Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[matt00773]

It is a fact that Artisan had a slow refresh rate. It is a fact that it lacks the same software capability of modern radars that can only be provided by those like PESA or AESA. I have seen nothing specifically declared that shows that it offers anything above other radars like APAR, Seafire, EMPAR, Herakles, SPY-3, CEAFAR, SMART-S, Sampson etc to make up for its numerous downsides and small size other than "its a very cheap radar", which is my point.

I'm not aware of the refresh rate of Artisan such that I can compare with refresh rates of the list of radars you mentioned - perhaps you can provide these details? Also, Artisan is PESA as I mentioned previously and its software is practically the same as SAMPSON - is that modern enough for you? Also, what has being PESA/AESA got to do with how modern its software capability is?

APAR was the first, four years ahead of Sampson. And being earliest is a matter of nothing. What matters is what it can do.

On this, we're both in complete agreement!

Other nations have had 360 degree fixed AESA arrays for approaching 15 years now. The UK is very behind on this for anything outside the Type 45s.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. There have been multiple fixed arrays with provide 360 degree coverage but I'm referring to cylindrical arrays where the beam(s) never change between different planes.

[SKB]

[RetroSicotte]

I'm not aware of the refresh rate of Artisan such that I can compare with refresh rates of the list of radars you mentioned - perhaps you can provide these details?

They don't have a refresh rate, that's my point. Artisan only updates its users with information every 2 seconds due to its rotations per minute value. With high end missiles moving multiple kilometres every couple seconds, and only becoming visible within 25 km or so, this is a huge problem of single facing rotational radars.

Also, Artisan is PESA as I mentioned previously and its software is practically the same as SAMPSON - is that modern enough for you? Also, what has being PESA/AESA got to do with how modern its software capability is?

Artisan has elements of, but it is still inherently a mechanical radar I am led to believe. An AESA for example having distributed transmit/receive modules permits a higher total power yield per space, and to make use of newer materials. Which is why it's so easy to see why Artisan is simply not as powerful as the examples I mentioned above. They are using a radar method that has higher power per square inch, AND a larger weight/size panel full of those higher power modules.

I think you're being a bit disingenuous here. There have been multiple fixed arrays with provide 360 degree coverage but I'm referring to cylindrical arrays where the beam(s) never change between different planes.

Due to how things like AESA/PESA work, the field of regard is high enough that there is no real loss on corners, same as how CAPTOR-E achieves this for its "over the shoulder" look.

[indeid]

Developments in radar technology by British research programmes input heavily into products such as the Sky Sabre and SAAB products in general. Projects such as FF GBAD-AS are about proving new theories and pushing the outside of the envelope on what can be achieved. These projects never produce an actual product but rather feed technology into other things - MESAR/ARTIST never produced a market product but were key enablers.

Genuinely interested as to what British R&D or IP exists on the G-AMB Mod C. What have we provided to SAAB?

FF GBAD-AS was not a research project, it was procurement project for sensors alongside LEAPP. A concept study may come up with the ideas, but that is the easy bit, when it came to getting the heavy metal we just bought off the shelf from non-UK sources. This was originally under a UOR for AS&W so there wasn't even any UK development for a competition.

This is not the sort of work which keeps you world leading. The ARTIST funding from MOD kept the industrial knowledge ticking over, but if you look at the breadth of new sensor projects in the US the sort of research funding we are putting up is not in the same league. Outside of some niche areas Dstl work will not take you to the later TRLs (the more productive and expensive areas) without a FLC programme to lead into, which is what I don't see.

Its a shame there was no drive to adapt Sampson into a dedicated Discrimination sensor in a BMD network years ago, instead of the piecemeal work the RN and BAe have put together. There was a possible head start but the US now has separate projects going.

[serge750]

What are the prospects of a later batch of T26 (7,8,9?) getting a Sampson type or fixed array radar for better AAW then after that batch, a T45 replacement based on the T26 just for AAW with (BMD)longer range missiles? surely a big enough hull for it, would a Quiet ASW hull be good for the T45 replacement?

