JonesySmall 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.
JonesyStand easy Terran. That wasnt aimed at anyone on this thread!. 😎
Jonesyonly 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?
Jonesythere is no single array radar saturation. in both cases (fixed or rotating) only a single face points towards the target, so if a saturation appears it will effect both systems.
Inaccurate radar (o’reilly?). Single array saturation is very much a reality. With APAR its very unlikely the port aft array, for example, could be brought to bear on a for’d stbd quarter attack axis. So you’ve got the capability to be directly shooting at 4 targets simultaneously and thats your lot. Now yes, of course, I accept that APAR will do the beamshift round-robin and dwell on targets only long enough for the TI phase to complete so its not a poor-solution in the face of a saturation threat by any stretch of the imagination.
It IS undeniably slower than the PAAMS solution though. The rotator faces alternate on threat-bearing on a cycle time measured in seconds. It is feasible, with a saturated contact environment, for both faces to ‘hit’ active contacts on one threat bearing in realtime. With no need for the illumination dwell time necessary with ESSM or SM-2 one face going off-bearing makes no difference to an Aster in flight – it just waits a short time interval before its next course update or until seeker activation point is reached.
imho a saturation can only effect the sam control. here paams has an advantage with the aster active radar seeker in the terminal phase. but apar can also control at least 4 sams per radar array in terminal phase and it can still do other work like horizon search (done with interrupted continuous wave illumination). maybe 4 sams in terminal phase looks like a limited system but launching rate of sams are also limited to maybe one per second so normally there are only a few missiles close enough to the target needing illumination. all other sams are controlled by mid course guidance without target illumination.
Yes all true but compare that the the PAAMS engagement cycle. Its a LOT quicker. Look at the figures – 8 missiles launched in 10 seconds – 16 missiles under simultaneous guidance. Basically those facts alone raise the virtual attrition potential of the vessel head and shoulders over everything else.
another issue is the usage of aster 15 / essm. of course a type 45 is an area air defence ship but the key word is layered defence. a sam with a max. range of 100km is not that useful if the target is a sea skimmer or a very low flying aircraft which can first be detected at a distance of maybe 25 30 or 35km. at this distance essm or aster15 is preferable. at this point the rotating sampson array has an advantage because it is lighter than apar and so it can be set up on a higher point but on the other side the x-band of apar should be the better choise for sea skimmer detection than the sampson s-band.
Ok here’s where we need a definition of area- over point- defence. An area defence missile has cross-range ability ok?. I.e an ability to deal with a target with a bearing rate from the shooter. Point defence is where the missile is optimised to deal with a zero bearing rate threat i.e one coming straight in on the launching ship.
Now, for an area missile like SM-2 dealing with crossing threats 70km off isnt such a problem, this is because the target box can be predicted and the missile mcg’d into it to allow for terminal phase lockup. Not easy, but, not…erm…rocket science. Now close that in to 15km range and the time-to-intercept counter dont look so good. I know ESSM can do crossing engagements but it uses a seperate Homing All The Way mode (not the ICWI one) tying down a fire channel for the whole engagement cycle. If you only start with four fire channels on your APAR array and are in the process of engaging more distant contacts…..well…..it might be unfortunate!.
Edit:
but on the other side the x-band of apar should be the better choise for sea skimmer detection than the sampson s-band.
Missed this earlier – sorry!. The higher frequency of the APAR set will make for better resolution and discrimination to an extent – then again though it needs to for illumination purposes. SAMPSON doesnt need to do this because of Aster’s active seeker. The British units lower frequency is known for better horizon performance and will be less susceptible to multipath reflection. APAR may be an excellent system but I still think SAMPSON has it beat by a good ways.
JonesyAhh but missile load does not maketh a ship Terran.
If this ship had all the cells of a Tico it would still not be the equal of either PAAMS ships or the APAR ships. Why?.
Fire channels!.
