PDA

View Full Version : World's Most Advanced War Ship



Simullacrum
18 Jan 06,, 14:13
HMS Daring, the first of a planned class of eight Type 45 destroyers, will be launched from BAE Systems Naval Ships Scotstoun yard on February 1st. When she enters service later this decade she will be the world’s most advanced anti-air warfare destroyer.

Designed to provide a robust air defence umbrella for a carrier strike force or amphibious task group, she and her sisters are breaking new ground in terms of their design, construction, combat system capability, habitability, propulsion and power engineering.

The Type 45 programme is designed to provide the Royal Navy with a versatile destroyer capable of contributing to worldwide maritime and joint operations for much of the first half of this century. As well as providing a specialist air warfare capability, they will also afford the fleet a general-purpose multi-role platform capable of performing tasks from peace support and defence diplomacy through to high-intensity warfare.

At approximately 7,350 tonnes displacement Daring will be the largest surface combatant built for the RN since the Second World War. Daring will be able to transit 7,000 nautical miles at a speed of 18 knots, and reach a maximum speed of over 27 knots if called upon to re-deploy at short notice.

As well as breaking new ground in the capability she will offer to the Royal Navy, the Type 45 has seen radical changes to the way ships are designed and built in the UK.

The warship design was undertaken at a number of sites throughout the UK, predominantly at the Type 45 Prime Contract Office in Filton, the BAE Systems Type 45 Platform Design Centre in Scotstoun and VT Shipbuilding premises in Portsmouth and Southampton. The detailed spatial integration, using the CADDS5 computer-aided design tool, has resulted in a comprehensive three dimensional electronic model within which every piece of physical structure, pipework, ducting, machinery, equipment and ship furniture has been defined in extraordinary detail.

Daring has been assembled from large pre-outfitted ‘megablock’ modules, an approach designed to increase build efficiency and thus drive down construction man-hours. In Daring’s case the aft or rear blocks were built at BAE Systems’ yard in Govan and floated downriver to Scotstoun, the mid sections were built in Scotstoun and the bow was built by VT in Portsmouth before being floated all the way up the West coast of the country and up the Clyde. This division of the work between yards across the UK has pioneered a new way of building complex warships and the same concept will be applied, at a larger scale, to the construction of the Royal Navy’s two new aircraft carriers

http://www.type45.com/

http://www.baesystems.com/type45/type45_2.htm

Parihaka
18 Jan 06,, 22:35
Ugly, isn't it

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/images/Type45_2.jpg

lurker
19 Jan 06,, 00:12
Ugly, isn't it

Thats before the budget cuts, after it's might be looking nice and clean like this "DDX Jr."... ;)

Wraith601
19 Jan 06,, 00:49
If it wasn't for the oversized mast structure it'd be more attractive, but if it improves combat capability then I guess it's ok. I question wheter or not these things are really the equal of a DDG-51 or Japanese Kongo though.

Defcon 6
19 Jan 06,, 01:47
Those ships aren't revolutionary. Looks like cannon fodder to me.

Simullacrum
19 Jan 06,, 10:23
Ugly, isn't it

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/images/Type45_2.jpg

LOL it aint a page 3 model, it aint what it looks like lol (u aint going to sleep with the thing are you...!!!)

The 3 main prinicples y is is a world beater is the folwwoing:-

1. Samspon Radar
-----------------------
BAe's multi-function radar, which is virtually immune to jamming, will become an integral part of the UK's defence, reports Ian Cameron

The capabilities offered by active phased array MFR have been hailed as the most significant development in the history of radar since its invention in the 1930s.

With longer ranges and higher accuracy, active arrays use software to control beam shape and positioning, allowing multi-function capability, while adaptive waveform control makes MFR virtually immune to jamming.

The multi-function capabilities of active array systems are such that surveillance, multi-target tracking and target indication can all be undertaken on an alternating cycle so fast that each operation appears concurrent.

BAE Systems claims enhanced weapon system effectiveness thanks to SAMPSON. It would provide the following capabilities:

* long-range detection of stealthy targets with a significantly lower false alarm
rate, leading to earlier weapon alert (the radar can initiate tracks within the
"first look" because of its 60: look-back capability within the 120: field-of-view
] that the rotating array covers);
* rapid track formation, leading to an earlier fire-control solution;
* accurate tracking (with full hemispherical coverage up to the zenith position,
90: elevation directly overhead), leading to an improved fire-control solution;
* target classification, leading to imp-roved weapon allocation (SAMPSON's
ability to manage its radar energy would allow such identification features as
raid discrimination, target size estimation and non-cooperative target
recognition);
* multiple engaged tracks, allowing more channels of fire (SAMPSON would be
capable of engaging "several tens" of tracked targets simultaneously, while
with a conventional tracking radar the maximum number would be three);
* active jammer cancellation, allowing operation in intense electronic
countermeasures (a large part of the MESAR program was devoted to
developing these techniques); and
* high availability, providing extensive redundant channels and reliable
components, both in the T/R-modules and in the processing.

Rotating arrays
BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "You'd want to place the MFR as high as possible in the ship, against sea-skimming missile attacks; getting that extra bit of radar horizon could make the difference in getting that extra salvo away to deal with the leakers," a BAE Systems manager said. Furthermore, the company predicts that enemy tactics for attacking a fixed array-equipped ship will be to concentrate a massed missile raid on one side of the ship, thereby saturating one array while effectively making the other three useless.


The Sampson radar dome, a spherical form has now been adopted.

The two arrays in SAMPSON are processed separately, and indeed it would be possible to operate SAMPSON as a single-face radar (in effect creating a SPECTAR). The E/F-band has been chosen as the "best compromise between surveillance and tracking requirements". BAE Systems has selected Mercury Computer Systems of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, to provide the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment that will host the company's core radar processing system, so that it can be used across its entire family of products, including SAMPSON.

SAMPSON is designed to be interoperable with a range of weapon systems. Within PAAMS, it will work in association with the Aster active radar guided missile family, for which it will provide target designation and E/F-band mid-course guidance uplink. Within the BAE Systems-proposed SIWS (SAMPSON Integrated Weapon System), the radar system would work with the US family of semi-active radar guided missiles (notably Standard Missile SM-2 Block IIIA and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, ESSM). In SIWS, the required I/J-band interrupted continuous wave illumination (ICWI) of targets, as well as missile uplink, would be provided by typically two separate CEA-Mount active array tracking radars developed joint by BAE Systems and Australian company CEA Technologies. SIWS was being offered for the now cancelled Royal Australian Navy ANZAC-class war fighting improvement program (WIP) and is now being promoted primarily in South Korea (KDX-3 program) and Turkey (TF-2000 program).

BAE Systems say that SAMPSON should be regarded as a long-range sensor, its software-programmable search range (depending on which surveillance domain and update rate is selected) extending out to "several 100s of kilometres" and being described by the company as "significantly more than the 150km-range of APAR" - a performance that is directly related also to the chosen frequency band (E/F-band for SAMPSON as opposed to I/J-band for APAR). In fact, BAE Systems maintains that on the Type 45 destroyer, the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar that is designed to work in partnership with SAMPSON "really is superfluous and is not needed to perform the mission of the ship". The company suggested that the reason the large volume search radar has been incorporated in PAAMS is "more of a historic nature, associated with work sharing issues" that were such a problem during the trilateral Project Horizon.


2.PAMMS
------------
PRINCIPAL ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILE SYSTEM (PAAMS)

The primary weapon system of the Type 45 will be the Principal Anti-Aircraft Missile System (PAAMS). PAAMS is a tri-national programme involving France, Italy and the UK. The contract for series production was placed in November 2003. The prime contractor is Europaams SAS, a joint venture company owned two thirds by Eurosam (MBDA and Thales) and one third by the UKAMS subsidiary of MBDA.

The missiles being developed for PAAMS are the Aster 15 and the Aster 30. The Aster missile carries an inertial computer with datalink, an active J-band Doppler radar seeker and 15kg warhead. The speed of Aster 30 is Mach 4, and range is over 80km. The missile has manoeuvrability of up to 62g, achieved through the use of the EADS Aerospatiale PIF/PAF guidance system.

While the French / Italian PAAMS uses the Empar G-band radar, the UK PAAMS has the BAE Systems Insyte Sampson multi-function, dual-face active array radar operating at E/F bands. Each face of the array carries 2,500 gallium arsenide transmit and receive modules, with an output of 25kW. BAE Systems has reconfigured Sampson to produce a near spherical design which retains the two arrays internally. Modes of operation include long and medium range search, surface search, high-speed horizon search and high angle search and track. Sampson uses digital adaptive beamforming which makes it highly resistant to electronic countermeasures. The first Sampson radar has been installed on a representative Type 45 foremast in preparation for PAAMS integration in 2006.

PAAMS uses a DCN Sylver A50 vertical launcher with eight cells. The Type 45 will have six Sylver VLS. The command and control system will be supplied by UKAMS, although Thales Airsys will build some of the core elements.

BAE Systems, teamed with Radamec Defence Systems (now part of Ultra Electronics) will provide the Electro-Optical Gunfire Control System (EOGCS).

3. Electic Engine
--------------------
No to sure on what there using on this one or how it works will lokk ofr mor einformation....!!!

sparten
19 Jan 06,, 13:18
Ugly, isn't it

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/horizon/images/Type45_2.jpg

Is it just me or it looks like the padoga super structure of Japanese BB's?

IJN Mutsu
http://www.combinedfleet.com/mutsu01.jpg

Dreadnought
19 Jan 06,, 16:23
Is it just me or it looks like the padoga super structure of Japanese BB's?

The Main mast shape IMO looks like the USN North Carolina class fast battleship class main mast. (i.e. USS Washington, North Carolina)

But I do agree with Sparten, The two masts (main and secondary) very much replicate the Pagoda's and secondaries when viewing from that angle.

Cant wait to see her for real at the next Naval Review or the next big event Britan has for the Queen etc or who knows maybe even a visit to Philly.

giggs88
19 Jan 06,, 23:46
It wouldn't be that bad looking....if there wasn't that big ass trophy sitting on it.

Dreadnought
23 Jan 06,, 17:44
Now that England is preping for the Queens 80th bday We may get a chance at seeing real pics of her upclose. :)

Defcon 6
31 Jan 06,, 03:37
I'm not impressed by this ship. What a lame excuse for a destroyer. The only thing innovative is the fact that it's got some sort of modular design goin on.

brian00
31 Jan 06,, 04:34
It wouldn't be that bad looking....if there wasn't that big ass trophy sitting on it.


But the higher the radar the better right?

Bill
31 Jan 06,, 05:05
Those ships aren't revolutionary. Looks like cannon fodder to me.

Supposedly, they are revolutionary.

Rotating phased array LPI radar mated to active radar homing fire and forget OTH missiles.....the USN doesn't have any of that.

No one does.

Bill
31 Jan 06,, 05:06
But the higher the radar the better right?

Yep.

Simullacrum
31 Jan 06,, 15:38
I'm not impressed by this ship. What a lame excuse for a destroyer. The only thing innovative is the fact that it's got some sort of modular design goin on.

Could you Please clarify with the reasoning to why you not impressed by this ship..??
This is the Most Advanced and Deadliest Ship ever built to date..!!!
Apart from the ground brakeing RADAR Technology which like sniper has stated no-one else has, and to which is un-jamable with todays tech..!! It has some awsome firepower.....armed with 48 Aster missiles with 40lb warheads each, each can stop the fastest enemy jet 60 miles away...do some reaserch and read up on PAMMS as well u may be enlighten to as why it has such firepower..!!!
Also read up on the SMAPSON RADAR system...!!!

Or r u the type of person that cause it aint American it aint worth it or anygood..???

Dreadnought
31 Jan 06,, 15:50
Could you Please clarify with the reasoning to why you not impressed by this ship..??
This is the Most Advanced and Deadliest Ship ever built to date..!!!
Apart from the ground brakeing RADAR Technology which like sniper has stated no-one else has, and to which is un-jamable with todays tech..!! It has some awsome firepower.....armed with 48 Aster missiles with 40lb warheads each, each can stop the fastest enemy jet 60 miles away...do some reaserch and read up on PAMMS as well u may be enlighten to as why it has such firepower..!!!
Also read up on the SMAPSON RADAR system...!!!

Or r u the type of person that cause it aint American it aint worth it or anygood..???

Nah, you wont find many here that relies on that thought.

I myself would like to see her up close for a good look at her. Who knows if she turns up in Philly any time soon I'll get pics of her coming up the river. Or if allowed tour her while shes moored here. It happens alot but not so sure about them letting anybody tour the RN's newest toy. :) But if possible i'll post the pics.
In the past we have has DDG's and FFG's here just stopping in with no tours allowed. All under heavy guard ofcoarse.

Simullacrum
31 Jan 06,, 16:05
Nah, you wont find many here that relies on that thought.

I myself would like to see her up close for a good look at her. Who knows if she turns up in Philly any time soon I'll get pics of her coming up the river. Or if allowed tour her while shes moored here. It happens alot but not so sure about them letting anybody tour the RN's newest toy. :) But if possible i'll post the pics.

I know what u mean my friend...!!! so would i like to be able to tour the 8,000 tonner with 14 decks...but alas I wont get the privalege anytime soon that is..!
I doubt that they would allow a tour when moored some stuff r still classified..!
Iv been talking to some of my military chums and those that are in the RN have all put request/beggings to serve on her...!

Would be nice to see her in Action....!!! With crap happeing around the world it will be sooner then later..!!!!

Also cant wait till the Astute nuclear-powered attack submarines come into focre 2009...after all the contract wrangling friging politicians and civies..!!!

Defcon 6
31 Jan 06,, 19:25
Could you Please clarify with the reasoning to why you not impressed by this ship..??
This is the Most Advanced and Deadliest Ship ever built to date..!!!
Apart from the ground brakeing RADAR Technology which like sniper has stated no-one else has, and to which is un-jamable with todays tech..!! It has some awsome firepower.....armed with 48 Aster missiles with 40lb warheads each, each can stop the fastest enemy jet 60 miles away...do some reaserch and read up on PAMMS as well u may be enlighten to as why it has such firepower..!!!
Also read up on the SMAPSON RADAR system...!!!

