Evening Times (Glasgow)
July 19, 2006
Pg. 2

Clyde wins GBP600M new frigates order for Malaysian navy

By GORDON THOMSON

The Jebat class vessels are smaller scale versions of the Type 23 frigate

THE Clyde’s warship yards have won a GBP600million order to help build two
frigates for Malaysia.

Bosses say it will help protect 200 jobs at Scotstoun and Govan, even though much of the construction work will be done in South East Asia.

The Jebat class warships, smaller versions of the Type 23, but bristling with the world’s most advanced hi-tech systems, will be built section by section in Malaysia’s Labuan shipyard.

However, some sections will be engineered on the Clyde before being towed to Malaysia.

The Malaysian government has lodged a letter of intent with BAE Systems Naval Ships.

It comes five years after BAE chiefs first said they were in negotiations with Malaysian officials.

Defence analysts say the contract is likely to be worth at least GBP600m, but BAE said it would not create jobs.

Crucially, however, it will protect 200 highly-skilled design posts at both yards.

There had been fears the axe would fall because of a gap in work between UK Government orders for six Type 45 destroyers and two supersized aircraft carriers.

Managing director Vic Emery said: “This programme will protect hundreds of engineering, design and manufacturing jobs in Glasgow and we are looking forward to delivering some of the most advanced warships in the world.”

Kenny Jordan, secretary of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions, said: “This is a real shot in the arm for shipbuilding on the Clyde, which is now able to win global – as well as UK – orders.”

Under the deal, BAE chiefs will help the Malaysians develop their own shipbuilding skills.

The Clyde yards have the reputation of being the best in Britain – and Europe – for building frigates, as well as delivering them on schedule and within budget.

The yards built 12 of the Royal Navy’s current 16-strong fleet of Type 23 frigates in the 80s and 90s, when it also built three more for Brunei and two others for the Malaysians.

The yards were also given a boost last week when the MoD announced they could complete a troop carrier that has been withdrawn from the stricken Swan Hunter yard on Tyneside.

The undertow 1600-tonne Lyme Bay left the Wallsend yard on Monday and should arrive at Scotstoun this weekend.

Smaller versions of …. that could mean anything, including beefed up Lekiu’s

I think the question was over reaction time. To cover a distance of 15 km such a missile did not need 60 seconds. For that you are in need of an automatic-system in constant readiness. When targeted, by a visual automatic-mode, the reaction time shrinks further.
Was the automatic-system in the related mode to cope with that without delay? Was the ship in a high-energy-state = speed to manouvre in time?
Overconfidence into own capabilities and lack of situational awarness can create such results very easily. I hope the details will surface in the future. Today I understand the IN, that it is not willing to give away the results and how it was caught the “pants-down” to the public and the Hezbollah too.

AShM (C 802) Flight profile and Speed

When the missile is launched, the solid rocket propellant booster accelerate the speed of the missile from 0 to 0.9 Mach in a few seconds. After the booster burns out, it detaches from the missile body and the missile’s turbojet engine starts working. Controlled by the inertial autopilot system and radio altimeter, the missile flies at a cruising speed of 0.9 Mach and a flight altitude of 20-30 metres. When entering the terminal phase of flight, the missile switches on its terminal guidance radar to search for the target. Once locking on the target, the missile reduces its flight altitude to 5-7 metres at a distance of few kilometres away from the target. The missile may also maneuver during the terminal phase to make it a more difficult target for shipborne air defense systems. When approaching the target, the missile dives to hit the waterline of the ship to inflict maximum damage.

Mach number

The Mach number is commonly used both with objects travelling at high speed in a fluid, and with high-speed fluid flows inside channels such as nozzles, diffusers or wind tunnels. Mach number is defined as a ratio of the speed of an object or flow relative to the speed of sound in the medium through which it is travelling: Vo/Vs. Where Vo is the speed of the object and Vs is the speed of sound in the medium. As such, it is a dimensionless number. The mach number is not a constant; it is temperature dependent. At a temperature of 15 degrees Celsius, Mach 1 is 1,225 km·h-1 (761.2 mph) in the atmosphere. Since the speed of sound increases as the temperature increases, the actual speed of an object travelling at Mach 1 will depend on the fluid temperature around it. Mach number is useful because the fluid behaves in a similar way at the same Mach number. So, an aircraft traveling at Mach 1 at sea level (340.3 m·s-1) will experience shock waves in much the same manner as when it is traveling at Mach 1 at 11,000 m (36,000 ft), even though it is travelling at 295 m·s-1 (86% of its speed at sea level).

