So if the existing radar was to be used and it was accepted that there would be reduced capability, what would it entail to fit a containerised system?

By definition you would expect the containerised system to have its own engagement coordination systems, consoles, launch scheduling systems etc. In theory you’d need a line-in from the ships CDS/data highway, power and maybe HVAC/environmental support. You’d need an appropriate warfare team to deploy, maintain and operate the capability which would have to be at least 7 strong…likely a couple more.

Another question I have is which 3D radar would you fit to a cheap UK patrol ship to enable the use of CAMM as a FLAADS capability rather than PDMS.

My view is that a patrol ship is exactly where you need good sensors…as, often, they are all alone for extended periods and need to keep a ‘patrol’ eye on the widest amount of seaspace possible. The Russians seem to have caught on to this with their new OPV class with a stated intent to deploy their S-100 UAV copy aboard each unit.

To my mind the more 998 sets we buy the lower the unit cost, running on one standard type of mid-range radar saves on training and logistics support and, operationally, can make a huge difference. Imagine the value of being able to swap spares between any deployed patrol ship, FFG or amphib and have trained personnel at hand on any of them able to swap and change regardless of ship type. To me that far outweighs the cost of a moderately more expensive radar set.

If we are moving, beyond OPV(H), to an oceanic-class MHPC of 2000+ tons the sensible answer has to be to continue the 998/ARTISAN roll-out.

The Terma set is one I’ve heard talked about with some respect….especially with regard the detection of small targets I’m with Kev though in having a few doubts about it as a FLAADS component.

By stating that Ceptor can work with a 2D or 3D TI set it looks like elevation data feed is elective dependent on installation. You wonder whether it may be a case of reduced capability with the 2D installation…more perhaps PDMS than the full FLAADS local area capability?

I know, owing to the shortish ranges involved, Ceptor is seeker active very early from launch, but, I cant help but think that the elevation data is going to be significant especially if the target is crossing at speed and is above the horizon by a fair way…a cross-range supersonic diving inbound for example.

To answer the question then I’d suspect that it depends on what you expect from OPV(H) with FLAADS?. If you want it to be able to sit in an air-threat environment and be able to take care of itself possibly yes it may be as simple as shipping the containerised system and appropriate warfare team.

If you want to exploit the full capability of the system I think I’d want a 998/Kronos/SMART-S Mk2 type set.

Welcome.

Was being serious bout LinkedIn by the way. I’m really not too sure how this fits in with PERSEC but….

http://www.linkedin.com/title/pilot/at-belgian-air-force

In the context of Kilo’s point though Fed thats not really relevent. The CVF-FR changes from CVF-UK were quite significant. A CTOL CVF-UK would have been quite different from the French ‘sister ship’ had it happened.

If you look at imagery from 2007-8 of what the French were going to build leveraging from the CVF design work this difference becomes quite clear…especially around the bows. This all stems from the MN requirement for more bunkerage, as well as a few other factors, and necessitated a heavier displacement than the UK variant. Given the same propulsion fit the French ship would have been slower than the already unexciting, in performance terms, UK hull. Tinkering with ship specifications after they are settled is always a dodgy business!

Compared to what they turned CVF into with CVF-FR I think the PA-DSX a much better option for them…certainly a hull with far better export prospects for those few nations that might like to shop for a CATOBAR carrier. Still doesnt make the baseline CVF hull a bad design though…just one that the French should never have started tinkering with! 😉

Which part of what he said failed?.

Also you have a very clear history of telling us all that the RN “wont get the CVF’s” Kilo I take it you’ve moved away from that unfounded position now to just one of aimlessly mocking the design?.

The ‘outdated concept’ comment refers to the fact that the radar is a ‘Possible Target Detection Sensor’. It relies on other recce assets to do the positive identification of these ‘possible’ targets. Just like it was designed to do in the late 70’s when it was called Castor (hence the outdated bit).

I think there is some value at least in a radar imager that can, over a limited field of view, classify a ship type in adverse conditions from such a standoff range that the target is not alerted to the fact it is being scrutinized or tracked. I dont think anyone is stating that Sentinel represents a wide area search capability like that offered by a platform with a powerful 360deg search set plus high-end optronics, CESM/ESM etc, etc.

Clearly its not. What it does offer though is, I’d assume, wide area MMTI (ASTOR does WAGMTI now) and then standoff, all-weather/night, imagery of contacts of interest. In a GWoT context that may be a hand-off of a suspect merchie from a friendly state and the maintainance of a track through friendly waters until picked up by the next team. For Search/Rescue direction the same all-weather sensor capability targeted on a roughly known position could be of significant value. There are definite jobs that Sentinel could do overwater at current weights with no change other than software and operator training. Would sentinel represent ‘RMPA’ no, BUT, if its not doing anything else it defintely adds value in standoff UK maritime surveillance. It does still retain that most useful of features for any patrol aircraft as well…a big window, with an observers seat behind it, for a bloke with a pair of binocs…so its not like, if a pressing need for PID appeared, that Sentinel would be utterly incapable of providing it!.

The weight issue is sensitive and is in part related to Raytheon owned equipment in the aircraft.

