Horizon vs. F100

As promised a response from Richard B:

“Hi Rick

For years there has been reports that the T45’s will carry only Aster 30, but it’s never been confirmed. The necessary detail about the two UK Aster orders so far placed is not in the public domain – i.e. we don’t know if they are only for Aster 30 missiles or whether some shorter range [and cheaper] Aster 15’s are in there as well. However we do know that the T45’s will initially have 48 Sylver A50 cells suitable for both Aster 15 and 30 (indeed DCN recently issued pics of the first UK modules being completed), with volume allowed for another 24 cells if the requirement emerged in the future.

The bottom line is that the T45’s will be able to carry a mix of Aster 15 and 30 as required – if the missiles are available.

Regards

Richard”

OK this point is now being taken out of context.

This has crossed over from the Type124 thread whereby the point questioned was how necessary ESSM was on a Saschen when it was restricted to a ‘mere’ 32 cells.

As observed above there can be little objection to a few, perhaps as many as 4, cells being given up to ESSM, for 16 missiles tops, as a backup to the SM-2s, but, the primary mission of that vessel is AREA AAW and it absolutely MUST devote the furthest extent of its resources to that effect. Cleaving off a whole 25% of your available VLS cells for what is basically a PDMS designed for ownship defence is absurd in my opinion.

For that vessel, again IMO, you need as many of those cells loaded with SM-2’s as possible because even 28 might not go far in a serious attack if your set for shoot-shoot-look-shoot!. Hell they always have two full RAM launchers to cope with leakers!.

IN the absolute, you have a point. However, you must consider relatives too. I.e. where these ships come from.

The older generation German AAW vessel had 32 Tartar/SM1 (40 if not carrying Harpoon in the MK 13) and eventually also 2x 21 round RAM launchers. Compared to this, an F124 with 24-28 SM2 and 16-32 ESSM is a step up both in missile load, missile range/capability and sensors/control.

The Dutch Tromp class had 1 x Mk13 launcher for Tartar/SM1 SAM (40 rounds) and 1 x Mk29 launcher for Sea Sparrow SAM (8+8 rounds in total), plus 1 Goalkeeper. As had the similarly armed L class air defense frigates. Compared to this the new LCF / Zeven Provincien, with 2 Goalkeepers, and 5 mk41 for 32 SM2 and 32 ESSM (minus any cells used for Tomahawks, because a sixth MK41 will not be installed any time soom – economy measure) is similarly a big step up from previous AAW capability, even if a maximum of 32 SM2 may still be on the low side.

The Spanish lineage is from Knox>Baleares to Perry>Santa Maria to F-100. They are all oriented towards general purpose carrier escort role, not necessarily intended as dedicated AAW ships. They are therefore larger and differently armed than dutch and germans GP frigates, making them more similar to those navies’ few dedicated AAW ships.

The spanish approach differs from that of other Euro-carrier-navies UK, France, Italy, in that the latter navies all do employ more of a split of roles between dedicated AAW (Type 42, Suffren/Cassard, Audace/Durand de la Penne) and ASW/GP ships.

The ESSM is certainly not out of place on a primarily AAW vessel. The extended range of the missile allows it to protect the HVU as well as the AAW vessel when the escort is close guard position. Additionally it does the HVU little good if the AAW escort takes hits itself and leaves the HVU exposed to subsequent missiles. The ESSM is promoted as an excellent anti-missile defence and given the widespread take up of the system I suspect it probably is. The ability to quad pack is just outstanding, a 48cell Mk41 with 40-44 SM-2 and the remainder as ESSMs is a hefty load when one remembers that US VLS’s are usually also carrying a proportion of VLA and LACM.

Daniel

Daniel

OK this point is now being taken out of context.

This has crossed over from the Type124 thread whereby the point questioned was how necessary ESSM was on a Saschen when it was restricted to a ‘mere’ 32 cells.

As observed above there can be little objection to a few, perhaps as many as 4, cells being given up to ESSM, for 16 missiles tops, as a backup to the SM-2s, but, the primary mission of that vessel is AREA AAW and it absolutely MUST devote the furthest extent of its resources to that effect. Cleaving off a whole 25% of your available VLS cells for what is basically a PDMS designed for ownship defence is absurd in my opinion.