Or r u the type of person that cause it aint American it aint worth it or anygood..???

*deadliest ship ever built to date
*un-jammable radar

That is yet to be seen.

As for the bit about "ain't american," no, as a matter of fact I'm a big fan of the Russian Kirov class.

Now, if the Type 45 turns out to test impressively, thats great. But, it doesn't make it revolutionary. And here is why:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System is the world's most modern ship self-defense weapon.

There are well over 100,000 anti-ship missiles in the world's inventory today, posing a serious threat to all naval vessels. Assured destruction of a large raid is the only means to ensure ship survival. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System is the world's most modern ship self-defense weapon, and has been specifically designed to provide exceptional protection for ships of all sizes. RAM is currently installed, or planned for installation, on over 80 U.S. Navy and 28 German Navy ships.

RAM is a supersonic, light-weight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget missile designed to destroy antiship missiles. Its autonomous dual-mode passive RF and IR guidance design, requiring no shipboard support after missile launch, uniquely provides high-firepower capability for engaging multiple threats simultaneously.

The MK 44 Guided Missile Round Pack, coupled with the 21-cell MK 49 Guided Missile Launching System, comprise the MK 31 Guided Missile Weapon System. The weapon system has been designed for flexibility in ships' integration, with no “dedicated” sensors required. A wide variety of existing ship sensors can readily provide the target and pointing information required to engage the antiship threat.

The RAM missile has been fired in over 150 flight tests to date, resulting in a success rate of greater than 95 percent. This extremely high reliability is the culmination of years of development, testing, and design improvements.

RAM Block 1
RAM has evolved in order to counter the anticipated non-RF-radiating anti-ship cruise missiles of the future. The RAM Block 1 missile has been designed to defeat tomorrow's threat. While retaining the existing RF-to-IR guidance modes of the Block 0 RAM, Block 1 incorporates a new image-scanning seeker with the added capability of autonomous IR-all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles which do not employ on-board radar seekers. This new seeker also allows increased capability against crossing targets and the ability to engage fixed and rotary-winged aircraft. Enhanced digital signal processing further provides increased resistance to countermeasures, as well as superior performance in severe IR background conditions.

The RAM Block 1 missile has successfully completed Navy Operational testing, engaging real-world and surrogate anti-ship missiles. Having demonstrated operational suitability and effectiveness in these stringent tests, RAM Block 1 is now in full-rate production. Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface (HAS) Capability Raytheon is under contract to provide a software upgrade to Block 1 RAM in order to engage helicopters, aircraft, and surface targets. RAM Block 1's inherent IR seeker design and performance characteristics enable it to engage these targets via missile software enhancements, requiring no hardware modifications. The capability to counter this expanded target set will be available for the fleets in 2002. Concurrent with this design effort, an 11-round launcher system is also being developed for smaller ships and other vessels which have weight constraints.

And the missile system that launches RAM-
The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System provides the highest level of ship self-defense with extended keep-out range capability

The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System is a spiral development of key attributes of both Phalanx CIWS and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Weapon System. SeaRAM is designed to extend the inner layer battle space and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple high-performance, supersonic, and subsonic threats.

An 11-missile RAM launcher assembly replaces Phalanx's 20 mm gun. SeaRAM combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range, and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high resolution search-and-track sensor systems and reliable quick-response capability.

SeaRAM is an affordable capability upgrade -- the above-deck system fits the exact footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power, and requires minimal shipboard [/B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
RIM-169

Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) is an international cooperative upgrade of the RIM-7 NATO SEASPARROW Missile. ESSM provides self-defense battlespace and firepower against high-speed, highly maneuverable anti-ship missiles.

ESSM is bringing transformational anti-ship missile defense capabilities to the naval fleets of the United States and its NATO and other allies. The missile was developed for the U.S. Navy and nine of the other 11 member nations of the NATO SEASPARROW Consortium. ESSM will be deployed on Aegis Flight IIa Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, Aegis Ticonderoga-class cruisers, aircraft carriers and the Navy's newest destroyer, DD(X).

Dreadnought
31 Jan 06,, 20:30
I wonder how DDX will compare with her. Will they (DDX) be worth the price tag if they cant?

Defcon 6
31 Jan 06,, 21:01
Isn't worth the price tag now regardless. As I've said in other forums-
Current estimated cost calculated by CBO: 3.7 B
USN will need a price of: 2.0 B

brian00
01 Feb 06,, 03:32
*deadliest ship ever built to date
*un-jammable radar

That is yet to be seen.

As for the bit about "ain't american," no, as a matter of fact I'm a big fan of the Russian Kirov class.

Now, if the Type 45 turns out to test impressively, thats great. But, it doesn't make it revolutionary. And here is why:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System is the world's most modern ship self-defense weapon.

There are well over 100,000 anti-ship missiles in the world's inventory today, posing a serious threat to all naval vessels. Assured destruction of a large raid is the only means to ensure ship survival. The Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Missile Weapon System is the world's most modern ship self-defense weapon, and has been specifically designed to provide exceptional protection for ships of all sizes. RAM is currently installed, or planned for installation, on over 80 U.S. Navy and 28 German Navy ships.

RAM is a supersonic, light-weight, quick-reaction, fire-and-forget missile designed to destroy antiship missiles. Its autonomous dual-mode passive RF and IR guidance design, requiring no shipboard support after missile launch, uniquely provides high-firepower capability for engaging multiple threats simultaneously.

The MK 44 Guided Missile Round Pack, coupled with the 21-cell MK 49 Guided Missile Launching System, comprise the MK 31 Guided Missile Weapon System. The weapon system has been designed for flexibility in ships' integration, with no “dedicated” sensors required. A wide variety of existing ship sensors can readily provide the target and pointing information required to engage the antiship threat.

The RAM missile has been fired in over 150 flight tests to date, resulting in a success rate of greater than 95 percent. This extremely high reliability is the culmination of years of development, testing, and design improvements.

RAM Block 1
RAM has evolved in order to counter the anticipated non-RF-radiating anti-ship cruise missiles of the future. The RAM Block 1 missile has been designed to defeat tomorrow's threat. While retaining the existing RF-to-IR guidance modes of the Block 0 RAM, Block 1 incorporates a new image-scanning seeker with the added capability of autonomous IR-all-the-way guidance, thus countering advanced anti-ship missiles which do not employ on-board radar seekers. This new seeker also allows increased capability against crossing targets and the ability to engage fixed and rotary-winged aircraft. Enhanced digital signal processing further provides increased resistance to countermeasures, as well as superior performance in severe IR background conditions.

The RAM Block 1 missile has successfully completed Navy Operational testing, engaging real-world and surrogate anti-ship missiles. Having demonstrated operational suitability and effectiveness in these stringent tests, RAM Block 1 is now in full-rate production. Helicopter, Aircraft, and Surface (HAS) Capability Raytheon is under contract to provide a software upgrade to Block 1 RAM in order to engage helicopters, aircraft, and surface targets. RAM Block 1's inherent IR seeker design and performance characteristics enable it to engage these targets via missile software enhancements, requiring no hardware modifications. The capability to counter this expanded target set will be available for the fleets in 2002. Concurrent with this design effort, an 11-round launcher system is also being developed for smaller ships and other vessels which have weight constraints.

And the missile system that launches RAM-
The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System provides the highest level of ship self-defense with extended keep-out range capability

The SeaRAM Anti-Ship Missile Defense System is a spiral development of key attributes of both Phalanx CIWS and the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) Guided Weapon System. SeaRAM is designed to extend the inner layer battle space and enable the ship to effectively engage multiple high-performance, supersonic, and subsonic threats.

An 11-missile RAM launcher assembly replaces Phalanx's 20 mm gun. SeaRAM combines RAM's superior accuracy, extended range, and high maneuverability with the Phalanx Block 1B's high resolution search-and-track sensor systems and reliable quick-response capability.

SeaRAM is an affordable capability upgrade -- the above-deck system fits the exact footprint of the Phalanx, uses the same power, and requires minimal shipboard [/B]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile
RIM-169

Evolved SeaSparrow Missile (ESSM) is an international cooperative upgrade of the RIM-7 NATO SEASPARROW Missile. ESSM provides self-defense battlespace and firepower against high-speed, highly maneuverable anti-ship missiles.

ESSM is bringing transformational anti-ship missile defense capabilities to the naval fleets of the United States and its NATO and other allies. The missile was developed for the U.S. Navy and nine of the other 11 member nations of the NATO SEASPARROW Consortium. ESSM will be deployed on Aegis Flight IIa Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyers, Aegis Ticonderoga-class cruisers, aircraft carriers and the Navy's newest destroyer, DD(X).



So your negative analysis of the type 45s is based on the use of phalanx instead of a missile? somewhat short sighted

Also the RN has a lot of experience with point defense missiles (sea wolf) and I believe MBDA is a UK based company and a world leader here is a link,


http://www.mbda.net/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=96


i'm cant see why MoD would choose the phalanx unless they thought it was a good decision

Defcon 6
01 Feb 06,, 03:40
not a phalanx. a SeaRAM. It turns the phalanx into a missile launcher basically.

Simullacrum
01 Feb 06,, 10:49
not a phalanx. a SeaRAM. It turns the phalanx into a missile launcher basically.

LOL dont make me laugh about RAM....!!!

Do u know why or what the type 45 destroy was built for...????

Have you actually read up on PAMS..???
It makes RAM look like 3rd world technology...!!!!! 'world's most modern ship self-defense weapon.'...what aload of crock....it was..it aint now..!!

Type 45 does not need the RAM system cause of PAMS.!


General Characteristics - RAM System (RIM-116A Mod. 0,1)
Primary Function: Surface-to-Air-Missile
Contractor: Hughes Missile Systems Company and RAM Systems Germany
Diameter of Missile: 5 inch (12.7 cm)
Length of Missile: 9.18 feet (2.8 meters)
Speed of Missile: 2+ Mach
Range: approx. 11 miles
Cost: Unit cost Block 0: $273,000
Unit cost Block 1: $444,000
Launcher: MK-43 (Standard) or modified MK-29

PAMMS:-
Characteristics of ASTER 15 ,
Mass 310 kg, Length 4.2 m ,Diameter 0.18 m
Propulsion solid propellant, two stage,
Terminal velocity:-Mach 3
Manoeuvrability:- > 50 g
Guidance updata link and active radar seeker in final phase
Altitude of interception:- 10 km
Range In excess of 30 km
--------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of ASTER 30
Mass 450 kg
Length 4.9 m
Diameter 0.18 m
Propulsion solid propellant, two stage,
Terminal velocity:- Mach 4.5
Manoeuvrability > 50 g
Guidance updata link and active radar seeker in final phase
Altitude of interception 20 km
Range In excess of 100 km
-----------------------------------------------------

ASTER 15 & 30 - PAAMS (Principal Anti-Air Missile System), the only system able to integrate three operational naval missions: self-defence, local area defence of nearby vessels and fleet area defence.
The Aster missile carries an inertial computer with datalink, an active J-band Doppler radar seeker and 15kg warhead. The speed of Aster 30 is Mach 4, and range is over 80km. The missile has manoeuvrability of up to 62g, achieved through the use of the EADS Aerospatiale PIF/PAF guidance system.
The Aster missiles were designed from the outset to intercept sea-skimming missiles and coupled with the SYLVER launcher, PAAMS can launch 8 missiles in 10 seconds. This system provides 360 ° defence and an all weather capability. It also features an extremely quick response time, a high firing rate (8 missiles within 10 seconds), and the capability to engage up to 12 targets simultaneously. The main equipment is designed with a high built-in test capability, and requires limited logistics.

High effectiveness
-----------------------
The design drivers of this system were to overcome the threat posed by Anti-Radiation Missiles, including highly manoeuvring (including dog-leg manoeuvres), stealthy, lately discriminated and unmasked targets. This capability relies on the short reaction time of the Firing Control Unit, the high speed of the Aster weapons (respectively Mach 3+ and Mach 4.5) and their innovative control mode which provides the backbone of a true Hit-To-Kill performance. Although it is designed as a Hit-To-Kill missile, the Aster kill vehicle has a blast fragmentation warhead that is efficient against the most hardened targets within a large intercept volume


Outstanding manoeuvrability and unequalled agility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aster kill vehicle is small and lightweight, enabling it to defeat the new generation of threat, especially highly manoeuvring targets. It is able to provide a high level of manoeuvrability through strong aerodynamic control (`PAF’) and the implementation of pyrotechnic control (`PIF’) that acts at its centre of gravity. This additional control device also acts as a compensator for the aerodynamic control response time and provides lateral acceleration without the need to generate an angle of attack. This enables the system to achieve the shortest response time to a control order, offering unequalled agility, the predominant characteristic of an anti-missile missile. This mixed control has proven its outstanding performance, especially at high altitude where air density is low. As a consequence of this concept, the Aster weapon is a two-stage missile currently with two possible booster sizes.

Guidance accuracy
-----------------------
The Aster missile computes the predicted intercept time according to the target and environmental data it receives during the launch sequence. From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. This data allows the missile to update its own computations continuously as well as its optimum trajectory towards seeker switch-on and intercept and the predicted intercept time. As soon as the seeker has switched on and achieved target lock, the missile can home onto the target. The risk of acquiring the wrong target is avoided by means of sophisticated functions within the seeker and the on board computer. Just before intercept and as determined by the on board computer, the pyrotechnic ‘PIF’ is initiated, operating in conjunction with the aerodynamic control, the ‘PAF’ to significantly reduce the predicted missile/target miss-distance, to the point of achieving a direct hit.

Parihaka
01 Feb 06,, 12:09
Hmmm, seems the British have stopped giving away their best toys to the Americans.

Dreadnought
01 Feb 06,, 14:36
Hmmm, seems the British have stopped giving away their best toys to the Americans.

NOOOO we Americans build our own toys :biggrin: A few of the companies that build our toys also manufacture in the U.K..

