The new Tornado convertible???

If I may?

A mechanical arm launcher lays the missile in the general direction of the target. All the booster has to do is kick the missile off the rail and into the proper profile for sustainer motor startup.

For VLS launch its a wee bit more complicated. The missile, by the nature of the VLS, is going straight up on launching. Therefore something has to be introduced into the booster section (or a short burn jettisonable steering booster incorporated) to “tip” the missile in the direction of the target just after launch. This obviously requires an additional command interface with the fire control system as well.

Not a huge difference and not technically all that challenging to get right, a small strap-on booster with steering vanes would probably be the easiest option, its just a bit more complex and takes a bit of extra time and expenditure to get right.

Formatting your HD is a bit drastic there Ben. No real need to go to quite that extreme just yet.

Two freeware programmes you could download to help would be:

SpyHunter from Enigma. You can download a free version of the spyware scanner from

http://www.enigmasoftwaregroup.com/jump.shtml

This will sift through your HD and detect any Trojans lurking therein. Simplest thing to do with whatever it finds is to either Google search on the name of the Trojan detected (someone will likely have found and smashed it somewhere) or go somewhere like http://www.computercops.biz/ and ask a question on their forum on how to deal with that specific Trojan. Word of advice though, dont buy the license for the removal section of the SpyHunter programme as it has been known that SpyHunter can produce the odd false positive in order to convince you to part with your cash unecessarily. The sweeper programme section is very good though and, provided you verify your results, you can quite handily turn the tables on the writers!

and…

If youre having issues with some of your browser searches or personal homepage settings being mysteriously changed then download the excellent “CWShredder” from:

http://www.merijn.org/downloads.html

This identifies any browser hijackers in your registry files etc and cleans them dynamically.

Sean,

Its just possible that he could really know what he’s talking about if he’s talking about deck reconfiguration.

On a STOBAR carrier deck park space forward is restricted by the skijump and parking space aft restricted, on a small carrier, by the landing run. With STOBAR using the long-run spot means clearing the deck roughly from the after island section forward. When landing-on everything has to be tucked away in the after deck park or hidden away immediately forward of the island. So what happens, very roughly, is that the plane manglers….sorry….deck handlers have to drag the planes aft for takeoffs and then off to the starboard beam or back forward for landings. Basically takes time and effort and kicks sortie generation rates into the toilet.

On a CATOBAR carrier, unless vous avez un right prat for a designer and beaucoup de merde nuke reactors for a power source, you can site your forward cat clear of the landing run and simultaneously run launch and trap cycles. Any pause for launching would simply be whilst taxying a fighter from the aft deck park into the cat spot forward or, obviously, while using the waist cat (which equally obviously you wouldnt do during a landing evolution!)

Size does matter in this situation. Hawkeye is the best thing out there for forward-projection AWACS. The capability it provides to a Navy, IMO, its simply irreplaceable if you are serious about using your carrier force to its maximum potential. However it is compromised by the need to fit it on (and fling it off) a carrier deck.

What E-3s, Wedgetails, Phalcons and the rest can do that E-2 cant is carry a battlestaff aloft with the radar. Now Hawkeye can LINK out its radar data, but it can only fit in three operator stations. So dynamically (and 100% reliably) there may only be three guys able to make determinations based on all the information they see on their screens. New software is going to help them filter most of the cr@p out, but, three guys will be busy trying do the sort of work that the USN is capable of.

An E-3, as I said, can take up a team of specialist Fighter Controllers, a seperate team of Strike Co-ordinators (and a Strike Planning cell if required) and, generally, a much wider team of mission specialists able to work on the data the radar provides efficiently and in realtime i.e without waiting for the information to update down a datalink.

There are also the simple factors that a large, airliner, type airframe can give much higher mission endurances offering the crews bunks, a “decent” galley and that most important of onboard system – toilets!.

Doc,

But 1 more question for the Arabel. Have you heard of the new KDX II AAW frigates of the ROK Navy? Its equipped with MW-08 as its 3D radar (target indicator) & 2 STIR illuminators. Given that you said ARABEL can do illumination duties for the ESSM and possibly SM2 with software modifications will it be a good match or upgrade?

ESSM and SM2 (blkIII on) can use a technique called Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI). This is a significant enabling technology to allow SARH missiles to cope with saturation attack.

To explain, very basically, a conventional SARH missile, whatever is is launched from, relies on a Continuous Wave (CW) radar transmission from the launching platform to paint the target. The seeker receiving the bounce pulses at such a rate as to be able to determine the returning signal gradiant and steer in the direction of the strongest return values (the target!). This, obviously, means that one missile, to get all the way to target, must have a dedicated CW Illuminator channel for the duration of the engagement. On Sea Sparrow,SM-1 and early blk SM-2 ships these were Signaal WM-2x’s, STIR’s, SPG-51’s, SPG-62’s and the suchlike.

