Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Contains threads on Royal Navy equipment of the past, present and future.
tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 09:24
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.
I regularly add to the debate, but with pertinent information not just lengthy quotes from the idiots guide to radar.
I didn't ask any such question. You suggested fitting APAR Blk II. I was questioning the appropriateness of your suggestion when a large majority of the worlds AAW destroyers are fitted with S band radar.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

new guy wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 09:51
🇳🇱 Dutch Low Manning Vessel

. Modular
. The purpose is to cover the capacity gap as a flexible solution before the next gen air defence ship arrive - very much a barge to carry additional missiles.
. TRIFFIC / Low Manned Surface Vessel / MICAN: Modular Integrated Capability ADCF and North Sea ( ADCF= Air Defecne Command Frigate)
. Modular weapons systems
. Purpose to increase firepower.
. Commercial Off The Shelf / Modified Off The Shelf.
. Commercial vessels
. Slaved to land or frigate
. Remotely operated from frigate
. FOC 2027
. To plug low availability and also to lessen the pain of the 10 year wait for new Air Defence Ship's.


> Similar solution for RN, to cover availability issues, fire power in either CSG or the LRG's (Pre and post MRSS) , or act as TAPS ship?




RN motion is gaining


tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

Well 40m Damen vessels like Patrick Blackett aren't going in a T26 mission bay or even on a MRSS.

new guy
Senior Member
Posts: 1428
Joined: 18 Apr 2023, 01:53
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by new guy »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:15 Well 40m Damen vessels like Patrick Blackett aren't going in a T26 mission bay or even on a MRSS.
yeah, it isn't meant to, it is a minimally / completely unmanned ship.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

new guy wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:56
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:15 Well 40m Damen vessels like Patrick Blackett aren't going in a T26 mission bay or even on a MRSS.
yeah, it isn't meant to, it is a minimally / completely unmanned ship.
I wasn't implying it was more suggesting that the T26 mission bay may be emptier than maybe suggested or that the smaller bays on T31 may not be an encumbrance.

Fr0sty125
Member
Posts: 79
Joined: 09 Feb 2023, 17:18
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Fr0sty125 »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 19:28
new guy wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:56
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:15 Well 40m Damen vessels like Patrick Blackett aren't going in a T26 mission bay or even on a MRSS.
yeah, it isn't meant to, it is a minimally / completely unmanned ship.
I wasn't implying it was more suggesting that the T26 mission bay may be emptier than maybe suggested or that the smaller bays on T31 may not be an encumbrance.
This is something I’ve been pondering in recent weeks. The MBHS can’t even handle the XLUUV

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 17:10
NickC wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 09:24
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.
I regularly add to the debate, but with pertinent information not just lengthy quotes from the idiots guide to radar.
I didn't ask any such question. You suggested fitting APAR Blk II. I was questioning the appropriateness of your suggestion when a large majority of the worlds AAW destroyers are fitted with S band radar.
Do wonder if you know the radar fit of the AAW destroyers and as a result spreading more misinformation. Though agree many AAW destroyers are fitted with long range S-band radars, but the majority are also fitted with the complimentary shorter range higher definition shorter range X-band radars and as previously pointed out amongst others the 73 USN Burkes and why the appropriateness of fitting an X-band radar to the T83 e3.g. APAR Blk II.

donald_of_tokyo
Senior Member
Posts: 5644
Joined: 06 May 2015, 13:18
Japan

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by donald_of_tokyo »

Fr0sty125 wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 20:14
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 19:28
new guy wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:56
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 18:15 Well 40m Damen vessels like Patrick Blackett aren't going in a T26 mission bay or even on a MRSS.
yeah, it isn't meant to, it is a minimally / completely unmanned ship.
I wasn't implying it was more suggesting that the T26 mission bay may be emptier than maybe suggested or that the smaller bays on T31 may not be an encumbrance.
This is something I’ve been pondering in recent weeks. The MBHS can’t even handle the XLUUV
"Even XLUUV" is not so important, I think. XLUUV is slow and persistent system. Not in good match with ASW frigate, which is a maneuvering/cruising asset.

Dutch navy is thinking of a 10-12 m long boat with FLASH dipping sonar. Sending an ASW boat will be much much cheaper than sending a Merlin (which needs huge maintenance hours for each flight hour). Of course, an ASW boat cannot move as fast as a Merlin, but can stay in a position (like, 2-3 km ahead of the frigate steaming in 16 knots cruising speed, if the water is relatively calm). I am a fan of ARCIMS SEASENSE ASW system, and T26 can handle it. We shall just wait for such system to evolve.