[ArmChairCivvy]

no real loss on corners, same as how CAPTOR-E achieves this for its "over the shoulder" look.

- they sure have kept that part of it opaque... as long (as soon) we get it, I'll be happy

Its a shame there was no drive to adapt Sampson into a dedicated Discrimination sensor in a BMD network years ago, instead of the piecemeal work the RN and BAe have put together. There was a possible head start but the US now has separate projects going

- can only agree... the next thing you need is the (capable) missile = more money

[Opinion3]

Why would the Aussies be exporting EMPAR? Doesn’t the E stand for European?

Also has it been stated that the RFA SSS will get Artisan?

My blooper.... I did mean CEAFAR. I realise there probably isn't the money but Artisan is ordered now, so I was suggesting if we were to use the kit somewhere else the cost of doing that would be minimal. In this case I am suggesting the T31s, MARS SSS or maybe some of Poiuytrewq's concepts etc. The case for Batch 2 of the T26s getting an upgraded radar, working closely with some new found collaborators (now the French and Germans are spurring us) might be a good way forward. We are afterall a big player in the arms market so an agreement could be reached to suit all parties.

[matt00773]

I have to confess I've mislead everyone here on the technology of Artisan. My previous statement about this radar being mechanical/PESA mix is incorrect and was based on some assumptions that had been spread around various message boards. The problem is that detailed information about this product is hard to get hold of.

Having researched this much deeper, its clear Artisan is a solid-state AESA radar and probably based on the same GaAs technology that SAMPSON is based on. There is another source (below) that suggests it could be GaN based.

https://www.thefreelibrary.com/Digital+ ... 0420781599

"Developed by BAE Systems Maritime Services, the Royal Navy's E/F-band multibeam Type 997 radar (also known as Artisan 3D) draws on technology from the Sampson multifunction shipboard radar, and the Commander series of ground-based air-defence radars. Its antenna-mounted solid-state transmitter borrows from the Commander power amplifier, while the waveform generator and digital front-end receivers are based on those in the Sampson."

https://www.strategyanalytics.com/strat ... -platforms

"A visit to the BAE Systems stand provided a brief overview of the company’s radar portfolio based around AESA technology utilizing GaAs T/R modules. In air defense radar the ARTISAN 3D system includes “e-stab” and along with compact variants, the company currently has 19 systems on order with the UK Royal Navy."

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Te ... Amplifiers

"BAE Systems is Britain’s principal aerospace manufacturer. In defense terms ranking number three in global defense rankings (just behind Boeing), the Company manufactures the Artisan 3D shipboard AESA radar. GaN-based and operating in S-band Artisan is BAE Systems’ the next generation medium range 3D surveillance radar for the Royal Navy and replaces the Type 996 surveillance and target indication radar...This AESA is an advanced development based on the Company’s earlier SAMPSON AESA."

I guess this is why it's suggested SAMPSON and Artisan share a lot of the same software.

[matt00773]

They don't have a refresh rate, that's my point.

All radars have refresh rates regardless of whether they're rotating or fixed arrays - wave, pulse, beam scanning etc. That's the fundamental way in which they work.

[ArmChairCivvy]

the Royal Navy's E/F-band multibeam Type 997 radar (also known as Artisan 3D) draws on technology from the Sampson multifunction shipboard radar, and the Commander series of ground-based air-defence radars.

Is there one Commander series in use, anywhere?

[matt00773]

the Royal Navy's E/F-band multibeam Type 997 radar (also known as Artisan 3D) draws on technology from the Sampson multifunction shipboard radar, and the Commander series of ground-based air-defence radars.

Is there one Commander series in use, anywhere?

I think its referring to the Commander SL radar:

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... ence-radar

[Caribbean]

its clear Artisan is a solid-state AESA radar and probably based on the same GaAs technology that SAMPSON is based on. There is another source (below) that suggests it could be GaN based

I likewise found a similar source claiming that it was both AESA and GaN-based technology, though the source I found was a SCRIBD article that attempted to track the source of the TR modules and their components, so I needed more time to try to research its claims before adding it here. Thank you for finding an additional source.