AShM (C 802) Over water Flight Time

Mach 0.9 at sea level = 0,9 x 340.3 m·s-1 = 306.27 m·s-1
Assuming distance from coast to ship of 16km, a straight line flight path, and no obstacles blocking line of radar and EO sight, the Saar 5 would have 52.25 seconds to detect and engages an incoming C 802 (more if a non-straight run, less if line of sight obscured)

CIWS (Phalanx) Reaction time

http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=967042&postcount=35
Goalkeeper reaction time to a Mach 2 sea-skimming missile from automatic detection to kill is 5.5 seconds.

Assuming Phalanx reaction time is similar, Saar 5 would have some (2/0.9)x5.5= 12.2 seconds against a C-802, which is 23.4% of the missile flight time over water.

SAM (Barak) reaction time.

Barak reaction time is not known. But we can deduct a few things. Barak can intercept threats at a range of 10 kilometers, down to 500 meters from the ship. It has a maximum velocity of 720 m·s-1 and a range of 10-12km. So, a Barak missile taking out C 802 at max range has a flight time of about 13.9-16.7 seconds. Add some time for initial automatic detection and missile launch, say 9.4-12.2 seconds at worst. Total time from automatic detection to kill then becomes 26.1 seconds or 50% of C-802 flight time over water in this case. In reality, total time from detection to kill is likely shorter, I’ld expect 20 seconds for an engagement at max range.

C-701 AShM is slower than C-802 (Mach 0.8 rather than 0.9) thus needing more time over water and leaving more time for it to be detected and engaged.

So far, we’ve been discussing hard-kill measures only. Is there any word on the use of softkill measures in this incident (ECM, chaff, flares etc). Was the missile even detected??? (no detection > no countermeasures)

Hi

I need to know about the armed UAV in service in US and Israel armed forces

and what is the variety and features and war load of these crafts.

Why? Try googling.

Frankly I ‘m still quite skeptical about it being a C-802 its a big difficult to conceal weapon system requiring targeting radars etc. Something like the C-701 would be more logical. As far as I can make out the only people saying its a C-802 is the Israelis who seem to want to implicate Iran in this attack.

– Does C-802 need a (dedicated) targeting radar, esp. at relatively short range as was the case in Lebanon?
– For the Israeli’s, it doesn’t make a difference of C-802 or C-701 as either one would implicate Iran/China. Even an hezbolla UAV with some explosives
would implicate Iran.

They can and in fact I have a couple videos of them doing just that- hitting speedboats with Sea Sparrow. However there is a minimum range inside of which Sea Sparrow would be useless. The fact remains that there are things Phalanx can do that can’t be covered by SeaSparrow and deleting Phalanx to save a few dollars seems foolish.

There may be other light gun systems (25mm mk 38) that can do the job and that are less expensive and more capable for that specific job than Phalanx.

http://www.eo.kollmorgen.com/product_spec26.html
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/BAE_Systems_Will_Deliver_Mk_38_Mod_2_Gun_Mounts_To_US_Navy.html
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2006/05/bae-receives-39m-delivery-order-for-mk38-naval-25mm-rws/index.php

Nothing wrong with redundancy and ESSM isn’t going to be much use against against a speedboat. Where the 5″ gun isn’t exactly what you’d call a quick reaction weapon nor does it have a 360 degreee field of fire keeping the Phalanx mounts might have been a good idea since the cost is hardly enough to break the bank. Hopefully we won’t have to learn any expensive lessons because the bean-counters found a way to save a buck.

ESSM is still SARH, isn’t it? I recall an incident were during an exercise a US carrier accidentally fired and hit a turkish Gearing DD with a Sea Sparrow, causing substantial damage to its bridge. Standard missile has a secondary AShM role, don’t see why ESSM could not also.

Mate for some resons I cant do that , But the drawing is very detailed , Including things like Rashmi Nav radar , Garpun Bal , A 100 mm Main Gun and other small details .

There is no sign of Orekh FC Radar any where , Except for Bass Tilt which I think is the FC Radar for the 4 AK-630M

I am quite sure its not the VLS Shtil-1 from both the drawing and from my conversation with some one , Its the Barak-8 LR Radar.

What interesting again is the Navy didnt opt for kashtan/kashtan-m but opted for
AK-630M/Barak-1 combination.

The Follow on 3 Talwar Frigate will have the barak-1 instead of Kashtan as the Navy it seems is unhappy with the kashtan performance.

Following the modernization pattern of the Delhi class ships, if there is a combination of Barak and Ak 630, wouldn’t there be an israeli Elta firecontrol radar rather than an Bass Tilt (these were removed from Delhi class during modernization)

Would it possible for the Israeli E/L-2248 APAR to (also) guide VL Shtil, dispensing with the need for Orekh/Front dome?

Has anything been released concerning the VL launcher for Barak-8? I.e. would it have a newly developed launcher or would it (also) use existing launchers and, if the latter, which launcher (US Mk41, French Sylver, Russia Altair VL)?

Might it be that use of Barak/AK630 gives lower signature compared to Kashtan on new low signature ships like P17 and P15A and, possibly, P28?