Alternatively, the mission bay can carry 1 more Merlin, or 2 more Wildcat, or 6-10 more UAVs, in addition to a single RHIB (another RHIB is located on the port-side boat alcove). This is also not bad?
These users liked the author donald_of_tokyo for the post (total 2):
serge750wargame_insomniac

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 09 Jul 2024, 12:32
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 17:10
NickC wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 09:24
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.
I regularly add to the debate, but with pertinent information not just lengthy quotes from the idiots guide to radar.
I didn't ask any such question. You suggested fitting APAR Blk II. I was questioning the appropriateness of your suggestion when a large majority of the worlds AAW destroyers are fitted with S band radar.
Do wonder if you know the radar fit of the AAW destroyers and as a result spreading more misinformation. Though agree many AAW destroyers are fitted with long range S-band radars, but the majority are also fitted with the complimentary shorter range higher definition shorter range X-band radars and as previously pointed out amongst others the 73 USN Burkes and why the appropriateness of fitting an X-band radar to the T83 e3.g. APAR Blk II.
Misinformation really? I'm fully aware that the Burkes, and Ticos for that matter, have the SPQ9 X band surface radar. It is used for surface search, for navigation, and the gun laying system for the Mk45. It is a 2D radar with some aerial capability. Not that dissimilar to the Nav\surface radars fitted to RN vessels. To suggest some sort of equivalence to a fully featured 3D MFR like APAR Blk II is preposterous.

The son of sampson R&D effort does include a strand looking at adding an X band capability to the main radar for use in AAW to aid classification and identification of targets.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 09 Jul 2024, 21:13
NickC wrote: 09 Jul 2024, 12:32
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 17:10
NickC wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 09:24
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.
I regularly add to the debate, but with pertinent information not just lengthy quotes from the idiots guide to radar.
I didn't ask any such question. You suggested fitting APAR Blk II. I was questioning the appropriateness of your suggestion when a large majority of the worlds AAW destroyers are fitted with S band radar.
Do wonder if you know the radar fit of the AAW destroyers and as a result spreading more misinformation. Though agree many AAW destroyers are fitted with long range S-band radars, but the majority are also fitted with the complimentary shorter range higher definition shorter range X-band radars and as previously pointed out amongst others the 73 USN Burkes and why the appropriateness of fitting an X-band radar to the T83 e3.g. APAR Blk II.
Misinformation really? I'm fully aware that the Burkes, and Ticos for that matter, have the SPQ9 X band surface radar. It is used for surface search, for navigation, and the gun laying system for the Mk45. It is a 2D radar with some aerial capability. Not that dissimilar to the Nav\surface radars fitted to RN vessels. To suggest some sort of equivalence to a fully featured 3D MFR like APAR Blk II is preposterous.

The son of sampson R&D effort does include a strand looking at adding an X band capability to the main radar for use in AAW to aid classification and identification of targets.
The original USN ~2010 requirement was for separate AMDR in both S and X bands for the Burke Flt IIIs but the USN postponed the AMDR-X due budgetary constraints to the 13th ship and it has re-emerged as the new gen Future X-Band Radar (FXR) to compliment the SPY-6 S-band, re. Janes write up on the USN FXR FRI and Thales comments though would be very surprised if they win the contract due to the strong US buy American sentiment in Congress.

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/de ... nformation

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/countrie ... rvices-red

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 10 Jul 2024, 12:08
tomuk wrote: 09 Jul 2024, 21:13
NickC wrote: 09 Jul 2024, 12:32
tomuk wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 17:10
NickC wrote: 08 Jul 2024, 09:24
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Thanks for the pointless quotes from the Ladybird book of Radars. I'm well aware of the different radar bands and their advantages\disadvantages and their applications.
I must say you come across as totally self-centered with your snide remarks, do you suffer from paranoia, you do understand you are not the only person who reads the forum and it would help if you could add to the debate with appropriate additional knowledge
tomuk wrote: 07 Jul 2024, 19:25 Also I'm not sure what a critique of the fit on T26 adds to the debate I thought we were discussing T45\Sampson replacement.
You appear to have forgotten it was you asked the question why take the possible option to fit an X-band radar, the highly capable APAR Blk II, on the T83 and the T26 fit came in as background.
I regularly add to the debate, but with pertinent information not just lengthy quotes from the idiots guide to radar.
I didn't ask any such question. You suggested fitting APAR Blk II. I was questioning the appropriateness of your suggestion when a large majority of the worlds AAW destroyers are fitted with S band radar.
Do wonder if you know the radar fit of the AAW destroyers and as a result spreading more misinformation. Though agree many AAW destroyers are fitted with long range S-band radars, but the majority are also fitted with the complimentary shorter range higher definition shorter range X-band radars and as previously pointed out amongst others the 73 USN Burkes and why the appropriateness of fitting an X-band radar to the T83 e3.g. APAR Blk II.
Misinformation really? I'm fully aware that the Burkes, and Ticos for that matter, have the SPQ9 X band surface radar. It is used for surface search, for navigation, and the gun laying system for the Mk45. It is a 2D radar with some aerial capability. Not that dissimilar to the Nav\surface radars fitted to RN vessels. To suggest some sort of equivalence to a fully featured 3D MFR like APAR Blk II is preposterous.

