Type 31 Frigate (Inspiration Class) [News Only]

[Tempest414]

Cancel the 40mm Bofors order immediately....

40mm CTA with 4 LMM (or Starstreak 2).

EDIT: Gabrielle Molinelli has spotted that they are in fact Starstreak tubes, the end of the missile tube s just visible as is the same diameter as the front, plus you can just make out the circular indentations in the end caps.

Also...the 4 round launcher is the exact same one as seen on the MSI Seahawk Sigma in recent years.

If anything this makes me even more convinced that we should cancel the Bofors...includes the fact that guided ammunition based around a single dart from the Starstreak system will be developed....a far better option than 3P, ORKA or MADFIRES for the simple reason it would be made in the UK...

CTA40mm...with airburst or point detonation AND guided rounds...
4 x LMM or Starstreak 2

Maybe but we could fit LMM onto the Bofors mount to give the same effect

[Timmymagic]

Maybe but we could fit LMM onto the Bofors mount to give the same effect

Possibly, but Thales have partnered with KNDS.
Plus we should be standardising on CT40, the number of calibres we're currently holding is ludicrous....and the guided round being developed (there has been some work on it before) is for the CT40 not Bofors. A huge plus point.
40mm Bofors will only have 3P, CTA40 has its own programmable round.

[donald_of_tokyo]

Maybe but we could fit LMM onto the Bofors mount to give the same effect

Possibly, but Thales have partnered with KNDS.
Plus we should be standardising on CT40, the number of calibres we're currently holding is ludicrous....and the guided round being developed (there has been some work on it before) is for the CT40 not Bofors. A huge plus point.
40mm Bofors will only have 3P, CTA40 has its own programmable round.

Rationale for Bofors gun is its cheapness, especially the ammo cheapness. If CT40 sells see huge success worldwide, then the ammo cost will start to be similar. Personally, I do think Bofors 40mm is good. You can buy its ammo from many places, which is good in wartime. Also, most of the anti-UAV fightings showed that just air-burst and proxymity rounds (=3P ammo can do both) is good enough = no need for expensive ones. It is when we think these guns shall replace Phalanx CIWS, when the guided ammo be needed.

If CTA40 ammo gets cheap (say, just twice of that of Bofors'), then RN shall start thinking of replacing them. Anyway, all Bofors 40 mm guns have been ordered already. Its replacement issue will be on future, not now.

By the way, adding LMM/StarStreak launcher to RN escorts will be interesting to do. See French navy doing the same with Mistral MANPADS.

[Timmymagic]

By the way, adding LMM/StarStreak launcher to RN escorts will be interesting to do. See French navy doing the same with Mistral MANPADS.

I actually wouldn't be shocked to see the French adopt LMM. Thales is a French company, and the ability to engage all UAV's, plus low emissivity surface targets is probably superior to Mistral. A lot of Navy's are looking at the Black Sea Fleets issues with low profile USV's with alarm. We're lucky in the UK that the RN appeared to be ahead of the curve on it.

[Poiuytrewq]

Costs mounting but still on track

[Tempest414]

Costs mounting but still on track

This is in line with what we have seen at BAE

100 million inflation rise on type 31

233 million inflation rise on type 26

[Tempest414]

Also of note Babock's is doing well on T-31 given they have had POW in to be fixed

[NickC]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

[Poiuytrewq]

Also of note Babock's is doing well on T-31 given they have had POW in to be fixed

Seems like the dispute resolution process is working as intended to protect both the contractor and the taxpayer.

Progress all around.

[tomuk]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

[NickC]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

In my previous posting above I was as politely as possible trying to point out that your statements can be misleading as not qualified i.e. "X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" which do agree with in general but also gave the example of a long range X-band radar is possible as with the TPY-2, but pointed out it would be an expensive option and also with your statement "On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" I quoted an example showing it can make a big difference and would highlight the number of new frigates and destroyers being fitted with fixed panel arrays, off the top of my head can think of the navies of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Spain, US etc going with them, RN is an outlier in not using them.

You are now saying "France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers" and would point out the Horizon destroyers never fitted with S band radars, fitted with the L band S1850M and the higher C band EMPAR (originally developed with Marconi input), recently authorised is the Horizon MLU which will see the no change in the radar bands, but will be replaced with the new gen AESA GaN radars, SMART-L MM/N and the Kronos Grand Naval C band.

