Sampson and the additional radar was required.

If there was no need for fighter direction, the ships would only have Sampson installed. A fact the Bae vigorously pointed out.

Thanks. So, would it be fair to say that beyond offering detection in a lower spectrum the S1850M is kind of redundant on the T45, particularly when operating with one of the UK's carriers since they have their own?

I think its very fair to question the value of the S1850M when the T45 is in close escort of the carriers. But that is just one mission of the ship. Clearly the RN believe they will be capable of being positioned hundreds of miles up threat controlling fighter packages that would be out of view of the carriers.

A better question would be why the eff aren't the carriers equipped with Sampson?? That radar is the best the UK has, and its pretty darned good, and appeared in the early illustrations of CVF. But a Treasury imposed exercise to trim costs resulted in its removal and replacement with the very much inferior Artisan.

Well that's all fine I hear you say, the Treasury should be taking a hard look any any expenditure and saving a few millions of precious tax payer money if at all possible. Very good of them. Pat on the back.

Of course the very same Treasury a few years later, during build, imposed a lengthy moratorium and in so doing increased the ships costs by over a billion. Enough to buy a hundred Sampsons and PAAMS and missiles to provide carrier self defence. What do we say now? That's a billion pounds flushed down the toilet with absolutely nothing to show for it.

[serge750]

I would really love to know how much money has been wasted since 2010 on all the the decisions to "save" money in the short term..... or maybe I wouldn't

Probably wouldn't seem so bad, but it always seems like out of service dates always apear to be extended or capabilitys gapped

[Jake1992]

I would really love to know how much money has been wasted since 2010 on all the the decisions to "save" money in the short term..... or maybe I wouldn't

Probably wouldn't seem so bad if it seemed like out of service dates always apear to be extended or capabilitys gapped

Well off the top of my head in recent times we’ve have £1bn through slow carrier build, £1.3bn on slow astute build ( stated in a defence committee ) several hundred million in the whole T45 debacle. Then there’s going a be at least £1bn in T26 slow build ( BAE stating they could build 9 for 8 )

I bet we’re looking at least £4bn odd and that’s with out digging deep.

[donald_of_tokyo]

I would really love to know how much money has been wasted since 2010 on all the the decisions to "save" money in the short term..... or maybe I wouldn't

Probably wouldn't seem so bad if it seemed like out of service dates always apear to be extended or capabilitys gapped

Well off the top of my head in recent times we’ve have £1bn through slow carrier build, £1.3bn on slow astute build ( stated in a defence committee ) several hundred million in the whole T45 debacle. Then there’s going a be at least £1bn in T26 slow build ( BAE stating they could build 9 for 8 )

I bet we’re looking at least £4bn odd and that’s with out digging deep.

Thanks.

However, looking at the list, I came to a feeling that most of it come back to RN/MOD, and some of it may be actually "not bad".

1: CVF CATOBAR/STOVL decision issue = HMG was not aware that it was already impossible at the moment of decision. Who is guilty? I think RN/MOD. They should have said "it is already impossible".

2: T26 delay to cause £650M invested for 5 River B2s. Finally turned out to be "not bad", it was clearly a bad/waste decision. RN/MOD must have identified the delay of T26 design, and start thinking of Plan-B. (NaB-san says T26 design process itself has seen many problem of RN/MOD side, but that an independent issue).

3: T26 ordering in 3+5(?) not 8 at once (for 9). Lack of decision to commit to build all 8 T26 around 2016 resulted in losing the 9th hull. Treasury? RN/MOD? Both? (But, I'm afraid, RN was aware of the risk they will be forced to disband one of the CVF because of fixed T26-commitment in future, and cleverly kept the priority of T26 lower?)

4: Slowing down T26 build pace. But, it this really a bad decision? After all T26s were built, how can UK keep the shipyard? Actually, isn't the "gapping of SSN build" caused the huge money lost in Astute building?

The list continues, but I found not many "primarily" caused by Treasury. If one-year budget limit is the issue, RN can raise their own debt (I remember Treasury proposed it to Army). If spending another £100M this year can save £200M 3 years later, why not raise debt?