What ICWI does is elminate the need for a permanent CW channel assigned for the engagement cycle. The operational mode will be that one generated beam can dwell on target for a finite time, update one missile in flight, shift to a second target – dwell – update missile 2, shift to target 3 – dwell – update and keep going in that fashion. Each dwell-to-update cycle, before a beamshift, taking just fractions of a second.

This is quite similar to the way that SPY-1 currently operates but with two major differences:

1. SPY-1/Mk99 uses seperate mechanical scanned SPG directors for terminal phase illumination i.e SPY-1 will track the inbound and update the missiles in flight in the same round-robin fashion, but, once missile and target enter the terminal-phase kill box the track hands off to the SPG which then illuminates in the conventional way. With APAR/ICWI/ESSM the APAR set does all the work in one unit. No director requirement means less complexity, lower maintenance requirements onboard ship, less ship impact (no need to find space in the upperworks to site directors) and lower vulnerability to systems failure (if an SPG mounting suffers a bearing failure it wont train and its not going to do much for you!).

2. APAR is capable of multiple beamforming per array. Not only can each radar beam track and illuminate several targets simultaneously, but, the active array can actually generate several beams so the numbers of simultaneous targets engaged can be quite impressive!.

ARABEL and EMPAR, as I understand them, use a very similar technique to “ping” targets for Aster. Essentially as they revolve their single beam is shifting between plotted targets from the previous revolution and the new “update” position is fed to the Aster in flight until such a point as the target enters the range of the Asters’ active radar seeker. At that point the Aster goes active and theoretically the target is destroyed with no further assistance from the MFR.

Theoretically then, given that the two systems APAR and EMPAR/ARABEL both use the same frequency band the beams from the Franco-Italian sets should be able to give the dwell and pulse rates required for the ESSM/SM2’s ICWI seeker to home in on. Both factors I would expect to be a code modification in the radar control software.

And yes the Thales website categorizes ARABEL as a fire control radar why did you say that it is s reliant on shipboard illuminators when it can do exactly that?(missile uplink and illumination

I think you could have misinterpreted what I wrote a bit? I said that conventional SARH missiles requiring an illuminator aboard ship (by this I meant a mechanically training one like the SPG series) dont tend to do crossing targets very well. This is simply because the illuminator has to keep up with the target travelling laterally and process a much more complex intercept point. I wasnt suggesting that EMPAR needed an illuminator.

Bizzarely enough though the more advanced Sampson radar from BAE WILL need seperate illuminators to work with ESSM or Standard missiles though as its an S-band set!. To do the X-band ICWI that the US missiles need BAE are proposing the addition of the Aussie CEA-FAR active array illuminator for any ship mounting Sampson or Spectar!.

To, finally, get to the answer for your question Doc (thank feck I hear you say!!!!). IF EMPAR can be tweaked, as I think it could, it may be a good upgrade for the KDX’s. IMO though the Koreans would be much better advised going for the direct purchase of APAR for an upgrade though, who knows Thales may even give em a good trade-in price for the MW-08’s and STIR’s!

Sorry you might find it insisting…Thanks chief……

You’re more than welcome Doc and insisting is no problem look how often I make the same point over and again on the Gorshkov thread! 😀

Indian73,

Jonesy, can you please rank these ships in order of capability for
AAW (wide area + capability against next gen threats)

1. Type 45 (SAMPSON + 3d radar + Aster15 + Aster30)
2. Dutch LCF (APAR + SMART_L + SM2?)
3. Franco-Italian Horizon (EMPAR + 3d radar + aster15 + aster30)
4. German Sachsen (APAR + SMART_L + SM2?)
5. Spanish F100 (SPY1D + SM2)
6. latest korean planned class.
7. saudi lafayette.

Its a difficult thing to quantify really objectively. I have to admit that Type45 isnt even a finished hull yet and BAE Sampson/UKPAAMs is still in the testing phase and will be for a couple of years yet. The French are or, at least, were saying that Aster wont work with Sampson! It was suspected that that was just because they werent involved in the project though!!!. We wont find out until the first tests happen in 2005 (rather worryingly on a French test-range – GPS and tanks anyone!?)

Type45, if it all works out as anticipated, should be the dogs dangly bits and will be no.1 until the yanks replace their SPY-1 ships with SPY-3 ships. Then it’ll be interesting.

2nd, 3rd and 4th spots are very close to call. Both the APAR/SM2 and EMPAR/PAAMS ships have advantages over each other. The Horizons should be able to handle saturation attacks better than the German and Dutch vessels by virtue of the active missile. Against this the SM2 ships have a longer ranged missile, possible buddy-designation through CEC with US and coalition vessels and a lot more flexibility inherent with their Mk41 VLS systems. For, say, Taiwan facing huge saturation attacks I’d go with the Aster ships. for Korea the capability of potting PLANAF Badgers from 90nms off, maybe catching them before they can launch, might be more important. See what I mean?