[Tempest414]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

In my previous posting above I was as politely as possible trying to point out that your statements can be misleading as not qualified i.e. "X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" which do agree with in general but also gave the example of a long range X-band radar is possible as with the TPY-2, but pointed out it would be an expensive option and also with your statement "On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" I quoted an example showing it can make a big difference and would highlight the number of new frigates and destroyers being fitted with fixed panel arrays, off the top of my head can think of the navies of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Spain, US etc going with them, RN is an outlier in not using them.

You are now saying "France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers" and would point out the Horizon destroyers never fitted with S band radars, fitted with the L band S1850M and the higher C band EMPAR (originally developed with Marconi input), recently authorised is the Horizon MLU which will see the no change in the radar bands, but will be replaced with the new gen AESA GaN radars, SMART-L MM/N and the Kronos Grand Naval C band.

All of the above navies are using fixed panel systems on there Tire 1 ships again I say Type 31 is the UK tire 2 ship

[tomuk]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

In my previous posting above I was as politely as possible trying to point out that your statements can be misleading as not qualified i.e. "X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" which do agree with in general but also gave the example of a long range X-band radar is possible as with the TPY-2, but pointed out it would be an expensive option and also with your statement

We are in a thread on a naval frigate discussing naval radar. Can you build a large or very large x band radar specifically for BMD detection that has a longer range than a typical S Band Naval radar? Yes you can. Can it be fitted to the mast of a 5000T frigate and perform the multifunctional tasks of an S Band naval radar? No it can't. That is what makes your comparisons invalid and too simplistic. Maybe the RN should procure a BD picket ship by adding an 1800t SBX radar to a River?

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" I quoted an example showing it can make a big difference

Again you are taking too simplistic a view there are many factors effecting the range of a radar from the physical ie size and type, chosen frequency, operation and signal processing. The situation, role and context of the radar are all important when making comparisons not you simplistic top trump style 'its got GaN modules' cheerleading and non contextual examples.

and would highlight the number of new frigates and destroyers being fitted with fixed panel arrays, off the top of my head can think of the navies of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Spain, US etc going with them, RN is an outlier in not using them.

I note that Italy and France and their customer navies use rotating radars on their Gowinds, FREMMs and Horizons. Smart S, Herakles, EMPAR, KRONOS Grand Naval.

You are now saying "France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers" and would point out the Horizon destroyers never fitted with S band radars, fitted with the L band S1850M and the higher C band EMPAR (originally developed with Marconi input), recently authorised is the Horizon MLU which will see the no change in the radar bands, but will be replaced with the new gen AESA GaN radars, SMART-L MM/N and the Kronos Grand Naval C band.

I made an error there counting EMPAR and Kronos as S band but within context of your earlier remarks that 'X Band is better' they aren't X band they are the lower frequency C band between S and X. Also of note is they are a single face 60 rpm rotated radar. So I assume in your view Grand Kronos is a pretty poor radar?

[NickC]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

In my previous posting above I was as politely as possible trying to point out that your statements can be misleading as not qualified i.e. "X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" which do agree with in general but also gave the example of a long range X-band radar is possible as with the TPY-2, but pointed out it would be an expensive option and also with your statement

We are in a thread on a naval frigate discussing naval radar. Can you build a large or very large x band radar specifically for BMD detection that has a longer range than a typical S Band Naval radar? Yes you can. Can it be fitted to the mast of a 5000T frigate and perform the multifunctional tasks of an S Band naval radar? No it can't. That is what makes your comparisons invalid and too simplistic. Maybe the RN should procure a BD picket ship by adding an 1800t SBX radar to a River?

As you say we are in a thread on a naval frigate discussing naval radar and in case you have forgotten I will remind you of my earlier posts was advocating we follow the recommendations of the NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study for navy ships using L band for VSR and X band for MFR and never did suggest X band for long range, X band only came into the discussion when you stated it has only a short range and I pointed out X band can have a very long range and you seem to have gone off on a rant.

Just for info the X band TPY-2 100 sq ft antenna weighs 34 tons and have seen range claimed of 2 to 3 thousand km in its FB mode and why China objected so strongly when US stationed THAAD in South Korea as its radar coverage reaches well into China and so physically capable of observing missile flights deep within its territory.

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" I quoted an example showing it can make a big difference

Again you are taking too simplistic a view there are many factors effecting the range of a radar from the physical ie size and type, chosen frequency, operation and signal processing. The situation, role and context of the radar are all important when making comparisons not you simplistic top trump style 'its got GaN modules' cheerleading and non contextual examples.