F100 whilst an admirable multirole design (albeit one thats a tad short of legs) has a HUGE achilles heel in that it has only two fire control directors. So, facing a saturation threat, its in a dicey predicament. It may be wonderful to have 40 odd ESSM in the silo’s but if it cant guide them they stay onboard. Missiles, its an accepted fact, are far more useful when you can get them into air.
Type 45 WILL be the best AAW ship period until the US gets a SPY-3 hull wet.
After that its a fair tossup between EMPAR/Horizon and the APAR ships. Personally I think I side with the PAAMS ship because the whole single-array-saturation thing you can get with APAR would scare the hell out of me!.
After all of them comes the F100 (if were talking European ships only of course!)
JonesyHercules, as stated, is still in service but has ungone a refit to expand its chopper capabilities. Apparently its now capable of operating Sea King and is used in an amphibious command ship role.
The last operational test firing of an Argentine Sea Dart was in 1987 so it can be taken as granted that Hercules has no area SAM capability any more.
As stated by Dan the second unit Santisima Trinidad was relegated to deep reserve (spares hulk!) status in 1989.
JonesyIts sort of an inverse relationship but the closest I can think of would be a Tornado engine being optimised for the lower altitude flight regime – suffering performance loss at higher altitudes. Pumpjets simply dont perform as well at higher ambient water pressures.
JonesyJust a quick point to introduce into this is that pumpjets do have some quite significant drawbacks that come with the quieting advantage. Chief amongst these is the adverse impact that increasing depth has on the efficiency of a pumpjet system. Not sure how public this is but the prototype Spearfish HWT’s suffered significant performance degradation when fired at depth.
JonesyWhy is it strange that the navy wont routinely have a full crew for both carriers Chris?. We dont have three full carrier tasked crews – one for each CVS – now?
The CVF’s will be largely utilised in a duty/extended readiness split so only one crew will be deploying for the greater percentage of the time. For emergency conditions a scratch team would be assembled to crew the second CVF and plans for how that would work will be well advanced now!. Why would we want to pay for a crew to sit in Rosyth watching yard workers hitting things with hammers?.
JonesyScooter
Wouldn’t consider myself resident anymore – far too busy these days I’m afraid, but, its nice to be thought of in such terms!.
You phrased your question in a very interesting way – ‘what design would you base….’. It was very astutely put as no currently extant design provides a really good fit to the RANs operational needs as I see them.
Australia’s huge maritime sphere-of-interest demands a rangey vessel and one capable of extended deployment. Australia’s reliable participation in coalition ops as far away as the Persian Gulf reinforces that need. I don’t see a Saschen, F100 or similar size hull providing sufficient capability in this regard.
That, ostensibly, leaves two players still at the table. The Flight2 Arleigh Burke and the Type45. Given the large production run of the Burke design it is likely that the acquisition costs of both vessels would be at least in the same ballpark.
Of these the favourite would seem to be the US vessel as it would require little modification to fit in with the rest of the fleet in weapons and logistics terms. It is also likely to have the edge in combat persistence being possessed of a 30% or so larger VLS installation.
Type 45 on the other hand would require redesigning to accommodate a fire control system compatible with ESSM/SM-2 (APAR or addition of a suitable X-band illuminator suite to mate up to SAMPSON), Mk41 VLS modules in place of the Sylvers, Mk45 5″ in place of the UK Mk8 and countless support and ancillary systems. Systems that would all require thorough integration and testing. An expensive process to spread over only a few hulls.
Hands down win for the Burke then?. Not for me it wouldn’t be!.
Despite all the issues involved adapting the Type 45 to Aussie needs I believe its very much the optimum solution for them. This is for two basic reasons:
1, SPY-1 has been around for a while and AEGIS sensor-fusion is a function replicated by most modern CDS suites. Both are still, very capable, battle-winning systems but on vessels optimised for service into the 2040’s I’m concerned SPY-1/AEGIS may not be sufficient for a first-line AAW escort?. T45 modified for APAR/VSR would be much closer to a future-proof solution IMO.