For that vessel, again IMO, you need as many of those cells loaded with SM-2’s as possible because even 28 might not go far in a serious attack if your set for shoot-shoot-look-shoot!. Hell they always have two full RAM launchers to cope with leakers!.

ESSM (range of 27nm+ / 50+ km, so similar to that of the older SM-1 missile) and NSM (Range: in excess of 150 km according to kongsberg )

ESSM is a tail-controlled missile for 50g manueverability against anti-ship missiles maneuvering at up to 4g. ESSM has 2-4 times the energy of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile which, combined with its mid-course auto-pilot guidance, gives ESSM roughly twice the range of the Sea Sparrow missile. Both the ESSM and latest generation of Standard SM-2 SAMs use ICWI guidance. ESSM uses an autopilot for mid-course guidance which is updateable via datalink from the launching ship, switching to semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the engagement. The autopilot allows several ESSM to time-share a single illuminator in much the same way as the SM-2.

The ESSM is certainly not out of place on a primarily AAW vessel. The extended range of the missile allows it to protect the HVU as well as the AAW vessel when the escort is close guard position. Additionally it does the HVU little good if the AAW escort takes hits itself and leaves the HVU exposed to subsequent missiles. The ESSM is promoted as an excellent anti-missile defence and given the widespread take up of the system I suspect it probably is. The ability to quad pack is just outstanding, a 48cell Mk41 with 40-44 SM-2 and the remainder as ESSMs is a hefty load when one remembers that US VLS’s are usually also carrying a proportion of VLA and LACM.

Daniel

Daniel

Nansen is still an ASW frigate, so……

¿Best SAM? ¿Aster 30 or Aster 15? yeah sure….

And that ¿long range missiles? Harpoon are for 60 nm at least……

Oversized and RN normally isn´t in the same sentence.

And still with 114 mm?

ESSM (range of 27nm+ / 50+ km, so similar to that of the older SM-1 missile) and NSM (Range: in excess of 150 km according to kongsberg )

ESSM is a tail-controlled missile for 50g manueverability against anti-ship missiles maneuvering at up to 4g. ESSM has 2-4 times the energy of the RIM-7 Sea Sparrow missile which, combined with its mid-course auto-pilot guidance, gives ESSM roughly twice the range of the Sea Sparrow missile. Both the ESSM and latest generation of Standard SM-2 SAMs use ICWI guidance. ESSM uses an autopilot for mid-course guidance which is updateable via datalink from the launching ship, switching to semi-active homing in the terminal phase of the engagement. The autopilot allows several ESSM to time-share a single illuminator in much the same way as the SM-2.

Nansen is still an ASW frigate, so……

¿Best SAM? ¿Aster 30 or Aster 15? yeah sure….

And that ¿long range missiles? Harpoon are for 60 nm at least……

Oversized and RN normally isn´t in the same sentence.

And still with 114 mm?

🙂

The Fridtjof Nansen class is short on VLS cells though. As delivered it will have only 8. It is fitted-for-but-not-width 16 cells and the structure below deck is supposedly prepared for 32. I would have prefered if it was increased to 32 as soon as possible.

8 cells, that’s still 32 ESSM!

Agree with that, you can’t really judge stealth from the views of a ship only. A burke wouldn’t be very stealthy either, masts on top, regular hull design etc. Still the damn thing isn’t visible on a regular radar at about 3miles.

1/ T-45 : stealth, best radar, best SAM. Even if only 6 are built (12 sound a big oversized), thoses frigates should be awesome.
2/ Horizon : stealth, best SAM, decent radar.
3/ Nansen & F124 Sachsen : stealth, good overall system, long range missiles
3/ F-100 : good electronics, loads of SAM but not very discrete

Unknow ranking but promissing design : Steregushchy corvette

You can’t really judge on “stealth” of the above ships unless you encountered them. Nor can anyone judge on “best SAM” as we don’t know the characteristics. (and don’t come with, “oh, the books and the internet says it’s this or that” as that one doesn’t count, if a company wants to do promotion towards a country, they really won’t do it via the internet).
Stereguchiy has some very unstealthy features like the AK-630, it’s regular radars and the Kashtan, unless they come up with some stealthified turret, but even then I doubt it would come near most Western designs (and even Chinese), look at Talwar, a very fine hull, but all the clutter on top…

First, you haven’t to light on your radar everytime except in combat situation, you can listen too. Second, if you have to send a higher discrimination platform, it’s better it remains unseen… which is harder when your target is more discrete than you are.