Noticeable that to support your arguments your resorting to gratuitous insults, my "too simplistic view" is based on the US Navy statement that "radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, and while improvements can be made to the T/R modules said this is a linear not cubic relationship and only adds marginal capability on the order of +1 or 2 dB"and why fixed arrays now so often chosen, though sure as you say other factors come into play.

and would highlight the number of new frigates and destroyers being fitted with fixed panel arrays, off the top of my head can think of the navies of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Spain, US etc going with them, RN is an outlier in not using them.

I note that Italy and France and their customer navies use rotating radars on their Gowinds, FREMMs and Horizons. Smart S, Herakles, EMPAR, KRONOS Grand Naval.

None of the ships you mention are new gen ships, the new French FTI and Italian PPA frigates fit fixed panel array radars and some would not even class some variants as Tier 1 ships

You are now saying "France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers" and would point out the Horizon destroyers never fitted with S band radars, fitted with the L band S1850M and the higher C band EMPAR (originally developed with Marconi input), recently authorised is the Horizon MLU which will see the no change in the radar bands, but will be replaced with the new gen AESA GaN radars, SMART-L MM/N and the Kronos Grand Naval C band.

I made an error there counting EMPAR and Kronos as S band but within context of your earlier remarks that 'X Band is better' they aren't X band they are the lower frequency C band between S and X. Also of note is they are a single face 60 rpm rotated radar. So I assume in your view Grand Kronos is a pretty poor radar?

I repeat the NAAWS study recommended the higher band X band for its required better discrimination as the best option for MFR, but there are many powerful influences on the choice of naval radars and differing opinions plus primarily the pork barrel politics of keeping production at home.
I'm sure the Grand Kronos is a very good radar and particularly suited to upgrading the older Horizon class, but as said radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture and why think can say all the new Tier 1 navy frigates and destroyers using fixed panel array radars as the better option and repeat the RN is an outlier with both T26 and T31 not using them and as Tempest414 said T31 is only Tier 2 frigate.

[wargame_insomniac]

I repeat the NAAWS study recommended the higher band X band for its required better discrimination as the best option for MFR, but there are many powerful influences on the choice of naval radars and differing opinions plus primarily the pork barrel politics of keeping production at home.
I'm sure the Grand Kronos is a very good radar and particularly suited to upgrading the older Horizon class, but as said radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture and why think can say all the new Tier 1 navy frigates and destroyers using fixed panel array radars as the better option and repeat the RN is an outlier with both T26 and T31 not using them and as Tempest414 said T31 is only Tier 2 frigate.

I will readily admit to not following the technical details of this ping-pong discussion. But I am intrerested in understanding more about the radars chosen for T26 and T31.

When you say that RN is an outlier for not using fixed panel array radars on say T26, does this reflect that although T26 is a Tier 1 escort, it's primary role is stringly dedicated to ASW rather than AAW. What sort of price differential is there between T26' radar and fixed panel arrays that I can see many nations moving towards.

And yes currently T31 are undoubtedly intended as Tier 2 escort. I have noted before that I a in favour of the T31 being upgraded with weapons and sensors, especially adding sonar. What sort of upgrade and cost would be talking about if RN were to upgrade T31s radar?

Because I accept there is a tipping point in adding upgrades to T31. The main virtue of T31 design were its comparatively cheap cost, simplicity to build and lower crew required than say T26. I do think think we should upgrade the T31 to be a proper GP Frigate, capable of acting either solo or as an additional escort to CSG or LRG. But RN will need to be mindful of not adding too much to T31 and with extra up front acqusition or long term running costs, or additional crew required, could lose its initial benefits.

[tomuk]

"What other limitations ?" Lets just look at the radar, assume T31 may be called on to operate in a high threat zone e.g. Persian Gulf, you can envisage coming under attack by Iranian subsonic, supersonic and even hypersonic sea-skimming missiles in 2030s/2040s. T31 is fitted with the S-band NS110 radar and relying on the much higher waveband of its CAMM active homing seeker to actually target the attacking missiles, the drawback with this system is the lower definition S band than the higher definition X-band (seen stated a X-band radar might achieve a range resolution of 150-250 mm targets whereas a S-band radar might only achieve 500mm to 1metre - depending on the choice of S-band frequency range) and so it will not be able distinguish a single missile from two until too close in for effective defence options, another drawback of S-band vs X-band according to Thales is S band bends upwards at horizon whereas the X band can travel at sea level beyond the visual horizon so giving you vital additional vital seconds of warning, another limitation of the NS110 is it’s a rotating radar and not a fixed panel substantially reducing the dwell time and range and the possibility that it will lose the track from one rev to the next and have to re-establish it the clutter of the littorals.