Simullacrum
01 Feb 06,, 15:08
NOOOO we Americans build our own toys :biggrin: A few of the companies that build our toys also manufacture in the U.K..


:) lol.......not all your systems are wholy built by the USA...there is a lot of input from the UK into most of your projects......from weapon defnece system, Radar, Hud displays example Raptor HUD is built by BAe systems, misiles.....Arty guns..... list goes on.!!! Now even your Bradlys and some subduries of lockhead martin are under BAE systems..!! :P

Not only BAE systems...but also QinetiQ also has its fingers diped into American pies..!!

Dreadnought
01 Feb 06,, 15:32
:) lol.......not all your systems are wholy built by the USA...there is a lot of input from the UK into most of your projects......from weapon defnece system, Radar, Hud displays example Raptor HUD is built by BAe systems, misiles.....Arty guns..... list goes on.!!! Now even your Bradlys and some subduries of lockhead martin are under BAE systems..!! :P

Not only BAE systems...but also QinetiQ also has its fingers diped into American pies..!!

Yes true but BAE here is BAE North American so actually it is built here and not there. :tongue: and also the contractors listed below sub to your country as well. :tongue: BAE (North American), General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin,Bell/Boeing, Raytheon just to name a few contractors. :biggrin:

And just how many of your military systems are either built and or designed here? :eek:

Simullacrum
01 Feb 06,, 16:00
Yes true but BAE here is BAE North American so actually it is built here and not there. :tongue: and also the contractors listed below sub to your country as well. :tongue: BAE (North American), General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin,Bell/Boeing, Raytheon just to name a few contractors. :biggrin:

And just how many of your military systems are either built and or designed here? :eek:

LOl now thats splitting hairs lol....its still BAE systems...it is still a foreign company which owns and direct other American militry companies..!! :tongue: lol..!!!

ITs like saying that the Apache helicopter which we have...which were built in the UK with modified electronics and engine.....is British...???? what would you say to that one ..?? lol :tongue:

lol NEXT YOU WILL BE TELLING ME THAT HARRIER jUMP JETS ARE AMERICAN CAUSE YOU HAVE A LICENCE TO BUILD THEM IN THE US..!! :tongue:


lol.......systems which are built at your end of the pond for us are trident missile, tomahawks, (which we are producing our own varient the Storm Shadow)....Awacs, Hercules, Chinook..!!!

The integration between The USA and UK is profund...u would be very surprise as to what the UK input is into American Militry products are...!!! The top tier and been reaserching together form Stealth technology [I know we dont have in use stealth aircrafts like your selves but we have been design stealth from the 50's as well....we have actually built and demonstarted our own stealth fighter jet].....Electromagnetic catapult propollsion system..RADAR technology..IT systems....even to system trying to make tanks 'stealth'......list goes on...!!!

Dreadnought
01 Feb 06,, 16:24
LOl now thats splitting hairs lol....its still BAE systems...it is still a foreign company which owns and direct other American militry companies..!! :tongue: lol..!!!

ITs like saying that the Apache helicopter which we have...which were built in the UK with modified electronics and engine.....is British...???? what would you say to that one ..?? lol :tongue:

lol NEXT YOU WILL BE TELLING ME THAT HARRIER jUMP JETS ARE AMERICAN CAUSE YOU HAVE A LICENCE TO BUILD THEM IN THE US..!! :tongue:


lol.......systems which are built at your end of the pond for us are trident missile, tomahawks, (which we are producing our own varient the Storm Shadow)....Awacs, Hercules, Chinook..!!!

The integration between The USA and UK is profund...u would be very surprise as to what the UK input is into American Militry products are...!!! The top tier and been reaserching together form Stealth technology [I know we dont have in use stealth aircrafts like your selves but we have been design stealth from the 50's as well....we have actually built and demonstarted our own stealth fighter jet].....Electromagnetic catapult propollsion system..RADAR technology..IT systems....even to system trying to make tanks 'stealth'......list goes on...!!!

Our two countries have worked together militarily for a long time my friend and Im sure regardless of what we say they will continue to do just that. ;)

lol NEXT YOU WILL BE TELLING ME THAT HARRIER jUMP JETS ARE AMERICAN CAUSE YOU HAVE A LICENCE TO BUILD THEM IN THE US..!!

Actually from what I have read the origins of Harrier go back to the French first (Michel Wibult) and then after several trials/transactions onto Bristol (engines) and then on to Hawker to make the bodies. So actually Bristol took the engine design a step forward from Wilbult ideas but did not originate the design as Wilbult did. Hawker provided the body and an updated Pegasus engine to stabilize it. So in essence according to what i read the Brits used a design already in the works, added a body and a stronger engine and called it their own. This is only one theory I provided a link below.

But yes the Marines and the Navy i believe use the Harrier. But I think now days its primarily Marines that use them.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avav81.html

BenRoethig
01 Feb 06,, 17:42
I wonder how DDX will compare with her. Will they (DDX) be worth the price tag if they cant?

The T45 is an area air defense destroyer. DDX is strike/ASW like the sprucans.

Dreadnought
01 Feb 06,, 17:45
The T45 is an area air defense destroyer. DDX is strike/ASW like the sprucans.

hmmmm interesting.

BenRoethig
01 Feb 06,, 17:49
If it wasn't for the oversized mast structure it'd be more attractive, but if it improves combat capability then I guess it's ok. I question wheter or not these things are really the equal of a DDG-51 or Japanese Kongo though.

Would be pretty nice if they didn't go stingy on the VLS cells and had gone for an all A70 or MK41 strike layout.

Bill
01 Feb 06,, 17:56
LOL dont make me laugh about RAM....!!!

Do u know why or what the type 45 destroy was built for...????

Have you actually read up on PAMS..???
It makes RAM look like 3rd world technology...!!!!! 'world's most modern ship self-defense weapon.'...what aload of crock....it was..it aint now..!!

Type 45 does not need the RAM system cause of PAMS.!


General Characteristics - RAM System (RIM-116A Mod. 0,1)
Primary Function: Surface-to-Air-Missile
Contractor: Hughes Missile Systems Company and RAM Systems Germany
Diameter of Missile: 5 inch (12.7 cm)
Length of Missile: 9.18 feet (2.8 meters)
Speed of Missile: 2+ Mach
Range: approx. 11 miles
Cost: Unit cost Block 0: $273,000
Unit cost Block 1: $444,000
Launcher: MK-43 (Standard) or modified MK-29

PAMMS:-
Characteristics of ASTER 15 ,
Mass 310 kg, Length 4.2 m ,Diameter 0.18 m
Propulsion solid propellant, two stage,
Terminal velocity:-Mach 3
Manoeuvrability:- > 50 g
Guidance updata link and active radar seeker in final phase
Altitude of interception:- 10 km
Range In excess of 30 km
--------------------------------------------------
Characteristics of ASTER 30
Mass 450 kg
Length 4.9 m
Diameter 0.18 m
Propulsion solid propellant, two stage,
Terminal velocity:- Mach 4.5
Manoeuvrability > 50 g
Guidance updata link and active radar seeker in final phase
Altitude of interception 20 km
Range In excess of 100 km
-----------------------------------------------------

ASTER 15 & 30 - PAAMS (Principal Anti-Air Missile System), the only system able to integrate three operational naval missions: self-defence, local area defence of nearby vessels and fleet area defence.
The Aster missile carries an inertial computer with datalink, an active J-band Doppler radar seeker and 15kg warhead. The speed of Aster 30 is Mach 4, and range is over 80km. The missile has manoeuvrability of up to 62g, achieved through the use of the EADS Aerospatiale PIF/PAF guidance system.
The Aster missiles were designed from the outset to intercept sea-skimming missiles and coupled with the SYLVER launcher, PAAMS can launch 8 missiles in 10 seconds. This system provides 360 ° defence and an all weather capability. It also features an extremely quick response time, a high firing rate (8 missiles within 10 seconds), and the capability to engage up to 12 targets simultaneously. The main equipment is designed with a high built-in test capability, and requires limited logistics.

High effectiveness
-----------------------
The design drivers of this system were to overcome the threat posed by Anti-Radiation Missiles, including highly manoeuvring (including dog-leg manoeuvres), stealthy, lately discriminated and unmasked targets. This capability relies on the short reaction time of the Firing Control Unit, the high speed of the Aster weapons (respectively Mach 3+ and Mach 4.5) and their innovative control mode which provides the backbone of a true Hit-To-Kill performance. Although it is designed as a Hit-To-Kill missile, the Aster kill vehicle has a blast fragmentation warhead that is efficient against the most hardened targets within a large intercept volume


Outstanding manoeuvrability and unequalled agility
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Aster kill vehicle is small and lightweight, enabling it to defeat the new generation of threat, especially highly manoeuvring targets. It is able to provide a high level of manoeuvrability through strong aerodynamic control (`PAF’) and the implementation of pyrotechnic control (`PIF’) that acts at its centre of gravity. This additional control device also acts as a compensator for the aerodynamic control response time and provides lateral acceleration without the need to generate an angle of attack. This enables the system to achieve the shortest response time to a control order, offering unequalled agility, the predominant characteristic of an anti-missile missile. This mixed control has proven its outstanding performance, especially at high altitude where air density is low. As a consequence of this concept, the Aster weapon is a two-stage missile currently with two possible booster sizes.

Guidance accuracy
-----------------------
The Aster missile computes the predicted intercept time according to the target and environmental data it receives during the launch sequence. From the missile flyout and up to the point at which the active RF seeker switches on, the missile is inertially guided, receiving periodic target position and environment updates from the Firing Control Unit via the up-link. This data allows the missile to update its own computations continuously as well as its optimum trajectory towards seeker switch-on and intercept and the predicted intercept time. As soon as the seeker has switched on and achieved target lock, the missile can home onto the target. The risk of acquiring the wrong target is avoided by means of sophisticated functions within the seeker and the on board computer. Just before intercept and as determined by the on board computer, the pyrotechnic ‘PIF’ is initiated, operating in conjunction with the aerodynamic control, the ‘PAF’ to significantly reduce the predicted missile/target miss-distance, to the point of achieving a direct hit.


I hate to point this out, but RAM is an extremely capable system in it's own right, and fills a DIFFERENT role than the Aster30 based PAAMS system of the T45 DDG.

Bill
01 Feb 06,, 18:05
Hmmm, seems the British have stopped giving away their best toys to the Americans.

The US could've bought the PAAMS system if they wanted to , they still could. Aster is not compatible with the Mk41 VLS nor can it be quad packed, so the US had no interest.

Defcon 6
01 Feb 06,, 18:24
SeaRAM has a 95% success rate. It's never been anything to laugh at.

Bill
01 Feb 06,, 18:47
SeaRAM has a 95% success rate. It's never been anything to laugh at.

It's also fully automated and fire and forget.

leolover
01 Feb 06,, 18:59
can type 45 use ESSM-quadpacks instead of aster, or could aster 15 substitue aster-30 in a similar system?

if not, i would say that might be a disadvantage. the active seeker of the aster is surely a great thing, but i think the ESSM could do the job of the aster-15.

having 4 ESSM as substitue for one SM-2 is in my eyes a damn good thing for short ranges, and with RAMs as "backup" i would feel pretty safe :cool:

ps: how could the aster-30 be guided OTH? even the sampson-radar shouldn´t be able to look over the horizon. as i know the missile requires updates before the active seeker could lock on. could a AEW/AWACS provide such updates?

BenRoethig
01 Feb 06,, 19:31
In theory, it doesn't matter if a ship is using Sylver or Mk41. The weapons could fit in either. We aren't in a hurry to have european weapons integrated into MK41, and vise versa for Svlver. As for the quadpacks, MBDA is said to be working on a multi-pack for VL mica.

Bill
01 Feb 06,, 19:56
In theory, it doesn't matter if a ship is using Sylver or Mk41. The weapons could fit in either. We aren't in a hurry to have european weapons integrated into MK41, and vise versa for Svlver. As for the quadpacks, MBDA is said to be working on a multi-pack for VL mica.

It is my understanding that Aster is not compatible with Mk41, which is why the T45s had to go with Sylver, hence losing the ability to embark VLS TLAMs or Harpoons.

Dreadnought
01 Feb 06,, 19:58
I just want to get a good look at her upclose. And see what is speculation and what is actually shipped on her. :cool:

BenRoethig
02 Feb 06,, 00:12
It is my understanding that Aster is not compatible with Mk41, which is why the T45s had to go with Sylver, hence losing the ability to embark VLS TLAMs or Harpoons.

It's more a question of software than anything. The Brits wanted to go the european route and went with the french made system.

dave angel
02 Feb 06,, 00:53
i went to see HMS Daring launch this morning, odd looking ship, but with nice lines that aren't really done justice in the photos and artist impressions.

incidentally i went to university with one of the lads designing the Sampson radar, clever bloke, but he did manage to fuse a student hall of residence while attempting to fix a toaster...

gunnut
02 Feb 06,, 01:12
It's more a question of software than anything. The Brits wanted to go the european route and go with the french made system.

That's one very interesting thing I noticed about the RN. They like their own missiles. Sea Slug, Sea Cat, Sea Dart, and Sea Wolf are all used on British warships (and their export models of course) but by no one else in the world. I suppose they want to be independent, but the cost must be very high to deploy those systems.

From what I understand, the Daring class will carry 48 Aster 30 missiles. Why is it that a 7000t ship carries only 48 missiles? American ships carry far more. Modified Spruances have 61 launch cells. Burke IIAs have 112 cells. Ticos have 128 cells. Is it the nature of their mission? But even if Darings are tasked with air defense only, wouldn't it be better to have more missiles? Cost and weight permitting of course.

gunnut
02 Feb 06,, 01:13
i went to see HMS Daring launch this morning, odd looking ship, but with nice lines that aren't really done justice in the photos and artist impressions.

incidentally i went to university with one of the lads designing the Sampson radar, clever bloke, but he did manage to fuse a student hall of residence while attempting to fix a toaster...