From what little is in the public domain about capabilities (switchable modes, ECM capability etc) and software compatibility with Sampson, it appears that Artisan 3D is likely to be a single-faced variant of Sampson, probably with fewer TR modules (I believe it is marketed in a number of scalable variants).

Rather than being limited to one scan every 2 seconds, it is likely capable (whether PESA or AESA tech) of making multiple scans to confirm tracks in the course of a single rotation. It is also (I have a feeling of deja vue writing this, since I think we've had this discussion before) more than likely capable (since it has a curved surface and individual TR modules have a wide angle of coverage) of covering slightly more than 180 degrees at a time and of passing a single tracking task across the antenna from one edge to the other as it rotates).

So, far from being "old technology", that is "inexplicably" popular with the RN, it's looks like it's actually current technology applied in a different way. Maybe sometimes you have to accept that the British know what they are doing. Not necessarily better, just achieving a similar result in a different way.

[indeid]

the Royal Navy's E/F-band multibeam Type 997 radar (also known as Artisan 3D) draws on technology from the Sampson multifunction shipboard radar, and the Commander series of ground-based air-defence radars.

Is there one Commander series in use, anywhere?

I think its referring to the Commander SL radar:

https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/produc ... ence-radar

The SL is the disaster which is the Type 102 Radar in RAF service, offspring of the Commander AR327, or Type 101. Which as an ex 101 convoy commander I won’t hear a bad word against!

[matt00773]

It is also (I have a feeling of deja vue writing this, since I think we've had this discussion before) more than likely capable (since it has a curved surface and individual TR modules have a wide angle of coverage) of covering slightly more than 180 degrees at a time and of passing a single tracking task across the antenna from one edge to the other as it rotates).

I have also read that Artisan has a very wide horizontal arc (azimuth) compared with other radars so the 30rpm rotation isn't such a factor. I recall that this was over 70 degrees though can't seem to find a source. EMPAR for instance only has a 45 degree azimuth arc and is a single sided PESA.

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/artic ... le_044.pdf

[RetroSicotte]

I have done quite a lot of searching, and I have never once found a definitive statement of Artisan as being anything other than an older mechanical design with a couple adaptions to not be completely obsolescent.

And you can bet if it was, they'd be promoting that as a buzzword out the ears the same way they did with Sampson. Or every other radar marketer does.

I think people are (again) getting the wrong impression from my critique. I would be delighted if it was proven to be a full PESA or AESA level radar. I'd happily go "Oh, nice! Fantastic." But my point of view is and always has been that lack of care for crucial systems and budget choices has been the death of thousands over the modern history of this nation's forces, all of them alerted to years beforehand, and all of them ignored.

For a ship destined to operate in 2027, Artisan appears to be one of those elements. You can easily see the MoD/Govs thinking of "It's just hunting subs and messing around with third world countries" in the limitations that it does have, more notably its weaknesses in anti-air. It carries a lot of missiles, but all of them are short ranged and powered by something that appears to be a fairly weak radar. With over the horizon missiles being so much more of a threat now, and even corvettes carrying long range anti-ship missiles, and with the advent of hypersonics likely before the first City class even enters service, it would be incredibly naive to "prepare for peace" and ignore these critiques.

Hence, my line at the start of this entire thing. The Hunter class is what the City class ought to be. it's the exact same ship, it has all the same ASW predigree (more in fact, owing to it having LWT as well) only with vastly improved air defence (CEAFAR, Aegis, SM-2) and as a result, is future proofed without large refit times needed.

Australia is looking to the 2030s. The UK is seemingly looking to the 2010s.

[Spinflight]

Or... Just throwing this out there...

Andrew knows what he is doing?

[donald_of_tokyo]

...For a ship destined to operate in 2027, Artisan appears to be one of those elements. You can easily see the MoD/Govs thinking of "It's just hunting subs and messing around with third world countries" in the limitations that it does have, more notably its weaknesses in anti-air. It carries a lot of missiles, but all of them are short ranged and powered by something that appears to be a fairly weak radar. With over the horizon missiles being so much more of a threat now, and even corvettes carrying long range anti-ship missiles, and with the advent of hypersonics likely before the first City class even enters service, it would be incredibly naive to "prepare for peace" and ignore these critiques.