The son of sampson R&D effort does include a strand looking at adding an X band capability to the main radar for use in AAW to aid classification and identification of targets.
The original USN ~2010 requirement was for separate AMDR in both S and X bands for the Burke Flt IIIs but the USN postponed the AMDR-X due budgetary constraints to the 13th ship and it has re-emerged as the new gen Future X-Band Radar (FXR) to compliment the SPY-6 S-band, re. Janes write up on the USN FXR FRI and Thales comments though would be very surprised if they win the contract due to the strong US buy American sentiment in Congress.

https://www.janes.com/osint-insights/de ... nformation

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/countrie ... rvices-red
FXR is irrelevant to your argument it is just a programme to replace SPQ9
Complementary to the Raytheon AN/SPY-6(V) family of S-band radars, the FXR programme is intended to deliver a new X-band multifunction radar system performing horizon search and track, surface search and track, periscope detection and discrimination, and missile communications.

It will primarily replace the functional capabilities of the current mechanically scanning AN/SPQ-9B X-band radar, while also introducing an additional capability for missile communications and advanced electronic protection.
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 12:59
tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.
I didn't say you did say the USN would fit APAR I said it was the implication of your completely faulty argument. Of trying to bring some sort of equivalence or read across between APAR and SPQ9 X band radar on the Burkes and bringing in the irrelevant FXR info.

If you didn't suggest APAR Block II as the main radar on T83 what other radar do you mean. APAR Blk II is an X-band multi function main radar. You wouldn't fit it with another radar apart from SMART L to make up for its abysmal range.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 03:23
NickC wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 12:59
tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.
I didn't say you did say the USN would fit APAR I said it was the implication of your completely faulty argument. Of trying to bring some sort of equivalence or read across between APAR and SPQ9 X band radar on the Burkes and bringing in the irrelevant FXR info.

If you didn't suggest APAR Block II as the main radar on T83 what other radar do you mean. APAR Blk II is an X-band multi function main radar. You wouldn't fit it with another radar apart from SMART L to make up for its abysmal range.
Most say if I posted the uttter tosh you do would be very embaressed and you saying the " implications " that i implied any sort of equivalence between APAR and SPQ-9B other than both X-band, if you want USN equivalent to APAR that would be the Raytheon SPY-3 X-band fitted to the Zumwalt which was the planned replacement to the Burkes, Zumwalt was such a disaster it was canned after three ships, USN had tried to kill off after just two but Congress said three

As for the T83 radar fit with my possible option it appears you do not understand the word complementary (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasise the qualities of each other) with the SMART-L MM/N with its long range performance of up to 2000 km for 3D air and BMD search and tracking combind with the APAR Blk II MFR 4D high definition short range, 150 km air/80 km surface, as mentioned previously X-band brings the very important advantage with its ability to track surface low in coming targets at longer ranges with better discrimination than the lower wave band radars, what priority do you place on defending against fast and multiple in coming sea-skimming missiles when the seconds count?

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 13:25
tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 03:23
NickC wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 12:59
tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.
I didn't say you did say the USN would fit APAR I said it was the implication of your completely faulty argument. Of trying to bring some sort of equivalence or read across between APAR and SPQ9 X band radar on the Burkes and bringing in the irrelevant FXR info.

If you didn't suggest APAR Block II as the main radar on T83 what other radar do you mean. APAR Blk II is an X-band multi function main radar. You wouldn't fit it with another radar apart from SMART L to make up for its abysmal range.
Most say if I posted the uttter tosh you do would be very embaressed and you saying the " implications " that i implied any sort of equivalence between APAR and SPQ-9B other than both X-band, if you want USN equivalent to APAR that would be the Raytheon SPY-3 X-band fitted to the Zumwalt which was the planned replacement to the Burkes, Zumwalt was such a disaster it was canned after three ships, USN had tried to kill off after just two but Congress said three

As for the T83 radar fit with my possible option it appears you do not understand the word complementary (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasise the qualities of each other) with the SMART-L MM/N with its long range performance of up to 2000 km for 3D air and BMD search and tracking combind with the APAR Blk II MFR 4D high definition short range, 150 km air/80 km surface, as mentioned previously X-band brings the very important advantage with its ability to track surface low in coming targets at longer ranges with better discrimination than the lower wave band radars, what priority do you place on defending against fast and multiple in coming sea-skimming missiles when the seconds count?
I posted tosh, you are hilarious in you complete lack of self awareness. You brought up the fact that Burkes and other destroyers have X band radar to support your view T83 should have APAR. despite the radar fit to the Burkes ie SPQ9 is completely different setup and purpose.

You are at it again going off on some irrelevant tangent about Zumwalts it has no bearing on you argument.

How can I have no understanding of the APAR SMARL combination when I stated that you need to have both. APAR hasn't the range and SMART L doesn't have the resolution.