You don't happen to have pictures, do you? :biggrin:

Simullacrum
02 Feb 06,, 10:26
Actually from what I have read the origins of Harrier go back to the French first (Michel Wibult) and then after several trials/transactions onto Bristol (engines) and then on to Hawker to make the bodies. So actually Bristol took the engine design a step forward from Wilbult ideas but did not originate the design as Wilbult did. Hawker provided the body and an updated Pegasus engine to stabilize it. So in essence according to what i read the Brits used a design already in the works, added a body and a stronger engine and called it their own. This is only one theory I provided a link below.


Again going back to this logic of thinking..... then most if but not all militry things the yanks have ever produced is neither original in desigin or in concept...... going back from rockets/misiles to stealth planes....all these conceptional ideas and some in production were from NAZI germany from world war 2.....!!!! Alot of your technolgy stems from european ideas and conceps..!! From Tanks, Missiles, Cruiser, Destroyers, Submarines, Air craft carriers, Hand Grenades, sateliets, RADAR...to the jet engines all of which are European ideas and inventions..!!
If it had not been for the influx of german/European scientist after the world war would America be at its militry/technological height it is at now...?? That no one will ever know..!! ;)

AS for the RAM system..dont get me wrong I am not slating it as ****... it is a cable system...but just infurates me when people claim 'it is the worlds best' when soemthing new is out and is clearly of better qaulity and functionality...!! PAMMS can not only be used against Aicraft but can be used for intercepting low flying misiles as well [its jaust a matter of software]..!! And on stats the Aster can out-perform, Out-think and out-manouver the RAM system..! Trials have been very succesfull to..!!

U stick with RAM...ill stick with PAMS and a goalkeeper with the addition of sea dart..!!! :tongue: lol

Simullacrum
02 Feb 06,, 10:42
here is a link to the launch of the TYPE 45

You will be able to see what the ship looks like but without the SAMPSON RADAR [wouldnt be able to get out of hanger if it were on lol] and PAMMS system..!!


http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx

dave angel
02 Feb 06,, 10:44
You don't happen to have pictures, do you? :biggrin:


of the toaster? no i'm afraid that not only was it dark, but i was killing myself laughing as my 'genius' friend sailed of into the corridor with very spikey hair.

i did try to take piccies of Daring with my phone, but all i got was a grey warship against a grey shipyard against a grey sky, but it could just be a picture of the inside of my pocket...

edited to note: the reason it takes so long for Daring slide down the slidey thing (?) is that it was cheffing cold in glasgow and the tallow was being a bit sticky and not very slidey.

Dave Angel, WAB News, Glasgow, Scotlandshire, England.

gunnut
02 Feb 06,, 10:53
here is a link to the launch of the TYPE 45

You will be able to see what the ship looks like but without the SAMPSON RADAR [wouldnt be able to get out of hanger if it were on lol] and PAMMS system..!!


http://clients.mediaondemand.net/speakeasy/type45.wvx

Very nice. Now I can't wait to see the new CVs.


edited to note: the reason it takes so long for Daring slide down the slidey thing (?) is that it was cheffing cold in glasgow and the tallow was being a bit sticky and not very slidey.

Ah...I was wondering about that.

Dreadnought
02 Feb 06,, 14:19
i went to see HMS Daring launch this morning, odd looking ship, but with nice lines that aren't really done justice in the photos and artist impressions.

incidentally i went to university with one of the lads designing the Sampson radar, clever bloke, but he did manage to fuse a student hall of residence while attempting to fix a toaster...


Good video of her launch. :)

JBodnar39
02 Feb 06,, 18:02
Every maker of every weapons systems says that their's is the best, and national pride always steps into the debate also.

As an American I'd like to say - way to go England, you should be very proud. Because when Daring is operational the Royal navy will have THE best air-defense ship in the world - period

Parihaka
02 Feb 06,, 21:27
Nice video, always good to see a ship being launched but my audio isn't working, who's the blond bint with the pink suit?

gunnut
02 Feb 06,, 22:35
Nice video, always good to see a ship being launched but my audio isn't working, who's the blond bint with the pink suit?

Her Royal Highness, the Countess of Wessex.

What the means I have absolutely no idea. Sounds like an impressive title. I don't have a title. Usually people just say "the crazy guy" or "the gun guy..." :biggrin:

BenRoethig
02 Feb 06,, 23:12
That's one very interesting thing I noticed about the RN. They like their own missiles. Sea Slug, Sea Cat, Sea Dart, and Sea Wolf are all used on British warships (and their export models of course) but by no one else in the world. I suppose they want to be independent, but the cost must be very high to deploy those systems.

From what I understand, the Daring class will carry 48 Aster 30 missiles. Why is it that a 7000t ship carries only 48 missiles? American ships carry far more. Modified Spruances have 61 launch cells. Burke IIAs have 112 cells. Ticos have 128 cells. Is it the nature of their mission? But even if Darings are tasked with air defense only, wouldn't it be better to have more missiles? Cost and weight permitting of course.

96 on the Burkes. 32 fore, 64 aft. As for the loadout on the T45s, it's going to be more like 32 Aster 30 and 16 aster 15. It's a definate improvement over the obsolete pieces of junk that were the Type42s.

gunnut
02 Feb 06,, 23:21
96 on the Burkes. 32 fore, 64 aft. As for the loadout on the T45s, it's going to be more like 32 Aster 30 and 16 aster 15. It's a definate improvement over the obsolete pieces of junk that were the Type42s.

Hmmm...I thought I saw somewhere that Burke IIAs have 112 cells each. I know the original Burkes have 96 cells.

Yeah, it's time to retire the Type 42s and their obsolete Sea Darts. Why was there no follow-up improvement to the Sea Dart like the SM-2 from the SM-1? Or was that effort redirected to the Aster series?

Bill
03 Feb 06,, 02:51
Hmmm...I thought I saw somewhere that Burke IIAs have 112 cells each. I know the original Burkes have 96 cells.


The original burkes came out of the shipyards with 90 VLS cells. The VLS reloaded cranes were removed on the flight II ships(and subsequently all flight Is as well), and all burkes now mount 96 Mk41 VLS tubes.

VLS Ticos have 128 VLS cells each.

gunnut
03 Feb 06,, 05:39
I stand corrected. I found a picture of a Burke IIa ship and it showed 32 cells fore and 64 cells aft. Of course that's assuming the reloading cranes have been removed and replaced by launch cells.

I have a question. What is that big bump just in front of and below the bridge? There used to be a Phalanx sitting there, but no more. :confused:

canoe
03 Feb 06,, 06:13
My only beef with the ship is the lack of Phalanx. While it clearly looks to have the best missile based defence system out there right now the Phalanx is nice in that it covers incoming targets that would be otherwise to close to effectively engage with missiles. Hence the whole 'last chance defence' idea. Maybe it'd be a consideration for an upgrade addon later.

Otherwise sounds like a great ship though.

Dreadnought
03 Feb 06,, 14:33
Nice video, always good to see a ship being launched but my audio isn't working, who's the blond bint with the pink suit?

A future tour guide :biggrin:

Sea Toby
04 Feb 06,, 03:16
The Countess of Wessex is Prince Edward's, the Earl of Wessex's wife.

british beef
03 Mar 06,, 17:55
I'm not impressed by this ship. What a lame excuse for a destroyer. The only thing innovative is the fact that it's got some sort of modular design goin on.
Have u even read about this ship forget the looks its wat it can do that makes it so spiecal. its the most advanced ship in the world. :rolleyes:

british beef
03 Mar 06,, 18:05
Could you Please clarify with the reasoning to why you not impressed by this ship..??
This is the Most Advanced and Deadliest Ship ever built to date..!!!
Apart from the ground brakeing RADAR Technology which like sniper has stated no-one else has, and to which is un-jamable with todays tech..!! It has some awsome firepower.....armed with 48 Aster missiles with 40lb warheads each, each can stop the fastest enemy jet 60 miles away...do some reaserch and read up on PAMMS as well u may be enlighten to as why it has such firepower..!!!
Also read up on the SMAPSON RADAR system...!!!

Or r u the type of person that cause it aint American it aint worth it or anygood..???
Nice remark mate obviously they havent done there homework on this great british ship. This ship is a great leap in technology. :cool:

HistoricalDavid
03 Mar 06,, 18:30
This is probably the most advanced AAW destroyer in the world, but 'deadliest' is certainly questionable.

Dreadnought
03 Mar 06,, 19:35
This is probably the most advanced AAW destroyer in the world, but 'deadliest' is certainly questionable.

As I stated on this thread. I just want an upclose look at her im very interested in her design and capabilities. I have read the numerous articles but I want to see her pierside hopefully sometime in the near future. :cool:

HistoricalDavid
04 Mar 06,, 14:36
As I stated on this thread. I just want an upclose look at her im very interested in her design and capabilities. I have read the numerous articles but I want to see her pierside hopefully sometime in the near future. :cool:

Well maybe not pierside, but...

"I have talked with the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations) in America. He is very keen for us to get these because he sees us slotting in with his carrier groups. He really wants us to have these, but he wants us to have the same sort of clout as one of their carriers.."

I read that on Wikipedia's CVF page. Considering I can't find it anywhere else so I'm guessing it's apocryphal, but a RN/USN battle group in 2012 would certainly be a side to behold!

xracertel
26 Mar 06,, 21:07
[QUOTE=Simullacrum]HMS Daring, the first of a planned class of eight Type 45 destroyers, will be launched from BAE Systems Naval Ships Scotstoun yard on February 1st. When she enters service later this decade she will be the world’s most advanced anti-air warfare destroyer.



These thing can only carry 46 missles while the US Aegis Destroyer can carry 96, and the South Korean Navy will have a 7000 ton Aegis destroyer that can carry 128 missles. :eek:

xracertel
26 Mar 06,, 21:11
Could you Please clarify with the reasoning to why you not impressed by this ship..??
This is the Most Advanced and Deadliest Ship ever built to date..!!!
Apart from the ground brakeing RADAR Technology which like sniper has stated no-one else has, and to which is un-jamable with todays tech..!! It has some awsome firepower.....armed with 48 Aster missiles with 40lb warheads each, each can stop the fastest enemy jet 60 miles away...do some reaserch and read up on PAMMS as well u may be enlighten to as why it has such firepower..!!!
Also read up on the SMAPSON RADAR system...!!!

Or r u the type of person that cause it aint American it aint worth it or anygood..???

With only 46 to 48 milssles leaves her defenless once they ran out, the US Aegis carry 98 and the South Korean KKD Aegis Destroyer will carry 128 missles of SM2 and ESSM!!!! THe SM-2 and ESSM have a longer range then the Asters!!! :tongue:

Shadowsided
26 Mar 06,, 21:30
Simullaacram the An/SPY 3 radar is also an active phased array just like the Samson it can lso detect stealthy targets!!!!!!! SM and ESSM missiles have longer range. DDX carries more missiles.

Simullacrum
27 Mar 06,, 09:19
Simullaacram the An/SPY 3 radar is also an active phased array just like the Samson it can lso detect stealthy targets!!!!!!! SM and ESSM missiles have longer range. DDX carries more missiles.


Hello m8.....is the Spy 3 in main stream roduction yet or is is it in trial form..???

2nd.....doe it have Digital Beamforming..??? What band does it operate at..??

Shadowsided
27 Mar 06,, 15:49
Hello m8.....is the Spy 3 in main stream roduction yet or is is it in trial form..???

2nd.....doe it have Digital Beamforming..??? What band does it operate at..??
yes it does it has digital beamforming thanks for asking. It's an X band targeting radar (fire control). It's already being developed. It's already been tested and shipped to the anvy 3 years ago. :cool:

Simullacrum
27 Mar 06,, 16:12
yes it does it has digital beamforming thanks for asking. It's an X band targeting radar (fire control). It's already being developed. It's already been tested and shipped to the anvy 3 years ago. :cool:

is it on service..??/ reason being..currently the sampson radar is dubbed 'the best out there'...I know that alot of countries have been working on active array....some of the tech used in sampson was to be passed of to the yanks for implementation into there active array systems.

Simullacrum
27 Mar 06,, 16:29
here is a bit of info...soz its a bit long but intresting into Samspon (bit old but still informative). any buff on spy more then welcomed..!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Development
Western navies are starting to prepare for the revolutionary switch to a new generation of above water warfare sensors-active phased array multi-function radars (MFRs). Currently (mid-2000s) the first realistic trial results are beginning to accumulate, leading to increasing confidence in the technology.

Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the US have all firmly embraced active array-based MFR technology. Naval warfare experts in these countries believe that this type of radar will progressively leave more traditional radar systems obsolete in a military environment of increasing uncertainty and more pressing threats. Theatre threat scenario includes many simultaneous targets that are stealthy, highly manoeuvrable, supersonic and capable of extremely challenging sea-skimming or ballistic flight trajectories and sophisticated electronic countermeasures, in environments that feature adverse propagation phenomena. Requirements call for many simultaneous channels of fire, simultaneous multi-function capability, fast response, an extremely large operational bandwidth, and new electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM).

Turning Point
According to senior radar engineers in BAE Systems, the "radically different" active array is indeed a major turning point in the field of radar technology: "You're not designing a radar which is fixed in its design, you've got an array that forms a beam and you can do what you like with it. We're moving into software-driven radar, which can deal with different situations and can be easily adapted to deal with future threats. For instance, should you wish to go to a much higher data rate, for missile tracking or if you want to vector a combat air patrol (CAP) you can do so; this is not possible with conventional radars providing an inherent low data rate.

"It is a proper multi-function system, performing three, four, five or more functions in parallel. The way you sequence the beams wherever you want to in space is truly mind boggling." In fact, industry experts say, "you've got to separate your mind from the go-rounders; you'd almost have to call it a different name. Moving to active array MFRs from conventional radars is the same step as putting jet engines on aircraft".

State-of-play
The current state-of-play in high- performance active array naval MFRs is as follows:

* the Netherlands, Germany and Canada are developing APAR (Active Phased Array Radar), an I/J-band (X-band) MFR of which seven production systems (for a total of 28 active arrays) have been ordered for the navies of Germany and the Netherlands and are now operational. APAR prime contractor is Thales-Nederland;
* the UK is developing SAMPSON, an E/F-band (S-band) MFR of which three prototypes and a first-of-class (for a total of eight arrays) have been ordered for the UK Royal Navy. SAMPSON prime contractor is BAE Systems; and
* the US is developing MFR, an I/J-band system that is destined to equip the service's next-generation class of DD 21 destroyers. MFR prime contractor is Raytheon.