Looking at the list, RN/MOD must
A: more commit to build program so that they know what is really going on (CVF, T26 design) and think more of plan-B. Design may delay, economy will "cough". In that case, what you gonna do? (River B2).
B: could be just clever decisions? (slow build, ordering T26 in batches)

I think item-A must be fixed and can be fixed. Item-B is just a decision. We shall know it is a waste or not only a decade later.

[tomuk]

Pic of a Chinese Type 052DL destroyer with its UHF Type 518 radar, tried to post the pic but failed.

https://www.defenseworld.net/news/27401 ... opter_Deck

Return of the double bedstead

[tomuk]

The list continues, but I found not many "primarily" caused by Treasury. If one-year budget limit is the issue, RN can raise their own debt (I remember Treasury proposed it to Army). If spending another £100M this year can save £200M 3 years later, why not raise debt?

I'm sorry donald but that isn't how government finance works in the uk. It is all annual budgets with projects either having to wait until April for the new budget or worse wasteful spending to use the budget up before end of financial year.

Some areas of spending are on a longer term basis, such as Network Rail which maintains the railways, however this isn't necessarily better. Network Rail are notorious for overspending.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... s-watchdog

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/201 ... er-schemes

[donald_of_tokyo]

The list continues, but I found not many "primarily" caused by Treasury. If one-year budget limit is the issue, RN can raise their own debt (I remember Treasury proposed it to Army). If spending another £100M this year can save £200M 3 years later, why not raise debt?

I'm sorry donald but that isn't how government finance works in the uk. It is all annual budgets with projects either having to wait until April for the new budget or worse wasteful spending to use the budget up before end of financial year.

Thanks, I think I know it.

I could not find the evidence now, but Treasury actually proposed to Army to raise their (=Army's) own debts, if they really think "spending now reduces the total budget". This idea is well within the "annual budgets limits".

( If you are talking about MOD cannot change the way they use their budget within the financial year, that is another issue. Actually, this is very common world-wide and independent issue, I understand.)

The problem is, when defining the annual budget, and MOD found that a certain program cost cannot be "packed" within the annual money cap, MOD are forced to delay the program. But, if it is really a stupid idea and "spending now reduces the total budget", MOD can raise their own debt. This is what Treasury advised to Army. Of course, all interest must be payed by MOD/Army, but if "spending now reduces the total budget", it must be possible. They did not select that choice, so I doubt if it is really "spending now reduces the total budget".

On the other hand, if it is simply the lack of money, then it is totally different issue. Stretching too much, hoping too high, then spending efficiency gets bad. This is common, and not Treasury's fault.

# In root, it is. HMG is not funding MOD enough to address its aspiration. This is the problem, I agree..

[NickC]

I was always told those s1850s could bounce their signals off the ionosphere also, delivering continent scale early warning to a certain extent.

Not sure how reliable that information is, however.

You might read "Satellite Images Reveal New Russian Long-Range Radar in the Arctic" // The basic principle of over-the-horizon radar in which a signal from a large transmitter bounces of the ionosphere, reaches the target beyond the horizon, and then reflects an echo signal to a receiving antenna // A new generation of over-the-horizon radar capable of detecting and tracking hypersonic targets at a distance of more than a thousand kilometers. The new radar installations work in conjunction with Russia’s most sophisticated air defense system, S-400. Three such systems have been deployed in the Arctic."

Would guess if conditions just right S1850 could bounce their signals off the ionosphere but for reliable near 100% coverage need specialized new radar similar to the Russian one above. Would note that Thales Nederland with the new gen SMART-L MM/N with AESA/GaN/Dual Axis beam follow on to the SMART-L/S1850 have seen no such claim by Thales the radar able to bounce signals off the ionosphere. Thales claim instrumented range of 480 km and 2,000 km in staring mode (in Formidable Shield 2017 the SMART-L MM radar system mounted on test tower in Holland detected and tracked a ballistic missile launched from the Hebrides at 1,500 km range) but coverage limited by earths curvature to high altitudes whereas with Russian radar range "of more than a thousand kilometers" would be able pick up hypersonic missiles at lower altitudes.

Australia has the Jindalee over the horizon radar that dates back many decades and friend went to Chernobyl and showed me some pics of a abandoned Soviet era OHR nearby.

From <https://www.highnorthnews.com/en/satell ... dar-arctic>