S band radars like Sampson, SPY6, SPY 7, Artisan, CEAFAR, etc are more than fine for missile defence. You shouldn't just believe what it says in a PR blurb by Thales.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 22:25
NickC wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 13:25
tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 03:23
NickC wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 12:59
tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.
I didn't say you did say the USN would fit APAR I said it was the implication of your completely faulty argument. Of trying to bring some sort of equivalence or read across between APAR and SPQ9 X band radar on the Burkes and bringing in the irrelevant FXR info.

If you didn't suggest APAR Block II as the main radar on T83 what other radar do you mean. APAR Blk II is an X-band multi function main radar. You wouldn't fit it with another radar apart from SMART L to make up for its abysmal range.
Most say if I posted the uttter tosh you do would be very embaressed and you saying the " implications " that i implied any sort of equivalence between APAR and SPQ-9B other than both X-band, if you want USN equivalent to APAR that would be the Raytheon SPY-3 X-band fitted to the Zumwalt which was the planned replacement to the Burkes, Zumwalt was such a disaster it was canned after three ships, USN had tried to kill off after just two but Congress said three

As for the T83 radar fit with my possible option it appears you do not understand the word complementary (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasise the qualities of each other) with the SMART-L MM/N with its long range performance of up to 2000 km for 3D air and BMD search and tracking combind with the APAR Blk II MFR 4D high definition short range, 150 km air/80 km surface, as mentioned previously X-band brings the very important advantage with its ability to track surface low in coming targets at longer ranges with better discrimination than the lower wave band radars, what priority do you place on defending against fast and multiple in coming sea-skimming missiles when the seconds count?
I posted tosh, you are hilarious in you complete lack of self awareness. You brought up the fact that Burkes and other destroyers have X band radar to support your view T83 should have APAR. despite the radar fit to the Burkes ie SPQ9 is completely different setup and purpose.

You are at it again going off on some irrelevant tangent about Zumwalts it has no bearing on you argument.

How can I have no understanding of the APAR SMARL combination when I stated that you need to have both. APAR hasn't the range and SMART L doesn't have the resolution.

S band radars like Sampson, SPY6, SPY 7, Artisan, CEAFAR, etc are more than fine for missile defence. You shouldn't just believe what it says in a PR blurb by Thales.
Why is bringing Zumwalt radar fit irrelevant as background as it was the planned basis for replacement for the Burkes which date back to the 1980s

More nonsense in saying X-band APAR doesn't have the range as at the surface it has the longest range due to its ability to stick to the surface combined with its better discrimination which as pointed out above is the priority in tracking sea-skimming attack missiles. Think your comment L-band doesn't have the resolution think Lockheed would find ludicrous, see Lockheed's image of the capabilities of their new gen L-band TPY-4.

If S-band radars are more than fully adequate then why did the the RN go to the added expense of fitting the earlier gen of SMART-L to the T45 as well as Sampson, not saying S-band is not an option but the new gen L-band is less expensive (last year SPY-6 fit for Burke was $225 million) and combined with a complementary X-band gives a good mix of capabilities. Its not just Thales blurb but that of the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab reserach papers, APL are the radar consultants and at times designers used by the USN since the 1940's.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 11:29
tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 22:25
NickC wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 13:25
tomuk wrote: 13 Jul 2024, 03:23
NickC wrote: 12 Jul 2024, 12:59
tomuk wrote: 11 Jul 2024, 18:27
The US Navy aren't going to fit APAR Blk II on the mast top of the Burkes let alone replace SPY 6 with it which is the implication of what you were suggesting by using APAR Blk II on T83 as the main radar.

I never ever hinted the USN will fit APAR Blk II, just the opposite in fact as posted USN will fit the FXR for its X-band radar and as for the suggesstion they will relace its SPY-6 as its their main long range radar as currently spending $billions on them i just find unbliveable. Your other claim i suggested using the APAR Blk II as the main radar for the T83 is just nonsense, here is my original 6th July post where suggested fitting the complimentary long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Blk II radars for the T83 and do wonder about your mental health if you cannot appreciate the difference.
Not the only option, another possible option not mentioned often is procuring Thales Nederland kit, no doubt would be substantially cheaper than US kit, the new gen long range SMART-L MM/N and the short range APAR Block II radars, with Thales equivalent of CEC and their AWWS, Above Water Warfare System , a new gen of much more capable Tacticos

UK options look very limited as starved funding by MOD/RN since the days of T45/Sampson and see no signs of changing significantly, last year MOD and BAE agreed to jointly invest £50 million to develop the next generation of radar tech for RN for both for BMD and drones, MOD contributing £37.5 million and BAE £12.5 million into R&D, though under impression a token amount required if compared the £Ms invested in Typhon and Tempest radars.
I didn't say you did say the USN would fit APAR I said it was the implication of your completely faulty argument. Of trying to bring some sort of equivalence or read across between APAR and SPQ9 X band radar on the Burkes and bringing in the irrelevant FXR info.