UK MESAR research programme

Looking more closely at the UK program, research in to active array radars goes back over 20 years. In 1982, Plessey (now part of BAE Land and Sea Systems) started a joint development program with Roke Manor Defence research laboratory and the UK's Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA). This led to definition of the MESAR 1 (Multi-function Electronically Scanned Adaptive Radar 1) by 1985 and the subsequent building and testing of this demonstrator by 1989, funded jointly by the company and by the UK Ministry of Defence. MESAR 1 trials ran from 1989-95, and included trials under jamming conditions at DERA's Funtington site near Chichester, as well as trials against live flying targets at the West Freugh instrumented trials range. These flight trials demonstrated multi-function (performing the functions of many radars at the same time) and adaptive beam-forming (virtually immune to jamming) capabilities, while using a partly-populated array with 156 gallium-arsenide (GaAs) semiconductor transmit/ receive (T/R) modules of 2W each. (The radar antenna was designed for 916 modules but the high cost associated with these led to only 156 being installed.) The early T/R-modules used were based on 1980s-generation ceramic thin film technology, one module driving a single radiating element in the array.

Following on to MESAR 1, the same partners embarked on a program to develop and build a second demonstrator, MESAR 2, in August 1995. MESAR 2 is a technology demonstrator that is being used to gather data on the detection of air breathing and ballistic targets in real time. BAE Systems officials say that the MESAR 2 design is largely intended to "confirm and validate performance of MESAR technology in ballistic missile defense" and should be regarded as a "major de-risker for SAMPSON".

MESAR 2 employed an entirely new antenna design although much of the signal processing technology of MESAR 1 was retained. Not only the antenna housing was redesigned but, significantly, a new T/R-module design was introduced. This features microwave solid state power amplification and phase shifting (using 4x4mm GaAs micro-wave monolithic integrated circuit chips) incorporated on 20cm-long T/R-modules. To address issues like cost of ownership, the new equipment is based on low-cost standard printed circuit techniques. In addition, each T/R-module is now designed to carry four transmit/receive channels, for which four separate radiating elements are integrated per module. As such, the MESAR 2 modules can be plugged into the array as line-replacable units (LRUs), doing away with the need for a cumbersome connection with an antenna-mounted radiating element. Being mounted at the face of the antenna, the new T/R-module design vastly reduces the energy losses which limit the performance of conventional systems, BAE Systems claims.

The MESAR 2 demonstrator featured a fully-filled array of 1,264 elements, of 10W radiated power each, quad-packed on a total of 316 T/R-modules. At the beginning of 2000, BAE Systems announced that it had transferred ownership of MESAR 2 to the UK MoD, following contractual acceptance achieved after flight trials in November 1999. This has prepared the way for further trials, including ballistic missile defense, in Scotland and New Mexico. MESAR 2 was located on the DERA ranges at Benbecula in the Hebrides, where it has been subjected to a variety of studies during recent months. Initial trials were undertaken against simulated ballistic missile threats, massed aircraft and chaff. These were followed by static trials against false targets within demanding jamming environments. The process will conclude with performance assessments against multiple threats and sea-skimming missiles in severe clutter.

By 2000 siscussions are ongoing about a potential MESAR 3 demonstrator program, BAE Systems said. "It is the intention on our side and on DERA's side to keep the program going. MESAR 3 would be looking atfurther applications of the technology. It would still be an E/F-band radar, using an active array, but it is not likely to be contracted until more of the MESAR 2 trials have been done; we're talking at least 16 months from now."

MESAR 3 would "obviously go further into BMD applications research" but also include other technologies, such as more advanced signal processing and a new Intelligent Radar Manager (IRM). The last is being developed under a four-year Euro-finder program by BAE Systems in conjunction with Thomson-CSF and the Univer-sity of Madrid. According to BAE Systems, the IRM will involve "advanced artificial intelligence techniques for managing the resources of the radar,"and this would be "typical of the sort of technologies that DERA would want to develop under a MESAR 3 program". Because of this pedigree and the fact that development has been undertaken in conjunction with the UK MoD, DERA and the US DoD, the MESAR program represents the "world's most mature repository of proven active phased array technology," BAE Systems claims. The principles created within the MESAR 2 program are the basis of the SAMPSON multi-function air-defense radar to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers (primed by BAE Systems) and are to be incorporated in the company's new land-based ballistic missile defense radar EWACS.

As far as SAMPSON is concerned, this will involve a reduced component count but nevertheless will be very much based on the basic MESAR 2 architecture, according to BAE Systems. Its antenna architecture features a great deal of design work by Roke Manor research laboratory, while the T/R-modules have been designed by Roke Manor and BAE Systems and are to be mass produced by BAE's production plant at Ilford, London.

Array technology
Compared to the 1,264 T/R-elements that populate the MESAR 2 array, SAMPSON will feature two arrays, mounted back-to-back on a rotating (up to 60rpm) antenna structure, with a total of 5,200 elements. In fact, the radar has approximately 650 T/R modules of four channels each, per face of the antenna, equalling 2,600 elements per face.

BAE Systems has also studied multi-face versions of SAMPSON with three, four and even five arrays, including a zenith array looking straight up. More realistically, a half-size version of SAMPSON (for use on smaller warships such as corvettes) is being promoted for export under the designation SPECTAR, and this will comprise a single active array, identical in size, shape and number-of-moduleso the array of which SAMPSON will have two. The company says that the single-face SPECTAR configuration would require less below-decks equipment and lower power, being a cost-effective option for medium-range systems. Getting SAMPSON up and running, however, is the first priority and company officials told IDR that if a customer for SPECTAR were to sign on today, a 36-month delivery time would have to be expected for the first system.

SAMPSON Contract
At the moment, BAE Systems holds a UK MoD contract worth well in excess of £100 million (US$154m) to supply SAMPSON as part of the advanced air-defense system for the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers. The project includes the full scale engineering development of SAMPSON, covering the delivery by 2004 of three production-standard prototype radars plus the first of the 12 radars required for the overall Type 45 program. It is believed that series production of 11 additional SAMPSON systems, to take place on a new assembly line in the so-called 909-Building at BAE Systems' Cowes facility on the Isle of Wight, could kick off around 2003.

The SAMPSON contract was awarded in October 2000 following the award to KAMS - a 100% owned subsidiary of Matra BAe Dynamics - of the prime contract for the UK-variant of the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS). SAMPSON is claimed to be "vastly more powerful" than existing systems, would be able to handle multiple threats simultaneously and is said to be "immune" to jamming. The ability of the computer-based management system to shape and point the radar beam instantaneously in any direction, coupled with its ability to change or adapt the radar characteristics in real time in response to current and future threats in an environment of heavy jamming and land and sea clutter, enables SAMPSON to perform a number of tasks simultaneously. As an example, the radar may employ a wide variety of different waveforms, each optimized for certain search angles and/or environmental conditions (for instance using moving target indication waveforms in the lower regions of the search volume).

BAE Systems claims enhanced weapon system effectiveness thanks to SAMPSON. It would provide the following capabilities:

* long-range detection of stealthy targets with a significantly lower false alarm rate, leading to earlier weapon alert (the radar can initiate tracks within the "first look" because of its 60: look-back capability within the 120: field-of-view that the rotating array covers);
* rapid track formation, leading to an earlier fire-control solution;
* accurate tracking (with full hemispherical coverage up to the zenith position, 90: elevation directly overhead), leading to an improved fire-control solution;
* target classification, leading to imp-roved weapon allocation (SAMPSON's ability to manage its radar energy would allow such identification features as raid discrimination, target size estimation and non-cooperative target recognition);
* multiple engaged tracks, allowing more channels of fire (SAMPSON would be capable of engaging "several tens" of tracked targets simultaneously, while with a conventional tracking radar the maximum number would be three);
* active jammer cancellation, allowing operation in intense electronic countermeasures (a large part of the MESAR program was devoted to developing these techniques); and
* high availability, providing extensive redundant channels and reliable components, both in the T/R-modules and in the processing.

BAE Systems have also claimed that the SAMPSON eliminates the need for several separate systems, but this is rather an other simplification - and ignores that any system will (unfortunately) still have to abide by the rules of physics. Some tasks are difficult to combine. One such task is (long range) volume search. This takes a lot of radar resources, leaving little room for other tasks. Or, vice versa, combining volume search with other tasks results either in slow search rates or in low overall quality per task. The driving parameter in radar performance is time-on-target, or observation time per beam. There is no way around it.

This is a the key reason why the Royal Navy has selected the S1850M Long Range Radar NEXT to SAMPSON on the Type 45. It is also the reason that NATO, in the NAAWS study, defined the preferred AAW system to consist of a complementary Volume Search Radar and MFR. This, as NATO pointed out, gives the added advantage that the two systems can use two different radar frequencies; one a good choice for long range search, the other a good choice for an MFR (which is especially nice, because in this area also physics makes both tasks difficult to combine).


Rotating arrays
BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "You'd want to place the MFR as high as possible in the ship, against sea-skimming missile attacks; getting that extra bit of radar horizon could make the difference in getting that extra salvo away to deal with the leakers," a BAE Systems manager said. Furthermore, the company predicts that enemy tactics for attacking a fixed array-equipped ship will be to concentrate a massed missile raid on one side of the ship, thereby saturating one array while effectively making the other three useless.

However, it should be pointed out BAE Systems has in practice primarily adopted a rotating array as a compromise solution driven by cost, and that the weight argument in favour is offset by the added structural weight of rotation-proof housing and, of course, drive motors. If phased arrays had zero cost, a multi-face fixed set-up would surely have been preferred be preferred as the advantages of a fixed set-up are so significant. The comment about saturation attacks against fixed arrays have more to do with the missiles that are guided than with the radar being fixed or not.


The Sampson radar dome, a spherical form has now been adopted.

The two arrays in SAMPSON are processed separately, and indeed it would be possible to operate SAMPSON as a single-face radar (in effect creating a SPECTAR). The E/F-band has been chosen as the "best compromise between surveillance and tracking requirements". BAE Systems has selected Mercury Computer Systems of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, to provide the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment that will host the company's core radar processing system, so that it can be used across its entire family of products, including SAMPSON.

SAMPSON is designed to be interoperable with a range of weapon systems. Within PAAMS, it will work in association with the Aster active radar guided missile family, for which it will provide target designation and E/F-band mid-course guidance uplink. Within the BAE Systems-proposed SIWS (SAMPSON Integrated Weapon System), the radar system would work with the US family of semi-active radar guided missiles (notably Standard Missile SM-2 Block IIIA and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, ESSM). In SIWS, the required I/J-band interrupted continuous wave illumination (ICWI) of targets, as well as missile uplink, would be provided by typically two separate CEA-Mount active array tracking radars developed joint by BAE Systems and Australian company CEA Technologies. SIWS was being offered for the now cancelled Royal Australian Navy ANZAC-class war fighting improvement program (WIP) and is now being promoted primarily in South Korea (KDX-3 program) and Turkey (TF-2000 program).

BAE Systems say that SAMPSON should be regarded as a long-range sensor, its software-programmable search range (depending on which surveillance domain and update rate is selected) extending out to "several 100s of kilometres" and being described by the company as "significantly more than the 150km-range of APAR" - a performance that is directly related also to the chosen frequency band (E/F-band for SAMPSON as opposed to I/J-band for APAR). In fact, BAE Systems maintains that on the Type 45 destroyer, the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar that is designed to work in partnership with SAMPSON "really is superfluous and is not needed to perform the mission of the ship". The company suggested that the reason the large volume search radar has been incorporated in PAAMS is "more of a historic nature, associated with work sharing issues" that were such a problem during the trilateral Project Horizon.

Shadowsided
27 Mar 06,, 22:56
is it on service..??/ reason being..currently the sampson radar is dubbed 'the best out there'...I know that alot of countries have been working on active array....some of the tech used in sampson was to be passed of to the yanks for implementation into there active array systems. uhh n simullacrum the Us develops their AESA radar independently without britain. Every country has had em for a while they juust didnt use them because they were extremely expensive. Can you supply any proff the Brits gave it to the yanks. FYI the US is a world pioneer in AESA's on;y Briitaina nd several others are equalin AESA technology. The An/SPY 3 was developed iwthout SamSon components.

Shadowsided
27 Mar 06,, 22:59
here is a bit of info...soz its a bit long but intresting into Samspon (bit old but still informative). any buff on spy more then welcomed..!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background and Development
Western navies are starting to prepare for the revolutionary switch to a new generation of above water warfare sensors-active phased array multi-function radars (MFRs). Currently (mid-2000s) the first realistic trial results are beginning to accumulate, leading to increasing confidence in the technology.

Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, the UK and the US have all firmly embraced active array-based MFR technology. Naval warfare experts in these countries believe that this type of radar will progressively leave more traditional radar systems obsolete in a military environment of increasing uncertainty and more pressing threats. Theatre threat scenario includes many simultaneous targets that are stealthy, highly manoeuvrable, supersonic and capable of extremely challenging sea-skimming or ballistic flight trajectories and sophisticated electronic countermeasures, in environments that feature adverse propagation phenomena. Requirements call for many simultaneous channels of fire, simultaneous multi-function capability, fast response, an extremely large operational bandwidth, and new electronic counter-countermeasures (ECCM).

Turning Point
According to senior radar engineers in BAE Systems, the "radically different" active array is indeed a major turning point in the field of radar technology: "You're not designing a radar which is fixed in its design, you've got an array that forms a beam and you can do what you like with it. We're moving into software-driven radar, which can deal with different situations and can be easily adapted to deal with future threats. For instance, should you wish to go to a much higher data rate, for missile tracking or if you want to vector a combat air patrol (CAP) you can do so; this is not possible with conventional radars providing an inherent low data rate.

