Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

[Tempest414]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

[donald_of_tokyo]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

[SW1]

[new guy]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

I think you have a few misconceptions.

When T23 was designed, it was designed for a 16 year service life.

When T26 programme was aroused it was intended to be T23 replacement on the 25-year mark

T26. growth room wasn't a result of it's 30+ year actual service life.

Steel is cheap, Air is free,
A famous quote that regardless it's overuse hold an abundance of truth.

[Tempest414]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

Yes France is a global navy but that dose not make FDI a good blue water ship like FREMM but what it is is a great regional ship which is very good exports as most navies in the world are just this regional

[SW1]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

Yes France is a global navy but that dose not make FDI a good blue water ship like FREMM but what it is is a great regional ship which is very good exports as most navies in the world are just this regional

Why would a frigate with 5000nm range and 45 day endurance not be a good blue water ship?

[Tempest414]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

Yes France is a global navy but that dose not make FDI a good blue water ship like FREMM but what it is is a great regional ship which is very good exports as most navies in the world are just this regional

Why would a frigate with 5000nm range and 45 day endurance not be a good blue water ship?

in the same way that a RB2 with a 5000nm range and 35 day endurance is not a good Blue water ship size

The FDI will be good in the same way it can move place to place and do a great job when there

[Repulse]

Steel is cheap, Air is free,
A famous quote that regardless it's overuse hold an abundance of truth.

Great, let’s buy some oil tankers. Tbh I think is the most overused phrase there is - there is plenty of reasons why ships do not need to be large nor would you always want them to be.

[Repulse]

…do we need "better armed but less number of escorts" or "be happy with under-armed escorts to keep the hull number"?

I personally think the latter is the aim.
[EDIT/ADD] In war time, navy needs to be expanded, but how?
Up-arming an escort is much more easy and faster than building new one. As we can see, all 3 types of escorts can almost "double" their fighting power if needed. Up-armed escort will need a bit more crew, but it will not be double.

We should never settle for a fleet of under armed ships to keep numbers up - firstly the RN is more crew restricted than money restricted it seems. Also, if war did break out it will move very quickly, whatever happens in the first few weeks will dictate who wins. Therefore, every platform should count, as there will be no time to upgrade or build more ships if you lose the opening.

Sure people will say we didn’t win the first part of WW2, that’s true, but the most important thing was we didn’t lose it. This is exactly why we need to ensure we have a top tier that is capable of not losing or allowing the enemy to invade the UK or degrade our capabilities such we cannot recover. And btw, we need this in the next ten years, which is exactly why I want more of and out of our SSNs/T26s/T45s (+ CVFs) and fewer T31s or misplaced units manned by the RFA.

Your question on what would be our WW3 Flower Class is a good one - the reason why it was a success was that it was easy to build (in multiple yards so <90m) and relatively easy to operate. This where a good MHPC design can come in, and I believe taking another look at RV Triton would be a good place to start.

[SW1]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

Yes France is a global navy but that dose not make FDI a good blue water ship like FREMM but what it is is a great regional ship which is very good exports as most navies in the world are just this regional

Why would a frigate with 5000nm range and 45 day endurance not be a good blue water ship?

in the same way that a RB2 with a 5000nm range and 35 day endurance is not a good Blue water ship size

The FDI will be good in the same way it can move place to place and do a great job when there

FDI is twice the size of a river. Also it’s quite wide I assume for improved sea keeping so I don’t really understand the comparison nor why it’s bad
for operating in an ocean.

[Tempest414]

The FDI is a good ship for regional navies but not as good for global navies I think

But France is a global navy. Also RN was on the same side of densely equipped smallish escorts in number until Type-23. It is only after the cold war ends, and ship are to be operated for 30-35 years, and hence needing LIFEX.

Buying compact and densely equipped escorts and disband them within 20-25 years is yet another "good" approach, I think.

Not which is better, but just a different approach. If MOD, HMG and HMT are flexible to adopt "25 year replace" plan, I think it can also be a valid option for RN.

Yes France is a global navy but that dose not make FDI a good blue water ship like FREMM but what it is is a great regional ship which is very good exports as most navies in the world are just this regional

Why would a frigate with 5000nm range and 45 day endurance not be a good blue water ship?

in the same way that a RB2 with a 5000nm range and 35 day endurance is not a good Blue water ship size

The FDI will be good in the same way it can move place to place and do a great job when there

FDI is twice the size of a river. Also it’s quite wide I assume for improved sea keeping so I don’t really understand the comparison nor why it’s bad
for operating in an ocean.

