Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Phil R]

throttle-able = feed-in, as needed? Indeed, can any solid fuel rocket engines be throttleable?

Meteor, with its throttleable ducted rocket?

Phil R

[ArmChairCivvy]

This will soon/ likely transfer onto the AF threads, but are air-breathing missiles not a different category altogether, like cruise missiles before A2A started emerging within that category?

- in a rocket engine the elements of its propulsive jet (that is, the fuel and oxidizer) are self-contained within the vehicle, whereas
- turbojet, pulse-jet, and ramjet engines carry only their fuel and depend on the oxygen content of the air for burning: 'air-breathing'

Would be v interested to hear where the energy for Aster's pif-puff'ing is taken from

[Lord Jim]

Can we just accept what Sea Ceptor is, that it is an improvement over Sea Wolf and is a very good weapon for its class. Yes it has growth potential and we shall have to see what the Italians end up doing with their programme fore the land based ER version, which is probably going to be of more importance for the UK as GBAD is one of our greatest weaknesses.

[ArmChairCivvy]

is a very good weapon for its class

Not just that, but in the western world isn't it in a class of 1
... as for its soft launch (and agnostic relationship with which(ever) radar tells it it is time to get to work.)

So whenever deck space is at a premium, the flexibility with what constitutes a workable positioning for Seaceptor tubes is a big plus
- I forget now what was the 'budget' solution as for tubes/ silos that the Kiwis went with to get CAMM onto their rejuvenated frigates. Those particular vessels have (had?) a problem with being top heavy, so may be that weighed in with the choice, too

[Timmymagic]

.. how would this version work?

The missile is propelled from its canister by gas generated inside, the cold launch, the tip over mechanism stabilises the missile once out, aligns it to the target direction then the main motor fires. Now thats all well and good, but a significant part of the motors power is used up accelerating the missile and (if necessary) gaining altitude. If you can get a jettisonable motor to fire and get the missile up to speed before detaching followed by main engine ignition is a real advantage.

[Caribbean]

Sea Ceptor has an active seaker which makes it fire and forget as no target illumination is needed

Indeed, IIRC from the early statements about CAMM, this was one of it's main features. It can get initial directions from any sensor (including the ship's volume search radar, or even from an EO system). Basically it gets told "it's over there" at launch, following which it is capable of finding and tracking the target itself. Obviously, if you want to target something that is OTH at the point of launch, or if the missile fails to find the target itself (presumably "I can/ can't see the target" is part of what they mean by "missile status data" in the two-way link"), then you have the ability to update it with further "it's over there now" data, allowing the missile to re-align and find the target itself.

[ArmChairCivvy]

get the missile up to speed

Is that still the "close a km"?

Which measure is important from the POV that during acceleration homing to a manoeuvreing target is poorer than afterwards
- so guns won't go away as CIWS any time soon

[NickC]

Get over it. Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS or a FCR. Accept that for goodness sake and move on. Jeesh.

SavetheRoyalNavy in write up of the Sea Ceptor flatly contradicts you

"Artisan provides initial target data to Sea Ceptor and updates the missile in flight via the two-way Platform Data Link Terminal (PDLT)"

and so does Think Defence

"Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) project [CAMM] Command and Control system features 75% re-use from the Sea Viper command and control software."

If Sea Ceptor has no FCS and FCR its going to miss a manoeuvring target at 25 km by a country mile.

[Caribbean]

Yes - CAAM has an FCS (based, as you say on FLAADS/ Sea Viper) - which sits between the CMS and the missiles, but does not need a dedicated fire control radar in the traditional sense - guidance data can be taken from "any" sensor (the sales brochure's words, not mine), including EO directors.

[ArmChairCivvy]

guidance data can be taken from "any" sensor (the sales brochure's words, not mine), including EO directors.

Radar agnostic = any radar, including no radar

[Repulse]

I know I’ve not supported this previously, and understand the argument that CASD should have the best supporting assets that the RN can afford...