"It is a proper multi-function system, performing three, four, five or more functions in parallel. The way you sequence the beams wherever you want to in space is truly mind boggling." In fact, industry experts say, "you've got to separate your mind from the go-rounders; you'd almost have to call it a different name. Moving to active array MFRs from conventional radars is the same step as putting jet engines on aircraft".

State-of-play
The current state-of-play in high- performance active array naval MFRs is as follows:

* the Netherlands, Germany and Canada are developing APAR (Active Phased Array Radar), an I/J-band (X-band) MFR of which seven production systems (for a total of 28 active arrays) have been ordered for the navies of Germany and the Netherlands and are now operational. APAR prime contractor is Thales-Nederland;
* the UK is developing SAMPSON, an E/F-band (S-band) MFR of which three prototypes and a first-of-class (for a total of eight arrays) have been ordered for the UK Royal Navy. SAMPSON prime contractor is BAE Systems; and
* the US is developing MFR, an I/J-band system that is destined to equip the service's next-generation class of DD 21 destroyers. MFR prime contractor is Raytheon.



UK MESAR research programme

Looking more closely at the UK program, research in to active array radars goes back over 20 years. In 1982, Plessey (now part of BAE Land and Sea Systems) started a joint development program with Roke Manor Defence research laboratory and the UK's Defence Evaluation & Research Agency (DERA). This led to definition of the MESAR 1 (Multi-function Electronically Scanned Adaptive Radar 1) by 1985 and the subsequent building and testing of this demonstrator by 1989, funded jointly by the company and by the UK Ministry of Defence. MESAR 1 trials ran from 1989-95, and included trials under jamming conditions at DERA's Funtington site near Chichester, as well as trials against live flying targets at the West Freugh instrumented trials range. These flight trials demonstrated multi-function (performing the functions of many radars at the same time) and adaptive beam-forming (virtually immune to jamming) capabilities, while using a partly-populated array with 156 gallium-arsenide (GaAs) semiconductor transmit/ receive (T/R) modules of 2W each. (The radar antenna was designed for 916 modules but the high cost associated with these led to only 156 being installed.) The early T/R-modules used were based on 1980s-generation ceramic thin film technology, one module driving a single radiating element in the array.

Following on to MESAR 1, the same partners embarked on a program to develop and build a second demonstrator, MESAR 2, in August 1995. MESAR 2 is a technology demonstrator that is being used to gather data on the detection of air breathing and ballistic targets in real time. BAE Systems officials say that the MESAR 2 design is largely intended to "confirm and validate performance of MESAR technology in ballistic missile defense" and should be regarded as a "major de-risker for SAMPSON".

MESAR 2 employed an entirely new antenna design although much of the signal processing technology of MESAR 1 was retained. Not only the antenna housing was redesigned but, significantly, a new T/R-module design was introduced. This features microwave solid state power amplification and phase shifting (using 4x4mm GaAs micro-wave monolithic integrated circuit chips) incorporated on 20cm-long T/R-modules. To address issues like cost of ownership, the new equipment is based on low-cost standard printed circuit techniques. In addition, each T/R-module is now designed to carry four transmit/receive channels, for which four separate radiating elements are integrated per module. As such, the MESAR 2 modules can be plugged into the array as line-replacable units (LRUs), doing away with the need for a cumbersome connection with an antenna-mounted radiating element. Being mounted at the face of the antenna, the new T/R-module design vastly reduces the energy losses which limit the performance of conventional systems, BAE Systems claims.

The MESAR 2 demonstrator featured a fully-filled array of 1,264 elements, of 10W radiated power each, quad-packed on a total of 316 T/R-modules. At the beginning of 2000, BAE Systems announced that it had transferred ownership of MESAR 2 to the UK MoD, following contractual acceptance achieved after flight trials in November 1999. This has prepared the way for further trials, including ballistic missile defense, in Scotland and New Mexico. MESAR 2 was located on the DERA ranges at Benbecula in the Hebrides, where it has been subjected to a variety of studies during recent months. Initial trials were undertaken against simulated ballistic missile threats, massed aircraft and chaff. These were followed by static trials against false targets within demanding jamming environments. The process will conclude with performance assessments against multiple threats and sea-skimming missiles in severe clutter.

By 2000 siscussions are ongoing about a potential MESAR 3 demonstrator program, BAE Systems said. "It is the intention on our side and on DERA's side to keep the program going. MESAR 3 would be looking atfurther applications of the technology. It would still be an E/F-band radar, using an active array, but it is not likely to be contracted until more of the MESAR 2 trials have been done; we're talking at least 16 months from now."

MESAR 3 would "obviously go further into BMD applications research" but also include other technologies, such as more advanced signal processing and a new Intelligent Radar Manager (IRM). The last is being developed under a four-year Euro-finder program by BAE Systems in conjunction with Thomson-CSF and the Univer-sity of Madrid. According to BAE Systems, the IRM will involve "advanced artificial intelligence techniques for managing the resources of the radar,"and this would be "typical of the sort of technologies that DERA would want to develop under a MESAR 3 program". Because of this pedigree and the fact that development has been undertaken in conjunction with the UK MoD, DERA and the US DoD, the MESAR program represents the "world's most mature repository of proven active phased array technology," BAE Systems claims. The principles created within the MESAR 2 program are the basis of the SAMPSON multi-function air-defense radar to be fitted to the Royal Navy's Type 45 destroyers (primed by BAE Systems) and are to be incorporated in the company's new land-based ballistic missile defense radar EWACS.

As far as SAMPSON is concerned, this will involve a reduced component count but nevertheless will be very much based on the basic MESAR 2 architecture, according to BAE Systems. Its antenna architecture features a great deal of design work by Roke Manor research laboratory, while the T/R-modules have been designed by Roke Manor and BAE Systems and are to be mass produced by BAE's production plant at Ilford, London.

Array technology
Compared to the 1,264 T/R-elements that populate the MESAR 2 array, SAMPSON will feature two arrays, mounted back-to-back on a rotating (up to 60rpm) antenna structure, with a total of 5,200 elements. In fact, the radar has approximately 650 T/R modules of four channels each, per face of the antenna, equalling 2,600 elements per face.

BAE Systems has also studied multi-face versions of SAMPSON with three, four and even five arrays, including a zenith array looking straight up. More realistically, a half-size version of SAMPSON (for use on smaller warships such as corvettes) is being promoted for export under the designation SPECTAR, and this will comprise a single active array, identical in size, shape and number-of-moduleso the array of which SAMPSON will have two. The company says that the single-face SPECTAR configuration would require less below-decks equipment and lower power, being a cost-effective option for medium-range systems. Getting SAMPSON up and running, however, is the first priority and company officials told IDR that if a customer for SPECTAR were to sign on today, a 36-month delivery time would have to be expected for the first system.

SAMPSON Contract
At the moment, BAE Systems holds a UK MoD contract worth well in excess of £100 million (US$154m) to supply SAMPSON as part of the advanced air-defense system for the Royal Navy's new Type 45 destroyers. The project includes the full scale engineering development of SAMPSON, covering the delivery by 2004 of three production-standard prototype radars plus the first of the 12 radars required for the overall Type 45 program. It is believed that series production of 11 additional SAMPSON systems, to take place on a new assembly line in the so-called 909-Building at BAE Systems' Cowes facility on the Isle of Wight, could kick off around 2003.

The SAMPSON contract was awarded in October 2000 following the award to KAMS - a 100% owned subsidiary of Matra BAe Dynamics - of the prime contract for the UK-variant of the Principal Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS). SAMPSON is claimed to be "vastly more powerful" than existing systems, would be able to handle multiple threats simultaneously and is said to be "immune" to jamming. The ability of the computer-based management system to shape and point the radar beam instantaneously in any direction, coupled with its ability to change or adapt the radar characteristics in real time in response to current and future threats in an environment of heavy jamming and land and sea clutter, enables SAMPSON to perform a number of tasks simultaneously. As an example, the radar may employ a wide variety of different waveforms, each optimized for certain search angles and/or environmental conditions (for instance using moving target indication waveforms in the lower regions of the search volume).

BAE Systems claims enhanced weapon system effectiveness thanks to SAMPSON. It would provide the following capabilities:

* long-range detection of stealthy targets with a significantly lower false alarm rate, leading to earlier weapon alert (the radar can initiate tracks within the "first look" because of its 60: look-back capability within the 120: field-of-view that the rotating array covers);
* rapid track formation, leading to an earlier fire-control solution;
* accurate tracking (with full hemispherical coverage up to the zenith position, 90: elevation directly overhead), leading to an improved fire-control solution;
* target classification, leading to imp-roved weapon allocation (SAMPSON's ability to manage its radar energy would allow such identification features as raid discrimination, target size estimation and non-cooperative target recognition);
* multiple engaged tracks, allowing more channels of fire (SAMPSON would be capable of engaging "several tens" of tracked targets simultaneously, while with a conventional tracking radar the maximum number would be three);
* active jammer cancellation, allowing operation in intense electronic countermeasures (a large part of the MESAR program was devoted to developing these techniques); and
* high availability, providing extensive redundant channels and reliable components, both in the T/R-modules and in the processing.

BAE Systems have also claimed that the SAMPSON eliminates the need for several separate systems, but this is rather an other simplification - and ignores that any system will (unfortunately) still have to abide by the rules of physics. Some tasks are difficult to combine. One such task is (long range) volume search. This takes a lot of radar resources, leaving little room for other tasks. Or, vice versa, combining volume search with other tasks results either in slow search rates or in low overall quality per task. The driving parameter in radar performance is time-on-target, or observation time per beam. There is no way around it.

This is a the key reason why the Royal Navy has selected the S1850M Long Range Radar NEXT to SAMPSON on the Type 45. It is also the reason that NATO, in the NAAWS study, defined the preferred AAW system to consist of a complementary Volume Search Radar and MFR. This, as NATO pointed out, gives the added advantage that the two systems can use two different radar frequencies; one a good choice for long range search, the other a good choice for an MFR (which is especially nice, because in this area also physics makes both tasks difficult to combine).


Rotating arrays
BAE Systems says that employing two rotating active arrays, as opposed to four fixed arrays, is "better" because of the high cost involved in procuring the arrays and the problems associated of mounting the relatively heavy arrays as high as possible on the ship, to make maximum use of the available type of ship-defense missile. "You'd want to place the MFR as high as possible in the ship, against sea-skimming missile attacks; getting that extra bit of radar horizon could make the difference in getting that extra salvo away to deal with the leakers," a BAE Systems manager said. Furthermore, the company predicts that enemy tactics for attacking a fixed array-equipped ship will be to concentrate a massed missile raid on one side of the ship, thereby saturating one array while effectively making the other three useless.

However, it should be pointed out BAE Systems has in practice primarily adopted a rotating array as a compromise solution driven by cost, and that the weight argument in favour is offset by the added structural weight of rotation-proof housing and, of course, drive motors. If phased arrays had zero cost, a multi-face fixed set-up would surely have been preferred be preferred as the advantages of a fixed set-up are so significant. The comment about saturation attacks against fixed arrays have more to do with the missiles that are guided than with the radar being fixed or not.


The Sampson radar dome, a spherical form has now been adopted.

The two arrays in SAMPSON are processed separately, and indeed it would be possible to operate SAMPSON as a single-face radar (in effect creating a SPECTAR). The E/F-band has been chosen as the "best compromise between surveillance and tracking requirements". BAE Systems has selected Mercury Computer Systems of Chelmsford, Massachusetts, to provide the commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) equipment that will host the company's core radar processing system, so that it can be used across its entire family of products, including SAMPSON.

SAMPSON is designed to be interoperable with a range of weapon systems. Within PAAMS, it will work in association with the Aster active radar guided missile family, for which it will provide target designation and E/F-band mid-course guidance uplink. Within the BAE Systems-proposed SIWS (SAMPSON Integrated Weapon System), the radar system would work with the US family of semi-active radar guided missiles (notably Standard Missile SM-2 Block IIIA and Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile, ESSM). In SIWS, the required I/J-band interrupted continuous wave illumination (ICWI) of targets, as well as missile uplink, would be provided by typically two separate CEA-Mount active array tracking radars developed joint by BAE Systems and Australian company CEA Technologies. SIWS was being offered for the now cancelled Royal Australian Navy ANZAC-class war fighting improvement program (WIP) and is now being promoted primarily in South Korea (KDX-3 program) and Turkey (TF-2000 program).

BAE Systems say that SAMPSON should be regarded as a long-range sensor, its software-programmable search range (depending on which surveillance domain and update rate is selected) extending out to "several 100s of kilometres" and being described by the company as "significantly more than the 150km-range of APAR" - a performance that is directly related also to the chosen frequency band (E/F-band for SAMPSON as opposed to I/J-band for APAR). In fact, BAE Systems maintains that on the Type 45 destroyer, the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar that is designed to work in partnership with SAMPSON "really is superfluous and is not needed to perform the mission of the ship". The company suggested that the reason the large volume search radar has been incorporated in PAAMS is "more of a historic nature, associated with work sharing issues" that were such a problem during the trilateral Project Horizon.

Likei said at par (evenly matched) in my last post. The netherlands, Us ,Uk, Canada, and germany are at par in active array technology. This is a great leap for Navies . The western ships will now be able to engage more threats, harder to detect threats, at longer ranges etc.

Dago
29 Mar 06,, 00:52
is it on service..??/ reason being..currently the sampson radar is dubbed 'the best out there'...I know that alot of countries have been working on active array....some of the tech used in sampson was to be passed of to the yanks for implementation into there active array systems.

The US has been working on phased array for well over a half century not to mention of the development of the first MMIC chips now used in active arrays.

First Active Array? Pave Paws/Cobra Judy (1978-1980) Using Discrete componets.

First Active Array using GaAs MMIC? Mid 80's under the Air Forces "Ultra Reliable Radar" for the F-22 and DARPA's MMIC/High Speed Circuts program. Hell, Japan even had T/R modules in the early 90's.

The GBR will be comprised of 80,000 elements and the SBX be comprised of 30,000 while the mobile THAAD will be comprised of a wopping 25,000 t/r modules. Not to mention that DARPA is currently developing next generation GAn which will offer x10 the power of current GaAs.