2, Running costs. The Burke FltII is a big ship with ownership costs to go with. Type 45 operates with 100 less crew and introduces low maintenance systems like Integrated Electric Propulsion (IEP). IEP connects the drive turbines to the screws via electric motors and ring main cabling removing the need for lined-up shafts, reduction gearboxes etc, etc. This also allows the prime mover turbines to be placed higher in the hull to ease maintenance and reduce vibration transmitted out into the water increasing the vessels acoustic stealthing.
Type 45 offers, IMO, superior range and endurance to all bar the Burkes, up to a 64-cell VLS up to Mk41 Strike-Length, space and weight margins to fit leading-edge sensors, ability to operate a Merlin-sized chopper, reduced maintenance overheads and modular construction that could see significant Aussie industrial participation in the build phase!.
JonesyI’m sticking to my theory that the superstructure size of the ships mentioned at the beginning of this thread is a function of the young ‘age’ of their AEGIS systems.
…and your theory is perfectly accurate. The early ‘big-panel’ SPY-1 systems had quite hideous energy requirements and had large power/machinery spaces immediately behind the panels that utterly precluded a masthead mount. As it was plainly obvious that elevation was desired to push back horizoning and lessen the effects from multipath you ended up with the kind of tall superstructures that the CGN-9 USS Long Beach kicked off and for identical reasons.
JonesyWhat do you need me for on this one?!. Seahawk and Indian have pretty much covered everything pertinent.:)
If we’re to stick with demonstrated capabilities only then the advantage must go to the Kirov and for exactly the reason Indian notes – the airborne search sets mounted on the battlecruisers choppers. One on one, in a ludicrously contrived situation, the Kirov sees the Iowa first and shoots first.
Iowa can do nothing to oppose the detection and tracking potential of the Soviet choppers. Where I skippering the US ship I might try to run away at flank, drag the choppers past their endurance limit, try to break contact, reposition to come back in on an unexpected threat axis and try and catch the Russkies looking the wrong way!. To say the chances of that working are low would be dramatic understatement though!. Alternatively there’s always the old ‘lets hide in the sea lanes’ routine (there are plenty of civvy vessels bigger than an Iowa) but, lets face it, the Kirov’s skipper would have to be mentally suspect to put himself within surface radar range of a sea lane in the first place!. He’d just be asking for a suprise salvo of 16″ shells raining down on him from some passing ‘supertanker’!.
If the P-700’s get a clear target and work as advertised then 20 of them concentrated down a narrow strike axis, even with Iowa’s heavy CIWS and softkill potential, should produce enough hits to, at least, take the battleship out the fight. Dont think half a dozen P700’s hitting the superstructure would be sufficient to actually sink a battleship of Iowa’s magnitude, but, they would certainly send it home badly crippled!.
Its been said that these are two different ships with two very different missions. I disagree with that. They both, very much, were designed with the same target sets in mind – namely surface vessels and aircraft, but, the huge difference in the capabilities of the ships is a stark reminder of the age difference and change in technology that has occured over the 40 years seperating the designs!.
JonesyJa,
I think the latter day Ise thing may come to pass but, as Jazz notes, as a UCAV carrier rather than for manned types.
Various methods of launch/recovery for UCAV’s have been studied – some notable ones being VATOL or Vertical Attitude TakeOff/Landing i.e a UAV shot straight up out of a cannister/silo and recovered via parachute/floatation ring (an idea put forward for subs oddly enough!) and full CATOBAR using an, old fashioned looking, catapult rail trained over the side and with a barrier ‘net’ for landing on an axial stern ‘recovery’ deck.