If you didn't suggest APAR Block II as the main radar on T83 what other radar do you mean. APAR Blk II is an X-band multi function main radar. You wouldn't fit it with another radar apart from SMART L to make up for its abysmal range.
Most say if I posted the uttter tosh you do would be very embaressed and you saying the " implications " that i implied any sort of equivalence between APAR and SPQ-9B other than both X-band, if you want USN equivalent to APAR that would be the Raytheon SPY-3 X-band fitted to the Zumwalt which was the planned replacement to the Burkes, Zumwalt was such a disaster it was canned after three ships, USN had tried to kill off after just two but Congress said three

As for the T83 radar fit with my possible option it appears you do not understand the word complementary (combining in such a way as to enhance or emphasise the qualities of each other) with the SMART-L MM/N with its long range performance of up to 2000 km for 3D air and BMD search and tracking combind with the APAR Blk II MFR 4D high definition short range, 150 km air/80 km surface, as mentioned previously X-band brings the very important advantage with its ability to track surface low in coming targets at longer ranges with better discrimination than the lower wave band radars, what priority do you place on defending against fast and multiple in coming sea-skimming missiles when the seconds count?
I posted tosh, you are hilarious in you complete lack of self awareness. You brought up the fact that Burkes and other destroyers have X band radar to support your view T83 should have APAR. despite the radar fit to the Burkes ie SPQ9 is completely different setup and purpose.

You are at it again going off on some irrelevant tangent about Zumwalts it has no bearing on you argument.

How can I have no understanding of the APAR SMARL combination when I stated that you need to have both. APAR hasn't the range and SMART L doesn't have the resolution.

S band radars like Sampson, SPY6, SPY 7, Artisan, CEAFAR, etc are more than fine for missile defence. You shouldn't just believe what it says in a PR blurb by Thales.
Why is bringing Zumwalt radar fit irrelevant as background as it was the planned basis for replacement for the Burkes which date back to the 1980s
So what? It is just irrelevant you seem to think by bulking out your posts with at best tangential info it improves your argument it doesn't.
More nonsense in saying X-band APAR doesn't have the range as at the surface it has the longest range due to its ability to stick to the surface combined with its better discrimination which as pointed out above is the priority in tracking sea-skimming attack missiles.
I'm sorry but it doesn't necessarily, X-band can give better surface range in theory due to ducting but this is dependent on unpredictable weather conditions, just like X band radar is is more attenuated in rain than S band. It isn't all about sea skimming missiles, you can also detect and engage the aircraft carrying said missiles. There are also of course other ways of increasing the radar horizon such as fitting the radar higher on the ship.
Think your comment L-band doesn't have the resolution think Lockheed would find ludicrous, see Lockheed's image of the capabilities of their new gen L-band TPY-4.
Will they be using TPY4 to prosecute said targets or will they be using weapons systems with their own higher frequency guidance and tracking radar?
If S-band radars are more than fully adequate then why did the the RN go to the added expense of fitting the earlier gen of SMART-L to the T45 as well as Sampson, not saying S-band is not an option but the new gen L-band is less expensive (last year SPY-6 fit for Burke was $225 million) and combined with a complementary X-band gives a good mix of capabilities.
Leaving aside political\commercial workshare issues. T45 is fitted with two radars so the radar resource intensive volume search can be offloaded to S1850M.
On what basis are you claiming L band is cheaper?
Its not just Thales blurb but that of the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab reserach papers, APL are the radar consultants and at times designers used by the USN since the 1940's.
Well why don't the USN listen to Johns Hopkins then? They've been fitting primarily S band radars, SPY-1 for forty years and have replaced it with s band SPY 6.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Why is bringing Zumwalt radar fit irrelevant as background as it was the planned basis for replacement for the Burkes which date back to the 1980s
So what? It is just irrelevant you seem to think by bulking out your posts with at best tangential info it improves your argument it doesn't.
More total tosh, your posts have been continually denegrating the possible option of fitting an X-band e.g. APAR to T83, yet here we have a prior example of the USN Zumwalt as the planned replacement of the Burke fitted with the X-band SPY-3
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 More nonsense in saying X-band APAR doesn't have the range as at the surface it has the longest range due to its ability to stick to the surface combined with its better discrimination which as pointed out above is the priority in tracking sea-skimming attack missiles.
I'm sorry but it doesn't necessarily, X-band can give better surface range in theory due to ducting but this is dependent on unpredictable weather conditions, just like X band radar is is more attenuated in rain than S band. It isn't all about sea skimming missiles, you can also detect and engage the aircraft carrying said missiles. There are also of course other ways of increasing the radar horizon such as fitting the radar higher on the ship.
It is not just a theory but a fact X-band give better surface range both with and without surface ducting, as said the lower frequency radars e.g. S-band, the signal bends slightly upward at the horizon meaning low incoming targets are not immediately detected. As you say X-band can have clutter issues in rain but S-band in the horizon search application can also have significant clutter issues.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Think your comment L-band doesn't have the resolution think Lockheed would find ludicrous, see Lockheed's image of the capabilities of their new gen L-band TPY-4.
Will they be using TPY4 to prosecute said targets or will they be using weapons systems with their own higher frequency guidance and tracking radar?
From Lockheed blurb would expect any missiles used will be guided in range for the the missile seeker to take over
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 If S-band radars are more than fully adequate then why did the the RN go to the added expense of fitting the earlier gen of SMART-L to the T45 as well as Sampson, not saying S-band is not an option but the new gen L-band is less expensive (last year SPY-6 fit for Burke was $225 million) and combined with a complementary X-band gives a good mix of capabilities.
Leaving aside political\commercial workshare issues. T45 is fitted with two radars so the radar resource intensive volume search can be offloaded to S1850M.
On what basis are you claiming L band is cheaper?
That implies that the RN did not think Sampson had the capability to do both and why RN added the L-band S1850M, though do not doubt a new generation S-band would have that capability e.g. the Burke with its four 148 sq ft arrays of the $225 million SPY-6.