But what if:
1) All of the T31s were ring fenced for “home waters” covering FRE, TAPS and even BMD.
2) All of the T45/T26s were allocated to CEPP and LRG duties.
3) Forward presence was covered by an increasing number of River Class OPVs (Sloops) and Survey ships, which were capable of operating USV MCM vessels.

Why?:
1) Given the investment going into defence by other nations, the UK needs its best assets to project power that is significant and meaningful.
2) Post COVID the government will have limited funds, and even struggle to fund what is already planned.
3) Having the T31s operating close to the UK will allow it to operate under the protective bubble of air and land based assets. 12 CAMM would probably be ok, and little need for ASuW missiles, plus a TAS isn’t relatively expensive, and can be combined with other UUV and MPA assets.

[Ron5]

get the missile up to speed

Is that still the "close a km"?

Which measure is important from the POV that during acceleration homing to a manoeuvreing target is poorer than afterwards
- so guns won't go away as CIWS any time soon

Or frickin' lasers

[Ron5]

Get over it. Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS or a FCR. Accept that for goodness sake and move on. Jeesh.

SavetheRoyalNavy in write up of the Sea Ceptor flatly contradicts you

"Artisan provides initial target data to Sea Ceptor and updates the missile in flight via the two-way Platform Data Link Terminal (PDLT)"

and so does Think Defence

"Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) project [CAMM] Command and Control system features 75% re-use from the Sea Viper command and control software."

If Sea Ceptor has no FCS and FCR its going to miss a manoeuvring target at 25 km by a country mile.

You started this nonsense stating on of these would be a great solution for Sea Ceptor ..



I politely told you that the Sea Ceptor systems don't have, require, need, desire, want, or wish for such a thing.

Why the frick are you still arguing about it 3 pages later?????????? Just grow up for goodness sake.

[NickC]

Get over it. Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS or a FCR. Accept that for goodness sake and move on. Jeesh.

SavetheRoyalNavy in write up of the Sea Ceptor flatly contradicts you

"Artisan provides initial target data to Sea Ceptor and updates the missile in flight via the two-way Platform Data Link Terminal (PDLT)"

and so does Think Defence

"Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) project [CAMM] Command and Control system features 75% re-use from the Sea Viper command and control software."

If Sea Ceptor has no FCS and FCR its going to miss a manoeuvring target at 25 km by a country mile.

You started this nonsense stating on of these would be a great solution for Sea Ceptor ..



I politely told you that the Sea Ceptor systems don't have, require, need, desire, want, or wish for such a thing.

Why the frick are you still arguing about it 3 pages later?????????? Just grow up for goodness sake.

If you don't understand by now I give up, a copy of a recent post by X on SavetheRN

"It just makes me wonder how Ron5 thinks being abrasive and nasty is some sort of virtue. For what reason? He is the same across a few forums not just here"

PS Its a good the pic of the Sea Eagle FCRO

[Lord Jim]

Every other Naval SAM gets its target and course updates via a Fire Control Radar - FCR, dedicated to that role be it a modern AEGIS system or an older one using individual directors, which limited the number of missiles able to be controlled in flight at any one time.

What makes Sea Ceptor unique is that it uses a Data Link which send out the information to any number of individual missiles at the same time, with this data coming from a fusion of the sensor aboard the launch platform. So no there is No FCR and all engagements are carried out by the central Combat Management System. This also means targets do not know they have been illuminated by the ship, just that they have been detected.

At present the Royal Navy's combination of Sampson/ASTER 15&30, we could ditch the 15 really, and Sea Ceptor is world class. Whether we have enough on each ship or simply not enough ships is another argument that rages on here.

[NickC]

Every other Naval SAM gets its target and course updates via a Fire Control Radar - FCR, dedicated to that role be it a modern AEGIS system or an older one using individual directors, which limited the number of missiles able to be controlled in flight at any one time.

What makes Sea Ceptor unique is that it uses a Data Link which send out the information to any number of individual missiles at the same time, with this data coming from a fusion of the sensor aboard the launch platform. So no there is No FCR and all engagements are carried out by the central Combat Management System. This also means targets do not know they have been illuminated by the ship, just that they have been detected.