- "The relocatable SBX will offer “advanced tracking and decoy discrimination,” the MDA said. Its powerful radar is so sensitive, “You could put it in the Chesapeake Bay and discriminate a baseball-size object over San Francisco stadium,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, MDA’s director, told a Huntsville, Ala., conference in August."

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6271/chronmmic2gk.jpg



(http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=661698#post661698)

Shadowsided
29 Mar 06,, 03:15
The US has been working on phased array for well over a half century not to mention of the development of the first MMIC chips now used in active arrays.

First Active Array? Pave Paws/Cobra Judy (1978-1980) Using Discrete componets.

First Active Array using GaAs MMIC? Mid 80's under the Air Forces "Ultra Reliable Radar" for the F-22 and DARPA's MMIC/High Speed Circuts program. Hell, Japan even had T/R modules in the early 90's.

The GBR will be comprised of 80,000 elements and the SBX be comprised of 30,000 while the mobile THAAD will be comprised of a wopping 25,000 t/r modules. Not to mention that DARPA is currently developing next generation GAn which will offer x10 the power of current GaAs.

- "The relocatable SBX will offer “advanced tracking and decoy discrimination,” the MDA said. Its powerful radar is so sensitive, “You could put it in the Chesapeake Bay and discriminate a baseball-size object over San Francisco stadium,” Air Force Lt. Gen. Trey Obering, MDA’s director, told a Huntsville, Ala., conference in August."

http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/6271/chronmmic2gk.jpg



(http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=661698#post661698)


whao awesome can ut ell me where to get all that radar info damn u noe alot!!!!!!!!!!! :cool:

Dago
29 Mar 06,, 12:38
Good Read on the development of radar over the decades and the Soviet Bomber threat and ABM efforts - http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/airdef/searching_the_skies.htm

Phased Arrays and Radars – Past, Present and Future - http://www.mwjournal.com/journal/article.asp?HH_ID=AR_29

First monolithic radar transmit/receive modules with acceptable yields from Texas Instrument in 1985 (MMIC) - http://smithsonianchips.si.edu/texas/t_061.htm

Missile Site Radar (MSR) / Missile Site Control Building (MSCB) to augment the first ABM effort dubbed "SafeGuard" which protected missile sites and utilized nuclear tipped missiles and array radars - http://srmsc.org/msr2000.html (http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/au-18/au18003d.htm)

----------- ----------
To complement these missiles (Nikes), the Army developed new radars. The perimeter acquisition radar (PAR), a phased array radar located at Concrete, North Dakota, detected incoming missiles and provided targeting data. The multifunction array radar, tested at WSMR in July 1964, proved inadequate and the Army replaced it with the improved missile site radar (MSR). The new radar first operated at KMR in September 1968. Located at the missile site, the MSR could discriminate targets at 700 miles and provided terminal phase guidance and targeting information for Spartan and Sprint. An ABM complex consisted of a long-range PAR, a short-range MSR, and Spartan and Sprint missiles with four remote Sprint launch sites about 25 miles from the MSR. Total cost was about $6 million.(138)


Nike Zeus Radars (Brief on the history of US ABM's) - http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/Radars.html and http://www.paineless.id.au/missiles/Sprint.html


Ballistic Missile Early Warning System - http://www.bwcinet.com/thule/index.html


AN/FPS-85 Spacetrack Radar - http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/an-fps-85.htm (The transmitter array contains 5,928 transmitter antennas in a 78 x 76 square array and 5,184 transmitter modules installed in a 72 x 72 square array. The receiver array contains 19,500 receiver antennas and 4,660 receiver modules.)


More on the development of phased array over the years (More in detail) - http://www.ll.mit.edu/news/journal/pdf/vol12_no2/12_2devphasedarray.pdf


Abstract


The Development of Phased-Array Radar Technology - Alan J. Fenn, Donald H. Temme, William P. Delaney, and William E. Courtneys Lincoln Laboratory has been involved in the development of phased-array radar technology since the late 1950s. Radar research activities have included theoretical analysis, application studies, hardware design, device fabrication, and system testing. Early phased-array research was centered on improving the national capability in phased-array radars. The Laboratory has developed several test-bed phased arrays, which have been used to demonstrate and evaluate components, beamforming techniques, calibration, and testing methodologies. The Laboratory has also contributed significantly in the area of phased-array antenna radiating elements, phase-shifter technology, solid-stateransmit-and-receive modules, and monolithic microwave integrated circuit (MMIC) technology. A number of developmental phased-array radar systems have resulted from this research, as discussed in other articles in this issue. A wide variety of processing techniques and system components have also been developed. This article provides an overview of more than forty years of this phased-array radar research activity.

Excerpts


- The Beginning

Lincoln Laboratory started working on phased-array radar development projects around 1958 in the Spe- cial Radars group of the Radio Physics division. The initial application was satellite surveillance, and the level of national interest in this work was very high after the Soviet Union’s launch of the first artificial earth satellite—Sputnik I—in 1957.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




First Electronically Steerable Array Radar


1958 - Electronically Steerable Array Radar (ESAR) RADC developed the AN/FPS-46 Electronically Steerable Array Radar (ESAR). This was the first full-size pencil-beam phased-array radar system. (Prototype for the AN/APS-85)

- http://www.rl.af.mil/History/1950s/1958.html

1960 - Electronically Steerable Array Radar In November, the Electronically Steerable Array Radar (ESAR) was powered up for the first time. This radar was capable of positioning a beam in space by electronic means, eliminating the need for mechanical antenna rotation. ESAR subsequently proved useful in the development of Cobra Dane.

-http://www.rl.af.mil/History/1960s/1960.html


First deployed ESAR - http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/an-fps-85.html


PAR - http://srmsc.org/par2000.html
- http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/track/par.htm


Cobra Dane - http://www.missilethreat.com/systems/cobra_dane_radar.html


AN/FPS-108 (Cobra Dane)

Cobra Dane was a large single-faced, phased-array radar built by Raytheon in the 1970s on Shemya Island in the Aleutians. As the main component of the Cobra system, the radar had the primary role of providing intelligence on Soviet test missiles fired at the Kamchatka peninsula from locations in southwestern Russia. Other components of the Cobra system included the ship-based Cobra Judy phased-array radar and the aircraft-based Cobra Ball and Cobra Eye radars. In addition to determining Soviet missile capabilities, Cobra Dane had the dual secondary role of tracking space objects and providing ballistic missile early warning. The radar antenna face of the building measured about ninety feet in diameter and contained some 16,000 elements. The L-band radar had a range of 2,000 miles and could track space objects as far as 25,000 miles away.





--------------------------
During the 1970s, the Soviets developed SLBMs that could be launched from greater distances away from the American Coastline. For example, the Soviet Delta I class ballistic missile submarine carried the SS-N-8 missile that had a range of over 4,000 nautical miles. This was beyond the detection capability of either the AN/FSS-7 or the OTH-B radar system being developed. 78 Consequently, the Air Force had to turn to another solution.

The solution was a phased-array warning system to become known as "PAVE PAWS" (Perimeter Acquisition Vehicle Entry Phased-Array Warning System). Originally designed as a two-site system, PAVE PAWS sites were constructed in the late 1970s at Otis AFB, Massachusetts, and Beale AFB, California. From a distance, the PAVE PAWS structure looked like a three-sided pyramid with a flattened top. On the two seaward faces of the pyramid, Raytheon installed the AN/FPS-115 with its phased-array antenna. Thirty meters in diameter and consisting of 2,000 elements, each antenna could detect objects launched as far away as 3,000 miles. The Otis site became operational in 1979and the Beale site became operational a year later.

A contract for two more continental PAVE PAWS sites, was awarded in 1984. AnANfFPS-115 at Robins AFB, Georgia, became operational in 1986 and another unit at Eldorado AFS, Texas, was activated in 1987. Additional AN/FPS-115 PAVE, PAWS radars were installed in the 1990s at BMEWS sites at Thule, Greenland, and Fylingdale Moor, England, to assume the ICBM detection mission. As PAVE PAWS sites in the United States were activated, the older AN/FSS-7 radars were phased out, except for the MacDill AFB site that continued to provide additional coverage over Cuba . 70
-------------------------------------------------------------------------


History -



PART II

SYSTEMS OVERVIEW

RADAR SYSTEMS CLASSIFICATION METHODS

During World War II, each service used its own method to designate its electronic radar/tracking systems. For example, Army radars were classified under the initials SCR, which stood for "Signal Corps Radio." Different designations for similar systems confused manufacturers and complicated electronics procurement. In February 1943, a universal classification system was implemented for all services to follow, ending the confusion. To indicate that an electronic system designation followed the new universal classification, the letters "AN," for Army-Navy, were placed ahead of a three-letter code. The first letter of the three-letter code denoted the type of platform hosting the electronic device, for example: A=Aircraft; C=Air transportable (letter no longer used starting in the1950s); F=Fixed permanent land-based; G=General ground use; M=Ground mobile; S=Ship-mounted; T=Ground transportable. The second letter indicated the type of device, for example: P=Radar (pulsed); Q=Sonar; R--Radio. The third letter indicated the function of the radar system device, for example: G=Fire control; R=Receiving (passive detection); S=Search; T=Transmitting. Thus an AN/FPS-20 represented the twentieth design of an Army-Navy "Fixed, Radar, Search" electronic device.

World War II Radars

This section describes the World War II vintage radars that saw service during the Cold War. The systems are listed in numerical order, bypassing the three-letter code. During World War II, search and height-finder radars became components of America's electronic arsenal. The function of the search radar was to detect and obtain a line of bearing on an aircraft. Early models such as the SCR-270 and 271 looked like large bed-springs. Later designs, such as the AN/CPS-5 looked like a large oval dish. Search radars generally rotated full circle around a central axis. In contrast to the rotating search radar antenna, the horizontally mounted height-finder radar focused on the tracked aircraft's reported bearing. The radar antenna dish then scanned up and down to provide the operators with the estimated height of the aircraft.

AN/TPS-lB, 1C, 1D

Bell Telephone Laboratories developed this radar that subsequently was produced by the Western Electric Company. A crew of two could operate the radar. The 1B model could detect bombers at 10,000 feet at a distance of 120 nautical miles. The height detection and range on the 1C and 1D models exceeded those of the 1B. The transmitter sent its pulse at an L-band frequency between 1220 to 1280 megahertz (MHz). This long-range search radar was used in the temporary Lashup system beginning in 1948.

AN/CPS-4

Developed by MIT's Radiation Laboratory, this height-finding radar was nicknamed "Beaver Tail." The radar was designed to be used in conjunction with the SCR-270 and SCR-271 search sets. The CPS-4 required six operators. This S-band radar, operating in the 2700 to 2900 MHz range, could detect targets at a distance of ninety miles. The vertical antenna was twenty feet high and five feet wide. This radar was often paired with the AN/FPS-3 search radar during the early 1950s at permanent network radar sites.

AN/CPS-5

Bell Telephone Laboratories and General Electric developed this search radar. General Electric began producing sets in January 1945. Designated as a transportable medium-range search radar, the unit was ideal for use in the Lashup system in conjunction with the AN/TPS- 10 height-finder radar. It could be operated with a crew of ten. Some of these units remained to serve in the first permanent network. Designed to provide a solid search of up to 60 miles at 40,000 feet, the radar often had success tracking aircraft as far as 210 miles away.

AN/CPS-6, 6A, 6B

The AN/CPS-6 was developed during the later stages of World War II by the Radiation Laboratory at MIT. The first units were produced in mid-1945. General Electric developed and produced the A-model and subsequent B-model at a plant in Syracuse, New York. The unit consisted of two antennas. One of the antennas slanted at a forty-five degree angle to provide the height-finder capability. Initially, the radar was designed to detect fighter aircraft at 100 miles and16,000 feet. The radar used five transmitters that operated at S-band frequencies ranging from 2700 AN/CPS-6to 3019 MHz. It took twenty-five people to operate the radar. An AN/CPS-6 radar was installed as part of the Lashup system at Twin Lights, New Jersey, in 1949 and proved capable of detecting targets at ranges of eighty-four miles. The first units of the follow-on 6B radar set were ready for installation by mid-1950. Fourteen 6B units were used within the first permanent net-work. A component designed to improve the radar's range was added in 1954. Initial tests showed the 6B unit had a range of 165 miles with an altitude limit of 45,000 feet. One radar unit and its ancillary electronic equipment had to be transported in eighty-five freight cars. The Air Force phased out the 6B model between mid-1957 and mid-1959.

AN/TPS-10, 1OA /AN/FPS-4

MIT's Radiation Laboratory developed and produced the first version of this radar near the end of World War II. Zenith produced the A-model sets in the post-war period. The vertically mounted antenna was three feet wide and ten feet long. Two operators were needed to run the set. The initial model operated at a frequency of 9000 to 9160MHz and had a maximum reliable range for bombers of 60 miles at 10,000 feet. An updated version designated the AN/FPS-4 was produced by the Radio Corporation of America (RCA) beginning in 1948. Some 450 copies of this and the trailer-mountedAN/MPS-8 version were built between 1948 and 1955.

Early Cold War Search Radars

Early Cold War search radars essentially were advanced or improved versions of World War Il era sets. In some cases, the performance of the new sets fell short of expectations.

AN/FPS-3, 3A

The AN/FPS-3 was a modified version of the AN/CPS-5 long-range search radar. The first units came off the Bendix production line and were ready for installation in late 1950. Forty-eight of these L-band units were used within the first permanent network. The AN/FPS-3B incorporated an AN/GPA-27, which increased the search altitude to65,000 feet. Installation of these modifications began in 1957.

AN/FPS-5

The AN/FPS-5 was a long-range search radar produced in the early 1950s by Hazel-tine. Deployment was limited.

AN/FPS-8

The AN/FPS-8 was a medium-range search radar operating on the L-band at a frequency of 1280 to 1380 MHz. Developed in the 1950s by General Electric, over 200 units of this radar were produced between 1954 and 1958. Variants of this radar included theAN/GPS-3 and the AN/MPS-11.