As a rule of thumb the higher the frequency the more expensive the radars become for equivalent range e.g. the long range THAAD X-band TPY-2 radar with only a single 100 sq ft array with its 25,000+ GaN modules is $240 million, and why X-band for all its advantages normally only used in smaller array short range radars due to cost.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Its not just Thales blurb but that of the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab reserach papers, APL are the radar consultants and at times designers used by the USN since the 1940's.
Well why don't the USN listen to Johns Hopkins then? They've been fitting primarily S band radars, SPY-1 for forty years and have replaced it with s band SPY 6.
As you say the USN moved from L-band to the S-band with SPY-1 and now the SPY-6 with the AMDR-X cancelled for the Burke Flt III, it was a kluge as the disaster that was Zumwalt had been cancelled and the SPY-6 with its 14' size arrays fitted were the max top weight that the old Burke could take and it was criticised at the time for being too small to meet the BMD requirement specified in the USN Navy’s 2009 Radar/Hull study (must always remember that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture), let alone take the additional top weight of a AMDR-X.

The Japanese ASEV destroyers with its SPY-7 will be approx. 16,000t+ whereas Burke Flt III just under 10,000t, which begs the question what will be the displacement and cost of the T83 be to take the top weight of a large and powerful radars required unless RN think totally outside the box with mention of 4,000t ship and say go with in the main passive sensors, the downside of large powerful radars is after all is they emit large amounts of RF emissions saying here i am to enemy ESM inviting attack.

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7447
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by Ron5 »

The T45 had the S1850 to perform aircraft fighter direction, one of its KURS.

tomuk
Senior Member
Posts: 1730
Joined: 20 Dec 2017, 20:24
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by tomuk »

NickC wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 12:50
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Why is bringing Zumwalt radar fit irrelevant as background as it was the planned basis for replacement for the Burkes which date back to the 1980s
So what? It is just irrelevant you seem to think by bulking out your posts with at best tangential info it improves your argument it doesn't.
More total tosh, your posts have been continually denegrating the possible option of fitting an X-band e.g. APAR to T83, yet here we have a prior example of the USN Zumwalt as the planned replacement of the Burke fitted with the X-band SPY-3
What radar should have been fitted to the Zumwalts but was cancelled due to the entire programme being a dumpster fire?
SPY 4 an S band radar.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 More nonsense in saying X-band APAR doesn't have the range as at the surface it has the longest range due to its ability to stick to the surface combined with its better discrimination which as pointed out above is the priority in tracking sea-skimming attack missiles.
I'm sorry but it doesn't necessarily, X-band can give better surface range in theory due to ducting but this is dependent on unpredictable weather conditions, just like X band radar is is more attenuated in rain than S band. It isn't all about sea skimming missiles, you can also detect and engage the aircraft carrying said missiles. There are also of course other ways of increasing the radar horizon such as fitting the radar higher on the ship.
It is not just a theory but a fact X-band give better surface range both with and without surface ducting, as said the lower frequency radars e.g. S-band, the signal bends slightly upward at the horizon meaning low incoming targets are not immediately detected. As you say X-band can have clutter issues in rain but S-band in the horizon search application can also have significant clutter issues.
As I said surface search isn't the only factor in deciding what radar you want. X band has across the wider scope less range and more attenuation due to rain.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Think your comment L-band doesn't have the resolution think Lockheed would find ludicrous, see Lockheed's image of the capabilities of their new gen L-band TPY-4.
Will they be using TPY4 to prosecute said targets or will they be using weapons systems with their own higher frequency guidance and tracking radar?
From Lockheed blurb would expect any missiles used will be guided in range for the the missile seeker to take over
Would expect?
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 If S-band radars are more than fully adequate then why did the the RN go to the added expense of fitting the earlier gen of SMART-L to the T45 as well as Sampson, not saying S-band is not an option but the new gen L-band is less expensive (last year SPY-6 fit for Burke was $225 million) and combined with a complementary X-band gives a good mix of capabilities.
Leaving aside political\commercial workshare issues. T45 is fitted with two radars so the radar resource intensive volume search can be offloaded to S1850M.
On what basis are you claiming L band is cheaper?
That implies that the RN did not think Sampson had the capability to do both and why RN added the L-band S1850M, though do not doubt a new generation S-band would have that capability e.g. the Burke with its four 148 sq ft arrays of the $225 million SPY-6.
There are those in the industry who say that SAMPSON alone would have been fine and that S1850M is superfluous. I would suggest that although that is probably correct in reality the balance is tighter and to meet all the KURS comfortably, and with the political\economical factors of workshare and keeping factories open included, adding S1850M made sense and gave a better result.
As a rule of thumb the higher the frequency the more expensive the radars become for equivalent range e.g. the long range THAAD X-band TPY-2 radar with only a single 100 sq ft array with its 25,000+ GaN modules is $240 million, and why X-band for all its advantages normally only used in smaller array short range radars due to cost.
That doesn't sound such bad value.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Well why don't the USN listen to Johns Hopkins then? They've been fitting primarily S band radars, SPY-1 for forty years and have replaced it with s band SPY 6.
As you say the USN moved from L-band to the S-band with SPY-1 and now the SPY-6 with the AMDR-X cancelled for the Burke Flt III, it was a kluge as the disaster that was Zumwalt had been cancelled and the SPY-6 with its 14' size arrays fitted were the max top weight that the old Burke could take and it was criticised at the time for being too small to meet the BMD requirement specified in the USN Navy’s 2009 Radar/Hull study (must always remember that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture), let alone take the additional top weight of a AMDR-X.