Again, as Jazz says, these vessels and ‘small thru-decks’ will be very specific in their capabilities. They will NOT be aircraft carriers in any recognised sense. In militaristic guise they will provide a low-cost, low-risk precision strike capacity in area’s where a CVN either cant deploy, isn’t required or isn’t available. Secondary missions like peacekeeping support, embassy evacuation, disaster assistance i.e missions that dont need the full resources of a CVN or LHD could be easily enough to justify their existence in peacetime.
I do think that small through-decks have merit and value in a service, if a service is rich enough to afford them, they just shouldn’t be confused as being something they are not.
JonesyJa its very James Bond mate but, as I understood it, the whole Harrier/Escort vessel concept was more of one intended as an Emergency Deck capability rather than an operational capacity. It was also investigated as part of the ‘Auxilliary Carrier’ studies the RN undertook to evaluate the usefulness of large merchantmen to be converted to ‘Harrier Carrier’ role.
It died a death because, to borrow a phrase from Arthur C Clarke, its rather like why man never built a steam powered airship – there are better ways to do the job!. In reality we found it easier and more practical to deploy the Harriers aboard a converted merchie and ferry them off to real through-deck carriers. The ill-fated Atlantic Conveyor was used to embark Harriers in just this manner in 82.
Anyway back the Skyhook, A SH equiped frigate with a usable compliment of Sea Harriers (Say 4) would be roughly the same size as a modern F-124 of the German navy IMHO
Ja you do know why Harrier is termed a STOVL aircraft as opposed to a VTOL one?. That is because, tongue in cheek, in VTOL operation the Harrier has the ability to carry a packet of peanuts the length of a football pitch!. Its payload/range isny any great shakes in STOVL ops but in VTOL its marginal for any actual operational missions with a decent fuel onload and weapons on the airframe. Your 5000 ton vessel would require a through deck to get any kind of mission performance out of the aircraft and then it is in no way a ‘frigate’ – rather its just the worlds smallest, most pointless, aircraft carrier!!! – and it wouldn’t really need the Skyhook capability!.
As I see it a cruiser sized hull, similar to a Shirane in general arrangement, with modern six inch guns (155’s for the soulless!) in A and B position a raised deckhouse aft of them with a large scale strike-length (80 cell) Mk41 VLS farm, superstructure, large hangar and a Chinook-capable flight deck for a 5/6 airframe NH90 airgroup would be able to perform concurrent land-attack, AAW, ASW and modest EMF insertion missions with far greater efficiency than a mini-CV could achieve and do it without the expense of the fastjets and without the need for screening units!.
JonesyImagine the Skyhook Frigates in service today, how many harriers would be out there?
No it wouldn’t Ja!. 😀
What value does embarking a single Sea Harrier on a frigate provide to a Fleet commander?. How long can a 4-5000ton vessel support such an airframe?. The avcat bunkerage on a frigate is designed to give a modest ASW chopper a couple of dozen sorties before depletion how long would that support a tactical jet fighter?. How many aircraft weapons can be stowed aboard and how many missions could be undertaken?. Even if grouped up with, perhaps, 4 Harrier-carrying FFG what missions could this little flotilla actually undertake?. Theres not enough airframes for CAP so there is no airborne Fleet Air Defence. There isn’t likely to be any AEW choppers as all the decks are taken up with fighters so its shipboard air sets and radar horizoning, a la 1982, all over again.
Long range precision strike is the only practical task for such vessel, same as for the Austral design etc above, and, in my opinion, we aleady have that achieved much, much easier with TLAM/Mk41!.
It may spark a positive discussion of their role they may play in medium size navies or in small navies
Sorry Jazz that wasnt very positive a comment was it!. I promise I’ll shut up now!. Erm being positive they, the Austral etc, look like they’d make very impressive fast LPH’s. If coupled with a pair of Expeditionary Cruiser type vessels and a few decent FFG’s (not carrying Sea Harriers ofc!) they look like they could put together a very competent Expeditionary Strike Group!.
Sign In