You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you. Myriad navies around the world have vessels fitted only with S band radar to detect and track targets. Having active seekers on CAMM isn't relying on them it is better. As instead of one or two x band or higher frequency illumination radars many more missiles can be launched and independently targeted.

X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range and the signal is attenuated much more by rain, ever had you satelittle TV drop out due to heavy rain or heat up water or food in a microwave.

On rotating vs fixed arrays it does reduce dwell time as the rotating panel can't stare this can be assuaged by faster rotation and as it is an ASEA panel steering the beams left and right of the panel. On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference in fact it can be better with a rotating radar as the target is more likely to be perpendicular to the boresight of the radar.

"You really don't understand radar or naval warfare do you" I would rather take the note of the experts if you don't mind in understanding naval radars, would note Thales Nederland say the same, the exhaustive NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study which reported in '91 recommended X-band MFR for ship defence and L-band VSR for long range search. The principle behind this concept is that an X-band MFR coupled with an L-band VSR provides the optimal combination of complementary capabilities, the MFR is optimised for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions while the VSR is optimized for long range detection and tracking of aircraft and missiles. The study appears to have been strongly influenced by the near loss of USS Stark in the Persian Gulf in 1987 after being hit by two Exocets, launched from a Iraqi Mirage F1, which drove the need to develop a leak-proof defense of ship from sea skimming missile attacks, fast raids of maneuvering targets as they cross the ship’s radar horizon. The S-band is a compromise of a middle frequency, can provide a balance between discrimination and tracking capability, but its not the best option.

"X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" would point out X band does not necessarily have shorter range than S band, e.g. the TPY-2 long range radar used with THAAD is X band and has a longer range than the S band SPY-1 radar as fitted to the Burke destroyers, though TPY-2 is a very expensive radar at ~$250 million with only one fixed panel array, it was thought justified by the X band having the much higher resolution required so as to be able to target the TBM warhead from decoys with the single THAAD HTK warhead (the Russian TBM Iskander-M and the hypersonic air launched derivative Kinzal are fitted with six decoys).

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" The range of rotating is radar appear substantially less than fixed panel radars e.g. Lockheed with their new AESA GaN L band TPY-4 radar quote range as 555 km when rotating at 6 rpm whereas in staring mode its range increases to 1,000 km and would expect the higher rotating rpm of the radar the shorter the range will be due to less dwell time available.

This is another example of the issue with your posts you quote chunks of manufacturers PR releases, news articles and wiki don't give citations and mix the quotes with your own conjecture and conclusions usually based on faulty understanding of what they are talking about.

You mention the NAAWS study and USS Stark, the grand collation of NATO partners didn't stick together after the study the US preferred their way of working with S band SPY1. UK, France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers. The Netherlands, Germany took their own path and developed X band APAR and fitted it to their new air defence ships. Denmark later choosing it for the IHs and Canada who were a development partner didn't buy it but have upgraded the Halifaxs to a Thales S Band radar. Norway and Spain went with S-band SPY1.

Your comparison of S band SPY 1 and X band TPY-2 is too simplistic to be valid they are two completely different radars for different requirements.

In my previous posting above I was as politely as possible trying to point out that your statements can be misleading as not qualified i.e. "X band does give better resolution but has a shorter range" which do agree with in general but also gave the example of a long range X-band radar is possible as with the TPY-2, but pointed out it would be an expensive option and also with your statement

We are in a thread on a naval frigate discussing naval radar. Can you build a large or very large x band radar specifically for BMD detection that has a longer range than a typical S Band Naval radar? Yes you can. Can it be fitted to the mast of a 5000T frigate and perform the multifunctional tasks of an S Band naval radar? No it can't. That is what makes your comparisons invalid and too simplistic. Maybe the RN should procure a BD picket ship by adding an 1800t SBX radar to a River?

As you say we are in a thread on a naval frigate discussing naval radar and in case you have forgotten I will remind you of my earlier posts was advocating we follow the recommendations of the NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study for navy ships using L band for VSR and X band for MFR and never did suggest X band for long range, X band only came into the discussion when you stated it has only a short range and I pointed out X band can have a very long range and you seem to have gone off on a rant.