Otherwise nobody -and not MoD either- would build stealth ships.

And yes, PAMS and SM2R have still to intercept a high supersonic missile in trial

Sea Dart could intercept high supersonics without much trouble. Be in little doubt that SM-2 or Aster is at least equally as capable!.

Yes there are limited circumstances in which being discrete will be advantageous to a warship but, really, they’re very few and far between. A T45 can be as stealthy as you want but, if its escorting a 60k ton CVF, its odds on the enemy wont be fooled that a trawler is close-consorting with an aircraft carrier!!!.

What signature attenuation does for warships is reduce their vulnerability to active radar seeker heads on antiship missiles………or rather it increases the efficacy of softkill measures when compared to the lowered profile of the ship they’re screening.

Proof of this is that the Type23 is actually a very effective signature-attenuated design. No-one believes this because it doesn’t look like the accepted image of a ‘stealthy’ ship. The fact remains though its signature manipulation characteristics are very, very effective.

Stand easy Terran. That wasnt aimed at anyone on this thread!. 😎

🙂

3/ Nansen & F124 Sachsen : stealth, good overall system, long range missiles

The Fridtjof Nansen class is short on VLS cells though. As delivered it will have only 8. It is fitted-for-but-not-width 16 cells and the structure below deck is supposedly prepared for 32. I would have prefered if it was increased to 32 as soon as possible.

First, you haven’t to light on your radar everytime except in combat situation, you can listen too. Second, if you have to send a higher discrimination platform, it’s better it remains unseen… which is harder when your target is more discrete than you are.

Otherwise nobody -and not MoD either- would build stealth ships.

And yes, PAMS and SM2R have still to intercept a high supersonic missile in trial

Small issue with that Baron is that your ‘trawler’ is banging out D-band RF at high wattages from the dirty great Volume Search Radar atop the after mast which will be detectable, at altitude, from a few hundred km’s off.

Any airborne ESM kit manufactured in the last two decades will pick it up and its a simple matter for the carrying aircraft to hang a 90 degree turn in for a baseleg to do a little triangulation. Bingo one position plotted!. Not good enough for a long range missile shot but good enough to cue in something with higher discrimination capability.

Anyway no need to appear to be a trawler regardless. You just stick yourself in or near merchie lanes. Lots of vessels around the 7-10k tonnage mark around them normally.

I value stealth over everything in sea warfare, otherwise ships are just like sitting ducks. And a good quality air defense doesn’t protect you much against latest supersonic missiles.
When you can’t distinguish your target from a trawler, you can’t fire on it. And longer range SSMs don’t change that. Simple. Let’s hope our F-22 fans won’t disagree.

1/ T-45 : stealth, best radar, best SAM. Even if only 6 are built (12 sound a big oversized), thoses frigates should be awesome.
2/ Horizon : stealth, best SAM, decent radar.
3/ Nansen & F124 Sachsen : stealth, good overall system, long range missiles
3/ F-100 : good electronics, loads of SAM but not very discrete

Unknow ranking but promissing design : Steregushchy corvette

Stand easy Terran. That wasnt aimed at anyone on this thread!. 😎

This is far removed from the fact that some posters seemed to believe that packing 128-odd ESSM onboard an AAW vessel somehow was a positive thing and because there’s lots of missiles it must be the best thing ever!!!

Which posters would that be?

Hmm, Master Jonesy on the mike again!

I agree, 128 ESSM is quite a waste if you want to use these with your three illuminators.

only to make this clear: a single apar array can provide icwi for 4 sams in the terminal phase at the same time. additionally the same array can control other sam’s with mid course updates. imho this should be enough even for cold war scenarios.

OK I accept that. Note, again, I didn’t say that APAR was bad – just that SAMPSON, in my view, was better. Yes – ICWI is terminal phase timesharing only and the individual array is doing a lot, lot more. My point is that the four immediate targets channel restriction introduces an option for exploitation by an enemy, determined to overpower an APAR ship, that PAAMS is simply nowhere near as vulnerable to.