The Japanese ASEV destroyers with its SPY-7 will be approx. 16,000t+ whereas Burke Flt III just under 10,000t, which begs the question what will be the displacement and cost of the T83 be to take the top weight of a large and powerful radars required unless RN think totally outside the box with mention of 4,000t ship and say go with in the main passive sensors, the downside of large powerful radars is after all is they emit large amounts of RF emissions saying here i am to enemy ESM inviting attack.
What passive sensors? The sailors eyes through bins? The 4000t ships would still have radar. Radar, VLS and a small crew, no hangar, ASW etc.

The ASEV are for a specialised task as with the announced 13ddx project Japan are looking to build more reasonably sized destroyer for normal duties very much in the vein of a T45 replacement ie T46. Rather than barmy 4,000t optionally\low manned system of systems FADS nonsense or the grand 12,000t plus cruisers of Italy and the like.

This might well be an idea for the USN, a large class of 'normal' destroyers and a small class of specialised super BMD capable ships. Not dissimilar to the Burkes and Ticos.

NickC
Donator
Posts: 1515
Joined: 01 Sep 2017, 14:20
United Kingdom

Re: Current & Future Escorts - General Discussion

Post by NickC »

tomuk wrote: 16 Jul 2024, 06:16
NickC wrote: 15 Jul 2024, 12:50
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Why is bringing Zumwalt radar fit irrelevant as background as it was the planned basis for replacement for the Burkes which date back to the 1980s
So what? It is just irrelevant you seem to think by bulking out your posts with at best tangential info it improves your argument it doesn't.
More total tosh, your posts have been continually denegrating the possible option of fitting an X-band e.g. APAR to T83, yet here we have a prior example of the USN Zumwalt as the planned replacement of the Burke fitted with the X-band SPY-3
What radar should have been fitted to the Zumwalts but was cancelled due to the entire programme being a dumpster fire?
SPY 4 an S band radar.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 More nonsense in saying X-band APAR doesn't have the range as at the surface it has the longest range due to its ability to stick to the surface combined with its better discrimination which as pointed out above is the priority in tracking sea-skimming attack missiles.
I'm sorry but it doesn't necessarily, X-band can give better surface range in theory due to ducting but this is dependent on unpredictable weather conditions, just like X band radar is is more attenuated in rain than S band. It isn't all about sea skimming missiles, you can also detect and engage the aircraft carrying said missiles. There are also of course other ways of increasing the radar horizon such as fitting the radar higher on the ship.
It is not just a theory but a fact X-band give better surface range both with and without surface ducting, as said the lower frequency radars e.g. S-band, the signal bends slightly upward at the horizon meaning low incoming targets are not immediately detected. As you say X-band can have clutter issues in rain but S-band in the horizon search application can also have significant clutter issues.
As I said surface search isn't the only factor in deciding what radar you want. X band has across the wider scope less range and more attenuation due to rain.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Think your comment L-band doesn't have the resolution think Lockheed would find ludicrous, see Lockheed's image of the capabilities of their new gen L-band TPY-4.
Will they be using TPY4 to prosecute said targets or will they be using weapons systems with their own higher frequency guidance and tracking radar?
From Lockheed blurb would expect any missiles used will be guided in range for the the missile seeker to take over
Would expect?
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 If S-band radars are more than fully adequate then why did the the RN go to the added expense of fitting the earlier gen of SMART-L to the T45 as well as Sampson, not saying S-band is not an option but the new gen L-band is less expensive (last year SPY-6 fit for Burke was $225 million) and combined with a complementary X-band gives a good mix of capabilities.
Leaving aside political\commercial workshare issues. T45 is fitted with two radars so the radar resource intensive volume search can be offloaded to S1850M.
On what basis are you claiming L band is cheaper?
That implies that the RN did not think Sampson had the capability to do both and why RN added the L-band S1850M, though do not doubt a new generation S-band would have that capability e.g. the Burke with its four 148 sq ft arrays of the $225 million SPY-6.
There are those in the industry who say that SAMPSON alone would have been fine and that S1850M is superfluous. I would suggest that although that is probably correct in reality the balance is tighter and to meet all the KURS comfortably, and with the political\economical factors of workshare and keeping factories open included, adding S1850M made sense and gave a better result.
As a rule of thumb the higher the frequency the more expensive the radars become for equivalent range e.g. the long range THAAD X-band TPY-2 radar with only a single 100 sq ft array with its 25,000+ GaN modules is $240 million, and why X-band for all its advantages normally only used in smaller array short range radars due to cost.
That doesn't sound such bad value.
tomuk wrote: 14 Jul 2024, 20:47 Well why don't the USN listen to Johns Hopkins then? They've been fitting primarily S band radars, SPY-1 for forty years and have replaced it with s band SPY 6.
As you say the USN moved from L-band to the S-band with SPY-1 and now the SPY-6 with the AMDR-X cancelled for the Burke Flt III, it was a kluge as the disaster that was Zumwalt had been cancelled and the SPY-6 with its 14' size arrays fitted were the max top weight that the old Burke could take and it was criticised at the time for being too small to meet the BMD requirement specified in the USN Navy’s 2009 Radar/Hull study (must always remember that radar sensitivity scales as a cube of the size of the radar aperture), let alone take the additional top weight of a AMDR-X.