Just for info the X band TPY-2 100 sq ft antenna weighs 34 tons and have seen range claimed of 2 to 3 thousand km in its FB mode and why China objected so strongly when US stationed THAAD in South Korea as its radar coverage reaches well into China and so physically capable of observing missile flights deep within its territory.

"On range fixed vs rotating doesn't make much difference" I quoted an example showing it can make a big difference

Again you are taking too simplistic a view there are many factors effecting the range of a radar from the physical ie size and type, chosen frequency, operation and signal processing. The situation, role and context of the radar are all important when making comparisons not you simplistic top trump style 'its got GaN modules' cheerleading and non contextual examples.

Noticeable that to support your arguments your resorting to gratuitous insults, my "too simplistic view" is based on the US Navy statement that "radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture, and while improvements can be made to the T/R modules said this is a linear not cubic relationship and only adds marginal capability on the order of +1 or 2 dB"and why fixed arrays now so often chosen, though sure as you say other factors come into play.

and would highlight the number of new frigates and destroyers being fitted with fixed panel arrays, off the top of my head can think of the navies of Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Holland, Italy, Japan, Spain, US etc going with them, RN is an outlier in not using them.

I note that Italy and France and their customer navies use rotating radars on their Gowinds, FREMMs and Horizons. Smart S, Herakles, EMPAR, KRONOS Grand Naval.

None of the ships you mention are new gen ships, the new French FTI and Italian PPA frigates fit fixed panel array radars and some would not even class some variants as Tier 1 ships

You are now saying "France and Italy chose to work together on the Horizon programme that led to the S and L band fitted Type 45 and Horizon destroyers" and would point out the Horizon destroyers never fitted with S band radars, fitted with the L band S1850M and the higher C band EMPAR (originally developed with Marconi input), recently authorised is the Horizon MLU which will see the no change in the radar bands, but will be replaced with the new gen AESA GaN radars, SMART-L MM/N and the Kronos Grand Naval C band.

I made an error there counting EMPAR and Kronos as S band but within context of your earlier remarks that 'X Band is better' they aren't X band they are the lower frequency C band between S and X. Also of note is they are a single face 60 rpm rotated radar. So I assume in your view Grand Kronos is a pretty poor radar?

I repeat the NAAWS study recommended the higher band X band for its required better discrimination as the best option for MFR, but there are many powerful influences on the choice of naval radars and differing opinions plus primarily the pork barrel politics of keeping production at home.
I'm sure the Grand Kronos is a very good radar and particularly suited to upgrading the older Horizon class, but as said radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture and why think can say all the new Tier 1 navy frigates and destroyers using fixed panel array radars as the better option and repeat the RN is an outlier with both T26 and T31 not using them and as Tempest414 said T31 is only Tier 2 frigate.

You keep banging on about NAAWS but of all NATO members only Germany and the Netherlands (Denmark bought of the shelf later) followed through and fitted their air defence frigates with an X Band MFR. All other NATO navies and many other navies world wide went for S Band apart from France and Italy that went C-band not X.

And you seem to be suggesting that choice by the majority of navies was due to malign 'powerful influences' and 'pork barrel politics' or maybe it was just that their experts thought that S band gave better results given the real world scenarios in which it would be operated?

And what is it with this US Navy quote you keep falling back on? I've tried to find the source but Google is overwhelmed by nonsense posts by you on various defence blogs and news sites where you quote it like some sort of ace up your sleeve. It is basic physics that the bigger an antennae is the more sensitive it will be.

As regards the actual quote it seems to have been made by Navy officials when defending their decision to build more Burkes rather than Zumwalts to the GAO. That is you can fit a larger radar array to the deckhouse of the Burkes than you can on Zumwalts.

[tomuk]

I repeat the NAAWS study recommended the higher band X band for its required better discrimination as the best option for MFR, but there are many powerful influences on the choice of naval radars and differing opinions plus primarily the pork barrel politics of keeping production at home.
I'm sure the Grand Kronos is a very good radar and particularly suited to upgrading the older Horizon class, but as said radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture and why think can say all the new Tier 1 navy frigates and destroyers using fixed panel array radars as the better option and repeat the RN is an outlier with both T26 and T31 not using them and as Tempest414 said T31 is only Tier 2 frigate.

I will readily admit to not following the technical details of this ping-pong discussion. But I am intrerested in understanding more about the radars chosen for T26 and T31.