Hence, my line at the start of this entire thing. The Hunter class is what the City class ought to be. it's the exact same ship, it has all the same ASW predigree (more in fact, owing to it having LWT as well) only with vastly improved air defence (CEAFAR, Aegis, SM-2) and as a result, is future proofed without large refit times needed.

But this decision will make 8 T26 reduced to 7 hulls?


The "many darts of short-rage SAMs" is inherent to RN; from SeaCat, SeaWolf, and CAMM. This means, RN is to leave long-range AAW to ASTER-30 (T45), and F35B (QECV) for super-long range. I think it has its own rationale.

Small number of long-rage SAM is not always good, if we need to cope with "swarm of sub-sonic missiles". (sub-sonic ASM is very very cheap than super-sonic ones, and hence more easy for "swarm" attack). For example, think about SPEAR3. French FREMM armed with 16 ASTER-15 will not be able to avoid hitting by ~32 SPEAR3 swarm attack. T26 will be able to survive. SPEAR3 may not be able to sink FREMM, but it will disable it for days, and "disabled" FREMM can be easily sunk.

[RetroSicotte]

But this decision will make 8 T26 reduced to 7 hulls?

In the current budget, almost certainly, however as I believe I've explained in a lengthier post before, I believe that there is a lot of value in a perspective that always focuses on what the ideal result ought to be, as much as the perspective of "what does the current allowance permit with no changes in funding".

Both for understanding when wool is being pulled over the publics eyes, to identify crucial acts of ignorance in the procurement that threaten the lives of those serving, and to keep people's minds from becoming "okay" with a situation that is most definitely "not okay". Already I see people talking of 19 credible escorts (myself included) as the "ideal" amount, forgetting that even 19 was barely enough for all taskings + carrier ambitions, let alone the 14 currently planned.

The "many darts of short-rage SAMs" is inherent to RN; from SeaCat, SeaWolf, and CAMM. This means, RN is to leave long-range AAW to ASTER-30 (T45), and F35B (QECV) for super-long range. I think it has its own rationale.

Small number of long-rage SAM is not always good, if we need to cope with "swarm of sub-sonic missiles". (sub-sonic ASM is very very cheap than super-sonic ones, and hence more easy for "swarm" attack). For example, think about SPEAR3. French FREMM armed with 16 ASTER-15 will not be able to avoid hitting by ~32 SPEAR3 swarm attack. T26 will be able to survive. SPEAR3 may not be able to sink FREMM, but it will disable it for days, and "disabled" FREMM can be easily sunk.

Which undoubtedly is why they've gone this way. But again, the Hunter class has not lost this at all. It has the capability to easily carry 48 SAMs as well (more in fact, since its AShMs are in canisters and it doesn't require ASROCs all the time due to LWT), but can also mount SM-2 or even SM-6 and allow it to protect by "killing the archer instead of the arrow" much more often, or using the Aegis datalink to better protect other ships. Not to mention being much better protected against ballistic missiles. It's a flat upgrade.

[Poiuytrewq]

Already I see people talking of 19 credible escorts (myself included) as the "ideal" amount, forgetting that even 19 was barely enough for all taskings + carrier ambitions, let alone the 14 currently planned.

This is the bit I don't understand. If money is so tight why is RN spending £1.25bn on 5 vessels that aren't capable enough to be designated 'escorts'.

The FFBNW and 'upgradable in the future argument' doesn't stand up to scrutiny if based on past history in my opinion. When are the T45's going to get their Mk41 cells?, for example.

I am a big fan of the T31 programme but not in its current form with its current budget.

Why not build something useful with the £1.25bn?

Something that would enhance RN capabilites rather than further degrade capabilites as current planning looks like it is going to achieve.