The Japanese ASEV destroyers with its SPY-7 will be approx. 16,000t+ whereas Burke Flt III just under 10,000t, which begs the question what will be the displacement and cost of the T83 be to take the top weight of a large and powerful radars required unless RN think totally outside the box with mention of 4,000t ship and say go with in the main passive sensors, the downside of large powerful radars is after all is they emit large amounts of RF emissions saying here i am to enemy ESM inviting attack.
What passive sensors? The sailors eyes through bins? The 4000t ships would still have radar. Radar, VLS and a small crew, no hangar, ASW etc.

The ASEV are for a specialised task as with the announced 13ddx project Japan are looking to build more reasonably sized destroyer for normal duties very much in the vein of a T45 replacement ie T46. Rather than barmy 4,000t optionally\low manned system of systems FADS nonsense or the grand 12,000t plus cruisers of Italy and the like.

This might well be an idea for the USN, a large class of 'normal' destroyers and a small class of specialised super BMD capable ships. Not dissimilar to the Burkes and Ticos.
As you say the SPY-4 was a S-band VSR and was never fitted to Zumwalt to save costs and the USN made the choice to only fit the X-band MFR SPY-3 after software modification to add the volume search function and the S-band SPY-4 was dropped.

Raytheon contradicts you when said X band has more attenuation due to rain when they said their X-band SPY-3 has, in general, favourable low-altitude propagation characteristics, which readily support the horizon search functionality due to its large operating bandwidth (8 to 12 GHz) which mitigate large propagation variations due to meteorological conditions and with its narrow pencil beam width for best tracking accuracy and discrimination. Would note the APAR Blk 2 has coverage up to 70 degrees specifically to target supersonic high divers.

Re. the USAF RFP 3DELRR detailed spec was not unexpectedly classified and only the general requirements were known for a long-range, ground-based radar for detecting, identifying and tracking targets with the necessary unspecified angle of accuracy and it was won by Lockheed with their L-band, now TPY-4, against competition from both a NG S-band and Raytheon C-band radars.

Contrary to you I would consider the $240 million X-band TPY-2 cost an expensive high end option with its single array, for a full four face array naval equivalent think you would be looking at best part of a $1 billion.

Possible outside the box passive sensors for a small 4,000t ship as alternative sensors due to the low displacement precluding fitting a long range radar, EO, Infrared, sound, SIGINT, ESM and maybe some sensors on a tethered drone to extend range, all sorts of possibilities as there is a very wide electomagnetic spectrum plus a LPI radar to minimise RF emissions.

You might classify the Japanese ASEV ~16,000t destroyer as a first rate with its planned capability to defend and attack against nuclear IRBM and hypersonic missiles launched from China and North Korea with its large high powered SPY-7 radar and its SM-3 and SM-6 missiles. What we don't know is the CONOPS for the T83 and if specifying equivalent to a first rate ASEV or with a more limited capability is specified which expect the main driver will be limited costs and why suggested the possible radar option of SMAART-L MM/N and APAR Blk II.

.

Post Reply