At present the Royal Navy's combination of Sampson/ASTER 15&30, we could ditch the 15 really, and Sea Ceptor is world class. Whether we have enough on each ship or simply not enough ships is another argument that rages on here.

My perception slightly different

The semi-active seekers used as on current ESSM and SM-2 etc certainly need individual directors as you say limiting number of missiles that can be in flight at any one time, thou an exception with the Thales APAR X-band AESA MFR search, track, and fire-control radar able to use some its three thousand plus T/R modules per panel as directors for the semi-active ESSM and SM-2 II & III's, APAR fitted to four De Zeven Provincien class, three Sachsen class and three Iver Huitfeldt class, tech was licensed to Japan.

But with the new generation missiles eg the USN following in the footsteps of CAMM/Sea Ceptor by fitting active RF seelers to the ESSM Block 2, SM-2 Block IIIC and SM-6 (with the active radar RF seeker from the AIM-120C (of interest to note with the SM-6 data link can control missile beyond ships radar horizon by transferring control to a Hawkeye, so as to use the SM-6 as an anti-ship missile).

Artisan/NS100 with track while scan mode can update Sea Ceptor targeting via its data link if needed. The new French FTI frigate will have Thales France S-band Sea Fire radar with four panels giving approx four times the capability of Artisan or NS100 radars and the necessary fire control for its Aster 15's.

The new Damen Belgium/Dutch M replacement frigate will take radar to a higher level again than the FTI driven by spec to protect ships from future hypersonic anti-ship missiles, with the Thales Nederland volume search Sea Master four panel S-band plus the four panel Thales APAR Block II (upgraded with GaN silicon) X-band MFR search, track, and fire-control radar, Australians have come to same conclusion looking at the very similar radar fit for the Hunter with its various band Cefar radars. The higher capability/gain radars partially required to be able to discriminate near instantaneously as possible a sea skimming missile attack (~ 25 km to horizon) so as to give ship necessary seconds to defend against BrahMos Mach 2.8 ~26 sec/Mach 5 hypersonic missile ~15 sec etc

With the rotating Artisan/NS100 more limited capability, assuming rotating at 60 rpm, may take 15 revolutions to identify target? 15 sec, giving limited if zero time to respond to supersonic/hypersonic missile attack at sea level and if the radar utilising its limited dwell time for track while in scan mode that will further degrade its ability in volume search mode. So to partially ameliorate the limitations of the Artisan and NS100 radars, why thought in my mythical upgrade to T31would add Sea Eagle FCRO so as to offload fire control, with both radar and EO options if required for targeting Sea Ceptor and leave the NS100 dedicated totally to volume search

[Caribbean]

With the rotating Artisan/NS100 more limited capability, assuming rotating at 60 rpm, may take 15 revolutions to identify target? 15 sec, giving limited if zero time to respond to supersonic/hypersonic missile attack at sea level and if the radar utilising its limited dwell time for track while in scan mode that will further degrade its ability in volume search mode.

What do you think this is, WW2? May take 15 revolutions to identify a target - sorry, but that's completely wrong. Even if it was WW2 tech, it would take a maximum of 3 looks to confirm a track.

Artisan is an AESA radar (based on the technology behind MESAR (Multifunction Electronically Scanned Adaptive Radar)/ Sampson and the Commander series of portable ATC radars) on a rotating antenna. Each T/R module (actual number not in the public domain, but probably 800, based on the "can track 800 targets simultaneously" claim) can be tasked independently or in groups, with a task being passed across the face of the (curved) antenna, to stay focussed on a particular target (while modules not engaged in a specific task focus on the volume search function). At a conservative estimate, any given point in space (e.g. one containing a potential target) can be scanned 3000 times per revolution, meaning that it will have identified a target and derived tracking data within a fraction of a revolution. Sampson has two antennae, placed back to back, each having around 2000 t/r modules.

NS100 is similarly an AESA radar, with c. 1000 t/r modules and the benefit of being a newer design, with more recent tech, however, it may not have all the bells and whistles of Artisan (being the low-end model of it's range, so to speak), but still a very capable radar.