I would agree a FDI at 180 by 28 meters would be a great blue water ship but it is not at is it

As said FDI is a great ship for regional navies and will do well in exports for that reason

[NickC]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

[tomuk]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

BAE state that the beamwidth on Artisan is <2 degrees

[NickC]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

BAE state that the beamwidth on Artisan is <2 degrees

A contradiction and don't think anyway to reconcile them but would note as said in radar size matters, USN state sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the aperture.

[Poiuytrewq]

Australia gearing up for a possible A140 build.



https://archive.is/2GZW9

“If you buy exactly the same vessel as a type 31, you’re going to accelerate your speed,” Mr Bennett said.
“If you wish to bring in a design change to fit a different combat system and want a different engine, for example, that duration totally changes.”

Can the RAN buy off of the shelf this time to accelerate the timescale?

Seems unlikely based on past performance.

[Ron5]

By the time they've upped the configuration to RAN standards, it won't be cheap either.

[Fr0sty125]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

[serge750]

As cheap as the Polish T31......

[tomuk]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

What is the point if they aren't also fitted with missiles that would need the tracking data?

[Fr0sty125]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

What is the point if they aren't also fitted with missiles that would need the tracking data?

Radar picket.

[pko100]

I believe that the Giraffe 1X has been trialled on the experimental trials ship (the name escapes me at present Blackett ?). The current Terma Scanter radar meets the current requirement and is also used on non military vessels, whereas I expect an ESM system detecting a Giraffe would instantly define the ship as a military vessel.

[tomuk]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

What is the point if they aren't also fitted with missiles that would need the tracking data?

Radar picket.

Sounds quite vulnerable.

[tomuk]

I believe that the Giraffe 1X has been trialled on the experimental trials ship (the name escapes me at present Blackett ?). The current Terma Scanter radar meets the current requirement and is also used on non military vessels, whereas I expect an ESM system detecting a Giraffe would instantly define the ship as a military vessel.

We've signed a contract for 11, 1 for trials on Patrick Blackett as part of the NavyX program the other 10 AIUI is assumed for land use, possibly Ukraine.

[tomuk]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

BAE state that the beamwidth on Artisan is <2 degrees

A contradiction and don't think anyway to reconcile them but would note as said in radar size matters, USN state sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the aperture.

Not really a contradiction. And I'd give benefit of the doubt to company published data rather than some aside in a BTL comment.

[Fr0sty125]

FWIW a poster's comment on Artisan caught my eye on a War Zone article " San Antonio Class Looks Very Different After Shedding Its Stealthy Masts", not very complimentary to Artisan due its high beamwidth at longer ranges.

Patrick Chase

9 hours ago

This seems a little misleading:

Even the smaller versions of the AN/SPY-6 like the (V)2 offer massive advantages over existing phased array types like the AN/SPS-48, particularly in terms of being able to track more targets at longer ranges with greater precision and fidelity.

For starters SPS-48 is a planar array that is frequency-scanned (FRESCAN) in elevation, not a phased array (though I've seen some sites erroneously conflate the two approaches).

Second, while it's correct that EASR can "track more targets" than SPS-48, it's not as precise ("fidelity" has no defined meaning in this context, so I'll leave that alone). Both SPY-6(V)2 and SPS-48 are S-band radars with wavelengths of ~0.1m. EASR has an aperture size of 6 feet = 1.82 m. It's diffraction-limited beamwidth is therefore 1.22*0.1/1.82 = 0.067 radians = 3.8 degrees. That's actually fairly poor precision by modern search radar standards, and probably insufficient to provide engagement-quality tracks at longer ranges (though some other comparable radars like Type 997 Artisan are even worse).

By contrast, SPS-48's ~5 meter aperture gives it a 1.5 degree beamwidth. It's actually a very precise radar.

I'm not saying that EASR isn't a worthy replacement for SPS-48 or that it isn't a net upgrade, but there is no free lunch and it's simply physically impossible for a 1.8-meter aperture to match a 5-meter one in terms of precision. Size matters whether the radar is AESA or not.

https://www.twz.com/sea/san-antonio-cla ... lthy-masts

On the discussion of radars I don’t understand why RN isn’t fitting cheap 3D AESA radars to the Rivers and Bay class. At less than £2m a set for Sea Giraffe 1X it seems a bit of a no brainer cheap and small enough to go on a future small USV.

What is the point if they aren't also fitted with missiles that would need the tracking data?

Radar picket.

Sounds quite vulnerable.

Well it would be better to have a USV do the job. Stan flex style CAMM container would make the Rivers a lot less vulnerable.