When you say that RN is an outlier for not using fixed panel array radars on say T26, does this reflect that although T26 is a Tier 1 escort, it's primary role is stringly dedicated to ASW rather than AAW. What sort of price differential is there between T26' radar and fixed panel arrays that I can see many nations moving towards.

And yes currently T31 are undoubtedly intended as Tier 2 escort. I have noted before that I a in favour of the T31 being upgraded with weapons and sensors, especially adding sonar. What sort of upgrade and cost would be talking about if RN were to upgrade T31s radar?

Because I accept there is a tipping point in adding upgrades to T31. The main virtue of T31 design were its comparatively cheap cost, simplicity to build and lower crew required than say T26. I do think think we should upgrade the T31 to be a proper GP Frigate, capable of acting either solo or as an additional escort to CSG or LRG. But RN will need to be mindful of not adding too much to T31 and with extra up front acqusition or long term running costs, or additional crew required, could lose its initial benefits.

I apologise for the back and forth but NickCs continued in lieu of a better word almost identically constructed spam posts really grate my gears.

As regards the choices of radar for T26 and T31 both in terms of role and tier respectively they don't require a top of the line radar add to that an unwillingness in UKGov to invest in appropriate R&D and production purchases of defence radar amongst other penny pinching and a procurement believe that competition is all means you get 'off the shelf' rotating Artisan for type 26 rather than a new fixed panel version the BAE with investment could easily produce and for T31 you get NS100 which I'm sure Thales will be happy to regain some money on the investment they have made.

[SKB]

Deleted the last few posts. Type 31 news only from here on.

[Ian Hall]

Not sure I agree about 76mm.

[Ian Hall]

The rest of Tweet (neither convinced that a follow on OPV needs to be in effect armed like a corvette)

[jedibeeftrix]

"The point to make is that we can’t afford large fleets of billion dollar warships."
Very good of you to devise a bargain-basement RN.

"These smaller vessels are an attempt to..."
Make room for 'higher' priority items elsewhere in Defence...?

[Tempest414]

The rest of Tweet (neither convinced that a follow on OPV needs to be in effect armed like a corvette)

As a base line I believe first and for most the RB2's should be given a 3d radar like SAAB x1 and a better UAV and if money allows a 40mm fitted to allow better anti air against drones when it comes to the follow on OPV I have said before if it is for overseas deployment it need to be 105 meters by 15 meters have a 3d radar good CMS 2 x 40mm a hangar and flight deck plus covered and open working decks

[new guy]

Good where finally talking about the recent this; I have been laughing the whole time.

"Just get a river and add some missilesz."



Corvettes do fuck all for the RN
They are good for some nations, but horrible for the RN in the same way it is horrible for the RAN

. Endurance lacking: Compared to actual frigates or such, most have tiny range and endurance. This is very bad for a navy that does global operations, has overseas territories, and very much needs that range and endurance This is hugely important.

. Most European corvettes are 80% of the cost of a frigate for significant capability losses. They are not cheap. Especially compared to a T31, they are virtually equal price wise. Why? Because steel is cheap and air is free. The most expensive parts on a warship are its systems, especially its weapon systems. arming it up to the same armament as a frigate then it will probably have a very similar cost

. Size: as a result of being the main factor between a corvette and a frigate, it is the one that takes the most impact. Less space for sailors, less space for battle protection, less space for future improvements; Everyone knows about how the anzac class has been to small for what the modern needs but apon it; Imagine 30-40 years from now, where the RAN has both a hunter class already design maxed out and a corvette that is to small to take anything more; At least with a AH140 instead of a corvette they have more wiggle room, more growth room.

Corvette are not a dirty word (e.g. WWII Flower class) but as one adds more and more capability on a ~2000t hull you get into diminishing returns, driving up costs potentially towards Frigate levels (~6000t).

OPVs already do the job, I don't want to waste resources making them marginally better and still not suitable for higher end jobs. Those asking for corvettes and SSKs are pushing us towards a lacking regional navy. Focus our resources on proper combatants.

For 2 corvettes you could get 1 T31 and 1 riverB2 for the same price. So instead of having 2 poor combatants while being ocationally to high end for OPV roles, you can have one actual combatant and one actually OPV.

There is more, but this is all I have found with minimal effort.

[Ian Hall]

Comparison with the Braunschweig class corvette is interesting. Somewhat smaller than B2 Rivers. More heavily armed, but are described as successors to fast attack craft.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschw ... s_corvette

[serge750]

Blimey ! is that endurance correct....