[Ron5]

He wants to change Sea Ceptor's ability to simultaneously engage dozens of targets down to engaging one per FCRO i.e. one or two. Nuts.

At this point it's pretty obvious he's trolling us. His posts are just stuff he googles and changes a few words to make us believe he wrote them. One minute he pretends to be an expert on Army small arms, next he's a radar guru or naval architect. His original thoughts are nonsense (see above).

Guy needs banning. Plenty of other sites he can peddle his rubbish.

[NickC]

He wants to change Sea Ceptor's ability to simultaneously engage dozens of targets down to engaging one per FCRO i.e. one or two. Nuts.

At this point it's pretty obvious he's trolling us. His posts are just stuff he googles and changes a few words to make us believe he wrote them. One minute he pretends to be an expert on Army small arms, next he's a radar guru or naval architect. His original thoughts are nonsense (see above).

Guy needs banning. Plenty of other sites he can peddle his rubbish.

I'll waste my time on a reply, re the misinformation you post on Sea Ceptor

28th Oct

Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS.

31st Oct

Get over it. Sea Ceptor doesn't have or need a FCS or a FCR. Accept that for goodness sake and move on. Jeesh.

Input not by me
01 Nov 2020

Yes - CAAM has an FCS (based, as you say on FLAADS/ Sea Viper) - which sits between the CMS and the missiles, but does not need a dedicated fire control radar in the traditional sense - guidance data can be taken from "any" sensor (the sales brochure's words, not mine), including EO directors.

I can only repeat what X said on SavetheRN where you also post "It just makes me wonder how Ron5 thinks being abrasive and nasty is some sort of virtue. For what reason? He is the same across a few forums not just here." I totally echo the sentiments

PS No expert on military small arms but interested, have shot rifle for too many years and have been lucky enough to have been in GB teams shooting abroad.

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ron, every now and then, tries his luck with driving someone away
... when you put him 'in his place' he normally calms down ; or goes to try his luck with 'x' on some other forum.
@x, who was v active on TD, seems to have gotten his share on StRN (which discussions I don't follow, though the articles they publish over there are v good).

For some reason radars and associated 'fire control' re: naval SAMs seem to ignite 'passions' and bring out the 'worst'.
- probably because the exact details are not known (only the principles). But let's Carry On

[NickC]

Ron, every now and then, tries his luck with driving someone away
... when you put him 'in his place' he normally calms down ; or goes to try his luck with 'x' on some other forum.
@x, who was v active on TD, seems to have gotten his share on StRN (which discussions I don't follow, though the articles they publish over there are v good).

For some reason radars and associated 'fire control' re: naval SAMs seem to ignite 'passions' and bring out the 'worst'.
- probably because the exact details are not known (only the principles). But let's Carry On

Thx for post, always wondered why Admin do not as on other sites with posters who use abusive language ban them for a month, amazing as how that has the necessary effect

[ArmChairCivvy]

Ron has a lot of knowledge, so in his case it should be
... a thousand word essay

[Lord Jim]

I would say most of us have some subjects that contain a "Red" Button topic or opinion that can set us off. Spicy discussion, as long as it does not becomes too personal is what makes forums interesting.

[Tempest414]

Thx for post, always wondered why Admin do not as on other sites with posters who use abusive language ban them for a month, amazing as how that has the necessary effect

This being the type of forum it is I say anyone who can't get there elbows out needs to go back to the play ground. For me if I think someone has been abusive I tell them to wind there necks in

[NickC]

Thx for post, always wondered why Admin do not as on other sites with posters who use abusive language ban them for a month, amazing as how that has the necessary effect

This being the type of forum it is I say anyone who can't get there elbows out needs to go back to the play ground. For me if I think someone has been abusive I tell them to wind there necks in

Thx, have tried that with Ron5 previously, just water off a ducks back, he has a hide of an elephant, then Admin threatened to ban both of us, so why suggested the above option, thou perhaps ArmChairCivvy suggestion might be better "...a thousand word essay "