The virtual attrition, i.e the level of firepower needed to engage an APAR ship, is consequently easier to quantify than it would be against a PAAMS ship. That makes me uncomfortable with APAR just as the SPG dependency makes me more uncomfortable with the SPY-1 solution.

with sampson as a back to back radarsolution and with a 120° field of view for each array there is a timegap of 33% in which no array faces towards the target. with fixed arrays, one of the arrays faces the target all the time. so the fixed array solution gets enough extra time on target for the icwi. the decision to use a rotating solution is based on cost and weight but it’s not a saturation question. of course the rotating arrays are only possible because of the active seekers. the timegap of 0.3sec in which no array faces the target is to long for illumination even if it’s icwi.

OK so were agreed that the 60rpm rotation speed of SAMPSON means a full revolution every second. Your quite right that the angular coverage of each face is 120 degrees. So what we have is the trailing edge of one face going off target, a gap of 0.7s, then the leading edge of that same face is back on bearing. It is therefore quite feasible to have both faces of a SAMPSON mount tracking targets on one threat bearing. Even a 500m/s inbound will only cover 350m when the ‘retreating’ face is off bearing.

Not good enough for ICWI but, as agreed, SAMPSON doesnt need to do ICWI anyway!.

how long is the terminal phase in which sm2 or essm needs icwi? 1sec? 2? maybe 3? if the ship can launch a sam every 1.25sec (only to use the same number, as it’s quoted for paams) and if the terminal phase is 3sec, it is hard to imagine a scenario in which 4 missiles needs icwi at the same time from a single array. for apar a total of 32 simultaneous in flight missiles are quoted.

The point is though Radar whatever the endgame illumination time it means latency in the engagement cycle. What happens if your first SAM volley misses one or two of your first group of four engaged inbounds?. That means the fire channel is held back re-engaging. With SAMPSON its just a case of another missile being lofted as the contact is under tracking regardless.

do you have a source for this?

BAE Australia were boasting quite loudly about it a while back IIRC they developed the HAW area mode. Should be something on their site?.

imho the shortest flight time until impact is at a head on head engagement. i can’t believe that mid course guidance/icwi won’t work on crossing targets.

Its very much harder to catch a crossing target I’d imagine it would be through the need to maintain a running CCIP.

but the question was: are aster15/essm useful on area air defence ships? if the target is flying very low there is no need of a 70km sam, even if it’s not a head on head scenario. afaik both aster15 and essm were successfully tested on crossing targets. so why not filling some vls with essm especially if i can get 4 essm for a single sm-2. of course with aster 15/aster 30 there is no “missile multiplier” if they use aster 15.

OK I’ll go along with that. ‘Some’ ESSM or Aster 15’s might indeed be a good thing – IF ESSM has true value as a local area missile. This is far removed from the fact that some posters seemed to believe that packing 128-odd ESSM onboard an AAW vessel somehow was a positive thing and because there’s lots of missiles it must be the best thing ever!!!. Fair one?

“So, I try to write a rank of radar:

1-SAMPSON (T45)
2-EMPAR (Horizon)
3-AEGIS (F100)

Do u think is correct?”

Dunno.

But they should be better at tracking seaskimming missles and/or aircraft to being higher up..

Its a step up not to have separate illuminators if they are similar to APAR.

Downsides from what little I understand for EMPAR/SAMPSON:

Arent yet in-service and therefore no track record for comparison.

Dont give continuous 360 degree coverage in “real time”.

Are “rotators” therefore a mechanical failure is a disaster.

Also a hit on one of the four faces of SPY-1 will normally not knock out the whole system but on the Horizon/Type 45 its big trouble from one hit.

Of course I standby to be corrected.

“I did not state that they will have 72, just that they can have 72.”

Not necessarilly. Just because it looks like there is enough room doesnt mean they “can”.

Nor does it mean they cannot.

Until I see some engineering analysis I will have to stay with probably not.

BTW IMHO they are fine ships but like all warships compromises have been made.

Thanks again . Rick

The fifth Aegis frigate is already ordered, one of our frigates already has been in the Roosevelt group in the Persian Gulf, with 40 SM-2 and 32 ESSM is a nice load, and we have the cells already installed.

Wa have a balanced force, and seeking for some Tomahawk missiles