Actually ARTISAN is also an AESA. Having inherited technology from the Commander radar set it has more operating modes than the Sampson(air traffic control and so on). The area where it falls short of Sampson is probably basic operating characterisitcs: range, no. of targets, target tracking capability etc. In any case it’s (reportedly) quite a bit cheaper than Sampson, and it still has the ability to track supersonic AshMs at 25km or so(hence being coupled with the CAMM SHORAD system).

sorry but i think you are wrong:

Aug 4/08: A new radar upgrade. BAE Systems announces a GBP 100 million contract (about $195 million) to develop the ARTISAN 3D (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) radar, for deployment on a variety of ships.
[…]
Artisan will be a medium range radar used for “volume search”, which means it can quickly scan large areas and pass potential targets to the ship’s fire control radar. It will also have secondary navigation functions, and is being designed to operate effectively in the clutter produced by near-shore littoral environments. BAE has confirmed with DID that Artisan will use a passive phased array design.

source: defenseindustrydaily

its unclear if the array is able to steer the beams in both directions or not. imho artisan will only be able to steer the beam in elevation (this is indicated by two points from the artisan datasheet: it says the radar is electronic stabilised which is a useless information if you can steer your radarbeam anywhere anytime and it quotes a horizontal beamwidth.)
operating modes are quoted to be 4 without any details about them. are there any details about operation modes supported by sampson? imho it’s very unlikely that sampson is less flexible than artisan.

imho outrunning a long range torpedo shot is a good option but in addition we should keep in mind that for shooting a torpedo on a target 50 km away travelling with 20 or 30 kn you first need a very accurate firing solution. if course, bearing or speed of your solution is a little bit wrong the torpedo may not even hit the target if it’s not maneuvering because a torpedo seeker has a very limited detection range.
if the target starts changing course and speed your torpedos will end nowhere. on top of this a early torpedo alert gives you a good chance and much time to place some torpedo decoys to distract the torpedo.

so it’s always a good idea to shot a torpedo as close as possible to the target to get the best chance for a hit. but for sure it’s also more dangerous for the sub.

my point was rather simple: saturation is not dependent on if a phased array is rotating or not.
but in fact it is. in a setup with the same type of array and the same weapon system the more phased arrays you use the harder the system can be saturated. e.g. a setup with 4 fixed sampson arrays are harder to saturate than 2 rotating faces. as you mentioned saturating a system with an active seeker sam is a function of processing power and uplinks. the uplinks are provided by the phased array and there is another factor which is limited by the phased arrays: number of pencil beams/power output per time and sector.
imho one of the difficult tasks in developing modern radars is to manage the usage of this pencil beams/power budget to get the best overall results for volume search, high priority tracking, etc.
btw. there is no or only little information on sampson so we don’t know how long sampson needs for a full volume scan for example. we also do not know the radar range for sampson.

one of the main tasks of an x-band mfr is for sure icwi for essm/sm-2 but x-band also has other advantages especially in horizon search. the instrumental range of the mfr is not that interessting if you use a second system as volume search radar. so 150 km for apar e.g. is more than enough. everything else can be picked up by the slow rotating smart-l. there is a good reason the type-45 also has a additional vsr. it’s hard to use a single rotating radar at the same time as long range volume search system and as mfr for high update tracking etc. of course using a second radar system in a different frequency-band is always a good idea.

for your saturation calculation there are other additional factors like time duration of the terminal illumination. for example if the essm needs icwi for the last 2 sec before impact and if apar can handle 4 icwi’s on a single face you have to launch more than 2 essm per second if apar should be the limiting element. i made some calculations in this thread which shows that saturating a single apar array is more a theoretical issue than a real world scenario.

This would give credence then to the claim by BAE (once a few additional systems are installed as expected over the next few years) that the Type 45 is the worlds most advanced air defence destroyer – Hurrah!!!

why everbody compares type-45/sampson to burkes/aegis? as long as the us-navy doens’t field the dbr/amdr the cutting edge in terms of essm/sm-2 fire control is the apar radar.

Plus if needed the Radar can be stopped rotating to maintain lock on a target.

any source for that? even if it’s possible you will loose 1/3 of the 360° horizontal coverage against sea skimmers etc. so there must be a very good reason to stop the sampson.

but it might be a nice feature to slow down the samspon because most people believe that the 30 rpm (x2 faces = 60 rpm) is mainly needed during fire control/ uplink to the aster. for general surveillance some rpm less might be better in some situations. but in any case you will loose the high horizontal search update rate.

a rotating array is lighter but it can’t look in any direction at once. personally i prefer the apar/smart-l combo.

Anybody who says the Type 730’s performance is comparable to the Goalkeeper because they are similar has no idea what they’re talking about. There is a significant difference in their configuration, with the Goalkeeper having the search radar and the tracking radar on mount, while the Type 730 has its search radar, the Type 364, off mount. With the Goalkeeper’s sensors co-located, track handover time is faster, and system reaction time is 5.5s. The land based version of the Type 730 system, the LD2000 on the other hand, has a reaction time of 9.8s.

i’m not sure that on- or off-mount search radar has big effects on system reaction time in all cases. i think more important is the quality and capability from the off-mount radar and the cms. technical it should be no big deal to queue targets into the ciws by the off-mount radar and the cms nearly as quick as the ciws does it on it’s own with an on-mount search radar. but you will need capable off-mount systems to be that quick. or you simply connect an off-mount radar to a ciws in the same way as the on-mount. in this case you will get the same reaction time.

btw the 5.5 sec example means that the supersonic ashm is picked up by the search radar at 4 km. far to close if you ask me. imho targets are queued to the ciws much earlier. so it’s questionable if system reaction time (in terms of first-track-to-kill) is that important.

which search radar is used by the ld2000? is it identical to the shipborne setup? and is the whole system setup compareable? if not the quited ld2000 time is as useless as the goalkeeper time for rating the naval type 730.

but for sure we have to keep in mind that an on-mount search radar has advantages beside the reaction time issue. it’s another high rotating x-band search radar, it may keep the ciws working if some other shipborne systems are going down, etc.

As is evident from company PDFs linked to here, dual feeding is offered as option to both standard Compact and Super Rapid version. Likewise, it is evident both the standard Compact and the Super Rapid version can fire Davide. I’m trying to picture how dual feeding would work for this gun. Hence, the materials relating to the feed/loading mechanism. IMHO, dual feeding means a second, off mount ammunition supply (i.e. not directly below the gun), which is at some point (close to the actual gun) connected to the existing loading system. Likely at the screw feeder or the loading drum.

i think the second ammunition storage is not the big problem. e.g. they can use two smaller revolving magazins instead one big one (like they do it with the 127 mm mount). imho the problem is that they either have to redesign the whole loading system in the turret itself or they are not able to instantly switch between the two ammunitions. with the current loading system, there are up to 10 rounds stored between the magazin and the gun barrel.

Looks like they really are pushing the idea of an oto76 as a CIWS system.

the italian navy used 40 mm and 76 mm gun mounts as ciws since many years but with strales/davide they enhance the ability to sot down modern ashm. we will see if they will be able to export it (so they have to bid against other competitors like the 35 mm millenium gun, ram etc.)

http://www.navweaps.com/Weapons/WNUS_3-62_mk75.htm

i was more referencing to the “optional dual feeding device” which is mentioned in the 76 mm sr pdf.
http://www.otomelara.it/EN/Common/files/OtoMelara/pdf/business/naval/mediumCalibers/76-62SR.pdf

the quote from navweaps sounds more like manual loading than full auto dual feeding.