As noted though these aircraft already do 12hr missions. What more is needed to perform overwater standoff imagery…I’m assuming standard survival gear is packed in Sentinel already. It’d be useful to have direct LINK ability with the surface fleet, but, if it has to relay via Northwood over Skynet well….that is why we have satellites?!.

I just wish it wasn’t just limited to radar recce as I know how limited that can be. I would love to see the Sentinel re-equipped as a recce jet with a range of sensors – but I doubt that there’s money for that. Just as I doubt it would make an MPA..

The way I see it Sentinel offers capability, according to the OEM, for the sake of a software fix that we have need of now to support ongoing ops in GWoT amongst others. I still think a MALE UAV is, ultimately, the ideal solution for this, but, we dont have one ready-to-go….we have Sentinel.

For the right-now I say lets use what we have…especially if the govt. are going to cut something we can make use of otherwise. The GX as an airframe seems to offer a lot for not a lot of cash and we have sensors left over from MRA4. If we can combine the two and get an aircraft we already support, in Sentinel form, that can do ‘proper’ maritime surveillance as well as overland (an MPR.Mk1 perhaps) ISTAR for the cost of a few sub thousand-hour GX’s and a fixed-cost integration deal with Thales then we buy ourselves time to watch the development of the blue-water ASW threat and address that when, and only when, we have a need to. That is when we can look holistically at the elements we need to do long-range ASW properly and re-evaluate cueing elements like SURTASS and the prosecute elements like SSN’s and ‘proper’ MPA’s.

Now I will say sorry for the Crab and Pongo bit, (I was following Jonesy’s cue – I’m new here and still finding my way a bit). It used to be called banter but I accept that those days of name calling are probably over (I will not use these terms again).

That’ll learn you not to follow my cues Rockall!. Context is the key here…its no different to someone using the ‘N’ word…if you happen to be of african-descent and live in Queens it has a very different connotation to someone of anglo-saxon descent using it on the terraces of a football stadium to detail their displeasure with a gentleman on the pitch. Fed knows I make no apology for using terms that, for the most part, are banter…and it is something that will irk him for many years to come I hope!. For certain circles of my friends I will never be known as anything other than ‘the Andrew’ and usually there is some more of that anglo-saxon separating the words ‘the’ and ‘Andrew’!.

For my part I’ve little problem with the light-blue, I actually dated a Cranwell officer-ette for a year or so….raising the bar ludicrously high for the poor girl afterwards it must be lamented, and have spent nights (many years back) in the girls blocks at Cotts that very clearly disprove the idea that the RAF dont have a WMD capability anymore!. I’ve had a lot of fun with the RAF in one sense or another….I have also sat in the bar upstairs in their club in Piccadilly and listened to very senior ranking officers discussing screwing the RN (and the army) three ways from sunday much to my partners embarrassment at the time. This leading to my view, arrived at after many years analysis, that, in the light-blue, there is an inverse relationship with intelligence and proximity to the flight-line….the further away they get the dimmer the light bulb!.

That’s a ‘fixed’ beam side-ways looking array in that pod – good at what it claims to be perhaps but not an over water surface search radar. Those heavy kit racks in the current Sentinel already take up too much room in the cabin, add anything else and it may struggle to get off the ground.

Lots will depend on what mods Raytheon can insert into the radar. Fixed arrays work well in maritime detection with MESA or Erieye….obviously different types of radar….but wide area MMTI cross cueing, within the arrays field of regard, with an ISAR spotlight mode could be a very useable capability. Not what you would ever define as a ‘proper’ MPA, but, certainly one that could provide an interesting maritime surveillance capability. Seeing its already bought, paid for, housed, supported logistically and has established training streams I dont see how we could augment our maritime surveillance capability cheaper?.

It’s doing a ‘manned UAV’ role now, flying repetitive tracks looking for changes etc, how does this relate to an MPA? Is this going to operate at low level over the sea

You’re not going to run a principle radar surveillance platform routinely at low altitude are you?. Patrol altitude with occasional low altitude phases to read off hull names with binocs wouldn’t seem unduly overtaxing?.

What Portagee says makes sense in buying some ‘regular’ C-295’s for ‘light lifting’ alongside an off the shelf C-295MPA to take the load off the Atlas fleet.

Apart from the fact that we dont currently operate that type. So new type, new training, new support etc.

I expect there will need to be a strong RN involvement for this for initial capability start up alongside the Seedcorn thing. I would imagine Culdrose as the main operating base with detachments to Lossiemouth to ensure continuous operations in decent weather. Leave ‘Potato World’ for the E-3’s.

Where were MRA4’s due to be based and what component of the crews were anticipated to be dark blue?. I understood it wouldve been Kinloss and the crews were distinctly lighter in shade?. Where would the mob and Culdrose have come in to any alternate plan?.

All these non ‘Off The Shelf’ ideas however well intentioned like Bombadier Express MPA would probably cost too much, and may not work out that efficient. Would all this industry support for the B-Express be tied to Waddo? How much good would that be to the RN I wonder?

Bout the same good as the MRA4’s wouldve done the RN!. Cost too much?. There are 3000hr Global Expresses on the market for £15mn; 600hr examples for £22mn!. We already have sensors bought and paid for and support/basing/training in place. Integration costs to Thales would be about the extent of our little homebrew maritime surveillance capability.