[RetroSicotte]

This is the bit I don't understand. If money is so tight why is RN spending £1.25bn on 5 vessels that aren't capable enough to be designated 'escorts'.

Because the sole objective of the Type 31 program is to allow the government to still claim they have 19 escorts, when in fact they only have 14.

That is the ONLY objective of this whole thing.

[NickC]

Talk of radar presuming the 'low' cost Artisan S-band will be fitted to T31, was wondering if budget allowed could be complemented by fitting a high bandwidth/definition X-band low weight radar high on mast for maximum surface surveillance range to give the much needed warning of ski-skimming anti-ship missiles attack (noticeable that X-band not fitted in T26 though included on Hunter). The T31 RFI leaves a lot to be desired.

Priority needs to be low cost as well as low weight, thoughts whether version of the Leonardo-Finmeccanica AESA solid state Osprey radar, don't know cost, follow on to Seaspray, would be adequate to identify missiles with a low RCS of only 0.05m2 to 0.10m2. It uses Gallium Arsenide (GaAs) silicon to keep power low as fitted to the sixteen Norwegian AW101 All Weather Search and Rescue Helicopters with three flat panel arrays, ~90 kg total v Saab SeaGiraffe 1X 290 kg, each with 256 T/R modules to provide 120 degrees coverage to create the 360 degree field of view to give electronic phased array steering to direct the radar beam moving from target to target in a fraction of a second, Osprey effectively provides simultaneous persistent coverage in multiple directions.

[abc123]

Hence, my line at the start of this entire thing. The Hunter class is what the City class ought to be. it's the exact same ship, it has all the same ASW predigree (more in fact, owing to it having LWT as well) only with vastly improved air defence (CEAFAR, Aegis, SM-2) and as a result, is future proofed without large refit times needed.

Australia is looking to the 2030s. The UK is seemingly looking to the 2010s.

If not even 2000s. Fully agreed.

[donald_of_tokyo]

This is the bit I don't understand. If money is so tight why is RN spending £1.25bn on 5 vessels that aren't capable enough to be designated 'escorts'.

Because the sole objective of the Type 31 program is to allow the government to still claim they have 19 escorts, when in fact they only have 14.
That is the ONLY objective of this whole thing.

I'm not that much against T31e program. At least, they will be a better ship than "Vernal 95-105 with armaments". Commonality is the good point of Venari-series idea, I agree, but it sacrifices capability. Commonality is good only when the total number to be built is small. For example, "10 MHC" is better than "8 MCMV + 2 Hydro-ships", because "2" is not efficient. But this also means, "2" hydro-ship will not be optimal in its design.

I do agree T31e cannot be a proper escort. We shall call it a sloop or corvette. But, it is still valuable for RN, as I mentioned here numerously. A ship armed as a modern corvette is much more capable than corvettes in the old days. Super-sonic ASM, AIP-SSK, all are very expensive, and their number is not plenty (except for Asia region). For example, number of missile boat has significantly decreased these days.

Our globe is becoming less armed, with exceptions only in Russia and Asia. RN is a global navy. Thus, "a ship armed as modern corvette" has vast space of utility. Even in the peer-2-peer war, T31e (if armed with CAMM) can cover QECV's last layer of AAW defense. Having at least 2 good tasks, it is good enough.

[ArmChairCivvy]

~90 kg total v Saab SeaGiraffe 1X 290 kg, each with 256 T/R modules to provide 120 degrees coverage to create the 360 degree field of view

Time to make the mast really tall (by tethering the radar; where would that sort of thing - a winch - fit?)?

[RetroSicotte]

Even in the peer-2-peer war, T31e (if armed with CAMM) can cover QECV's last layer of AAW defense. Having at least 2 good tasks, it is good enough.

If that was what they wanted, then you could throw CAMM on QE herself for a lot cheaper than having to buy a whole new ship with very little purpose that an OPV doesn't, and avoid paying for the additional manpower, additional fuel, slowing down the QE with the T31s unimpressive top speed on RFI, and having another ship lingering around for actual escorts to need to keep an eye on and protect when they should be focusing on protecting the carrier.