5th, 6th and 7th from your list are probably right, but, I’ve not had much of a look at the new Korean ships yet!.

Austin,

The information you already have on RAN-40 is probably the best thats out there in electronic format. Its a new system and the best place to find info on the newest stuff is in the current Janes Naval Weapons Systems book. If you cant run to the $900 list price (who can!) perhaps your local library might be able to source a copy for you? Cant help you much more for the minute I’m afraid.

Doc,

]Ive read about the Medium range SAM’s (SHTIL) for the Sovremenny class destroyers of the russian and the chinese navies. These anti-air warships lack a dedicated Aegis type radar, but are equipped with 1 MR-700M (Phased Array) 3D Radar, a mechanically rotating set but a phased array nevertheless. It is said to carry out at BEST CONDITIONS up to 6-12 simultenous engagements.

You’ve quite a few different system capabilities blended together skewing your picture a bit!

The MR-700 is similar, in effect, to the Plessey AWS9/Type 996, EADS TRS3D or Thales-Nederland MW08 type sets. These are all 3D Target Indication capable sets, all are mechanical rotators for azimuth scan with single (or double IIRC) beams electronically scanned in the vertical plane with phase-shifters. Their function, as I said, is simple target indication i.e they get primary detection of the target, generate the track and then hand that off to the fire-control director of whatever system is elected to take the target with.

In the case of the Shtil system the TI radar hands its tracks to the Front Dome director covering the specific sector that the threat bearing is in. The Front Dome is the system that controls the number of engagements simultaneously possible as it is the system that generates the CW signal that the missile homes on. I think it was a poster called Aerospacetech (hope I remember that right), last time we talked about this, mentioned a new variant of Front Dome with the cabability to illuminate 4 seperate targets within a limited arc. Obviously an impressive capability if true!.

Problem with Shtil though isnt necessarily the illuminators or the missiles, its the launcher. Mechanical launchers break, usually at the most inopportune moments in keeping with Murphy’s 7th law, they also have limited firing rates. The illuminators may be able to provide guidance for a dozen missiles simultaneously on each beam, but, if the launcher cannot fire a dozen missiles in the engagement window from detection to the missiles’ minimum range limit its largely an academic capability. Having several multi-channel directors is a bonus from the system resilience standpoint though as, if one happens to be down with a fault, the other two should be able to provide full, practical, capacity coverage.

With these capabilities, how can it perform say with an ARABEL + SM3 and ESSM (this has not been tried but THALES can probably integrate the 2 systems, it was successful with the APAR) or EMPAR and SM3 and ESSM which is slightly more capable than the ARABEL as is is said to carry out 12 simultaneous engagements in extreme conditions as contrast with ARABEL which can carry out 10 simultaneous engagements also in extreme conditions.

ARABEL is an X-band passive-phased array multi-function radar optimised for the guidance of a short-range active radar missiles (Aster 15) as part of the SAAM system. Its not a long-range set capable of complementing a true area defence missile. It can do roughly horizon-range local area defence and is pretty good against crossing targets which SARH missiles, reliant on shipboard illuminators, dont do so well. Its not really the same kind of system though. ARABEL being X-band should, theoretically, be able to provide illumination to ESSM if the missile uplink and, I’m guessing, a few software mods could be integrated.

EMPAR is ARABELs more powerful big brother, uses essentially the same technology and, theoretically, should perform little different to ARABEL just with greater range and better track handling capabilities. Comparing an SPY-1/SPG/SM-2 ship with a an EMPAR/SM-2 ship is an exercise in unreality to be frank. APAR is already out there, tested and available off-the-shelf. To integrate EMPAR with SM2 would mean time and expense in development and testing that would far outweigh any potential price differential between APAR and EMPAR. Unitl BAe Sampson takes to the water APAR is the best thing out there anyway…beats the pants off SPY-1 or any of the other PPARs.

I wanted to ask about these combinations, for a possible AAW platform design, which is an economical solution but a capable one. Lets just say a “cheaper AEGIS type system”. I could imagine the new KDX II with ARABEL or EMPAR or the Sawari AAW frigates with SM 3 and ESSM. I think you know now what Im trying to envision. Could these platforms be BETTER than the Sovremenny and the new Chinese Type 053B AAW destroyers which are armed with the MR-700M,Top Plate 3D, D/E-band and SHTIL combinations.

I’m afraid you might think it a flippant answer, but, a cheaper and economical AAW design already exists that is far superior to a Sovremenny, an RN Type42 and, in terms of raid handling and capability against low angle targets, possibly superior to a US Burke or Tico class ship. Thats the Dutch LCF or Zeven Provincien class ship. By all accounts they are simply excellent boats. If I were looking for an AAW boat, for a Navy I was procuring for, I wouldnt look anywhere else.