AN/FPS-10

This unit was essentially a stripped down version of the AN/CPS-6B. Thirteen of these units served within the first permanent network.

SAGE System Compatible Search Radars

Various manufacturers began design work on compatible search radars for SAGE systems in the mid-1950s in conjunction with the development of the SAGE Command and Control System. Because Project LAMPLIGHT indicated radar vulnerability to electronic countermeasures, the Air Force developed a series of radars that could shift frequency. These frequency-diversity (FD) radars included the AN/FPS-24, AN/FPS-27, andAN/FPS-35.

AN/FPS-7, 7A, 7B, 7CI 7D

In the mid-1950s, General Electric developed a radar with a search altitude of 100,000 feet and a range of 270 miles. This radar was significant in that it was the first stacked-beam radar to enter into production in the United States. Designed to operate in the L-band at 1250 to 1350 MHz, the radar deployed in late 1959 and the early 1960s. The AN/FPS-7 was used for both air defense and air traffic control in New York, Kansas City, Houston, Spokane, San Antonio, and elsewhere. In the early 1960s, a modification called AN/ECP-91 was installed to improve its electronic countermeasure (ECM) capability. About thirty units were produced.

AN/FPS-20,20A, 20B

This Bendix-built radar was an AN/FPS-3 search radar with an AN/GPA-27 installed. Designed to operate in the L-band frequencies of 1250 to 1350 MHz, the radar had a range of over 200 miles. By the late 1950s this radar dominated the United States radar defense net. Deployment continued into the early 1960s. In June 1959, Bendix received a contract to provide private industry's MK-447 (the same as the military's AN/GPA-103) and MK-448 (AN/GPA-102) anti-jam packages to the radars. With the addition of these packages, the Air Force redesignated the radars. The AN/FPS-20A with the AN/GPA-102 became the AN/FPS-66 and the AN/FPS-20A with the AN/GPA-103 became the AN/FPS-67. Over 200 units were built.

AN/FPS-24

General Electric built an FD search radar designed to operate in the Very High Frequency (VHF) at 214 to 236 MHz. There were problems with this radar at the test site at Eufaula, Alabama, in 1960. These problems required many modifications. Additional problems occurred when deployment was attempted in 1961. When the radar finally deployed, bearing problems often occurred due to the eighty-five ton antenna weight. Twelve systems were built between 1958 and 1962.

AN/IFPS-27,27A

Westinghouse built an FD search radar designed to operate in the S-band at 2322 to2670 MHz. The radar was designed to have a maximum range of 220 nautical miles and search to an altitude of 150,000 feet. System problems required several modifications at the test platform located at Crystal Springs, Mississippi. Once these problems were solved, the first of twenty units in the continental United States became operational a Charleston, Maine, in 1963. The last unit was installed at Bellefontaine, Ohio, a year later. In the early 1970s, AN/FPS-27 radar stations that had not been shutdown received a modification (solid state circuitry replacing vacuum tubes) that improved reliability and saved on maintenance costs.

AN/FPS-28

Raytheon designed this search radar to operate at 410 to 690 MHz. A test unit was placed at Huoma Naval Air Station (NAS) in Louisiana.

AN/FPS-30

Bendix built this long-range search radar that operated in the L-band.

AN/FPS-31

Designed by Lincoln Laboratory, this huge radar was designed to be compatible with the SAGE system. A prototype was built at Jug Handle Hill in West Bath, Maine. The antenna was 120 feet wide and 16 feet high. Operations began in October 1955. After a period of unexpected clutter, it was determined that the radar received echoes from the aurora borealis (Northern Lights) and this hindered tracking. Although this model was never mass-produced for active use, lessons learned from this radar would continue supporting SAGE system research and development.

AN/FPS-35

This Sperry-built FD long-range search radar was designed to operate at 420 to 450MHz. It was first deployed in December 1960, but problems hampered the program. Four of these units were operational in 1962. The system suffered frequent bearing problems as the antenna weighed seventy tons.

AN/FPS-64, 65, 66, 67, 67A, 72

These radars were modified versions of the Bendix AN/FPS-20 search radar. See theAN/FPS-20 entry.

AN/FPS-87A

Bendix built this long-range L-band search radar that was based on the AN/FPS-20. See the AN/FPS-20 entry.

AN/IFPS-88

General Electric produced this updated version of the AN/FPS-8 radar in the late1960s. The AN/FPS-88 operated in the L-band at 1280 to 1380 MHz and featured some ECM capability.

AN/IFPS-91

This radar was another version of the AN/FPS-20 search radar produced by Bendix. See the AN/FPS-20 entry.

AN/IFPS-93

Raytheon modified the AN/FPS-20 radar to create this radar. See the AN/FPS-20entry.

AN/IFPS-100

This radar was another modernization of the Bendix AN/FPS-20 radar. See theAN/FPS-20 entry.

AN/FPS-107

This Westinghouse-built search radar operated in the L-band at 1250 to 1350 MHz.

SAGE System Compatible Height-finder Radars

To complement the search radars, height-finding radars were developed to detect aircraft at increasing altitudes. The AN/FPS-6 would serve as the standard model for much of the Cold War.

AN/IFPS-6,6A, 6B

The AN/FPS-6 radar was introduced into service in the late 1950s and served as the principal height-finder radar for the United States for several decades there after. Built by General Electric, the S-band radar radiated at a frequency of 2700 to 2900 MHz. Between 1953 and 1960, 450 units of the AN/FPS-6 and the mobile AN/MPS- 14 version were produced.

AN/FPS-26

Avco Corporation built this height-finder radar that operated at a frequency of 5400 to 5900 MHz. This radar deployed in the1960s.

AN/FPS-89

General Electric produced this improved version of the AN/FPS-6 height-finder radar in the early

1970s. Operating in the S-band, this high-power radar was capable of detecting targets at a range of over 110 miles.

AN/FPS-90

Martin Marietta produced the high-powered version of the AN/FPS-6 height-finder radar. Seethe AN/FPS-6 entry.

AN/FPS-116

This radar was another modernized version of the ANAFPS-6 height-finder radar. Seethe AN/FPS-6 entry.

Gap-Filler Radars

Gap-filler radars were designed to cover areas where enemy aircraft could fly low enough to evade detection by distant long-range search radars. Between 1957 and 1962, some 200 AN/FPS-14 and AN/FPS-18 models were built.

AN/FPS-14

This medium-range search radar was designed and built by Bendix as a SAGE system gap-filler radar to provide low-altitude coverage. Operating in the S-band at a frequency between 2700 and 2900 MHz, the AN/FPS-14 could detect at a range of 65 miles. The system was deployed in the late 1950s and 1960s.

AN/FPS-18

This medium-range search radar was designed and built by Bendix as a SAGE system gap-filler to provide low-altitude coverage. The radar operated in the S-band at a frequency between 2700 and 2900 MHz. The system deployed in the late 1950s and 1960s.

AN/FPS-19

This Raytheon gap-filler radar was deployed on the Distant Early Warning (DEW)Line. It operated in the S-band.

AN/FPS-19

North Warning System Radars

The North Warning System replaced the DEW Line system in the late 1970s. New equipment came with the change in system designation. A key component of the modernization was a long-range radar system formally known as Seek Igloo. The system is based around the AN/FPS-117.

AN/FPS-117

This 3-D long-range radar was built by GE Aerospace for use at Alaskan sites and on the Northern Warning System. The radar operated at 1215 to 1400 MHz and had a range of about 220 miles.

AN/FPS-124

This medium-range radar was built by Unisys to serve as an unmanned gap-filler radar on the North Warning System.

Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) Radars

With the advent of ballistic missiles, millions of dollars were spent to research, develop, test, and deploy BMEWS radars.

AN/FSS-7

This radar was a modified AN/FPS-26 height-finder radar produced by Avco Corporation to detect submarine-launched ballistic missiles. The system deployed at seven sites in the 1970s. Six sites were phased out during the early 1980s.The remaining unit continued in operation in the southeast for a few more years to provide coverage over Cuba.

AN/FPS-17

With the Soviet Union apparently making rapid progress in its rocket program, in1954 the United States began a program to develop a tracking radar. General Electric was the contractor and Lincoln Laboratory was the subcontractor. This tracking radar, the AN/FPS-1 7, was conceived, designed, built, and installed for operation in less than two years. Installed at Laredo AFB in Texas, the first AN/FPS-17 was used to track rockets launched from White Sands, New Mexico. The radar was unique; it featured a fixed-fence antenna that stood 175 feet high and 110 feet wide. The transmitter sent out ash pulse at a frequency between 180 to 220 MHz. Units were installed in the late1950s at Shemya Island in the Aleutians and in Turkey. The unit at Shemya subsequently was replaced by the Cobra Dane (AN/FPS-100) radar.

AN/FPS-49,49A

This large radar was built by RCA for use in the BMEWS program and the satellite-tracking program that deployed in the 1960s. The prototype unit operated at Moorestown, New Jersey. Two additional units were installed in Greenland and England. The radar frequency operated in the Ultra High Frequency (UHF) band and could track objects beyond 3,000 miles.

AN/FPS-50

This was a BMEWS program surveillance radar that used a large, fixed-antenna fence system. Two beams were projected from the antenna array. Objects passing through the lower-angled beam provided initial data and warning for the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD). Data produced when the object passed through the upper beam allowed computation of trajectories on launch and target points. The radar operated in the UHF range at 425 MHz. General Electric, Heavy Military Electronics Department, installed these systems at Clear, Alaska, and Thule, Greenland, during the early1960s.

AN/FPS-85

This UHF, 3-D, phased-array radar was designed by Bendix for satellite tracking. Built in the early 1960s at Eglin AFB in Florida, it was the first phased-array unit in the United States. A fire destroyed the first model in 1965. A rebuilt model became operational in 1969. The southward-sloped structure contained a square transmitter face placed alongside a larger octangular receiving face. The transmitter operated at a UHF frequency of 442 MHz. The AN/FPS-85 was also used to detect submarine-launched ballistic missiles.

AN/FPS-92

This improved version of the AN/FPS-49 tracking radar was used in the BMEWS Program. Built by RCA, this radar was installed at Clear, Alaska, in the late 1960s. The radar operated in the UHF band around 425 MHz and had a range of over 3,000 miles.

AN/FPS-108 (Cobra Dane)

Cobra Dane was a large single-faced, phased-array radar built by Raytheon in the 1970s on Shemya Island in the Aleutians. As the main component of the Cobra system, the radar had the primary role of providing intelligence on Soviet test missiles fired at the Kamchatka peninsula from locations in southwestern Russia. Other components of the Cobra system included the ship-based Cobra Judy phased-array radar and the aircraft-based Cobra Ball and Cobra Eye radars. In addition to determining Soviet missile capabilities, Cobra Dane had the dual secondary role of tracking space objects and providing ballistic missile early warning. The radar antenna face of the building measured about ninety feet in diameter and contained some 16,000 elements. The L-band radar had a range of 2,000 miles and could track space objects as far as 25,000 miles away.

AN/FPS-115

Raytheon built the PAVE PAWS phased-array, missile-warning radar deployed during the early 1980s. At the four continental United States sites, the ninety foot diameter circular panel radars were mounted on two walls of a triangular-shaped pyramid structure. The antenna operated at a frequency of 420 to 450 MHz. PAVE PAWS could detect targets at ranges approaching 3,000 miles.

AN/FPS-118 (OTH-B)

Designed and built by GE Aerospace, the OTH-B radar was deployed on the east and west coasts in the 1980s. The system reflected the radar beam off the ionosphere to detect objects from ranges of 500 to nearly 2,000 miles. The transmitter arrays operated at frequencies between 5 and 28 MHz. Fixed transmitter and receiving antenna arrays were separated by a distance of 80 to 120 miles.

PARCS

The acronym, PARCS, stands for Perimeter Acquisition Radar attack Characterization System. This huge structure was built as the main sensor for the Army's Safeguard missile system that deployed north of Grand Forks, North Dakota. Upon shut down of Safeguard in 1976, the Air Force took over the huge UHF phased-array radar for use in tracking ballistic missiles and objects in space.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Radars

Beginning in the late 1950s, the Civil Air Administration (predecessor to the FAA) and the DoD began to cooperate to reduce duplication. By the late 1980s most radars performing air search for the military were operated by the FAA in the joint surveillance program. Because it is a civilian agency, the FAA uses a different radar designation system.

ARSR-1

This Raytheon-built Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR) was used by the FAA Authority Radar beginning in 1958. It operated on a L-band frequency of 1280 to 1350MHz with a maximum range of 200 miles.

ARSR-2

Developed by Raytheon in the 1960s as a replacement for the ARSR-1, this radar also operated in the L-band and had a similar maximum range to the ARSR-1.

ARSR-3,3D

This Westinghouse-built search radar was used by the FAA in the Joint Surveillance System (JSS). The radar operated in the L-band at 1250 to 1350 MHz and detected targets at a distance beyond 240 miles. The D model had height-finder capability.

ARSR-4

The FAA began installing this Westinghouse-built 3-D air surveillance radar in the1990s for the JSS system. By the late 1990s this radar will have replaced most of the 1960s-vintage AN/FPS-20 variant search radars.

PubFather
26 Apr 06,, 19:26
48 is only the initial figure. Lots of cuts were made from the type 45 for budget reasons - as usual.... if you look carefully at the VLS in this picture it indicates space for another row of VLS cells, possibly 3 x 8, which would bring the total load of missiles to 72.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/imagesbig/t45-Jun02-02.jpg

The VLS may actually be replaced by the A70 or Mark 41 in future retrofits to Daring, in order to accomodate either TLAMs or possibly SCALP EG NAVALE ( which has always been a claimed capability for the Type 45 in the longterm).

I admit that the lack of missiles is slightly worrying although a typical British approach to warfare . The only thing I would put in defence of having such a small load out of missiles is that the RN foresees itself fighting any future large scale conflict alongside the USN, where the abilities of the Aster would compliment those of the SM2 and ESSM.

The only time that Type 45's are likely to be attacked without a friendly DD51 or Tico nearby is the Falklands and once we have a couple of Darings online - bye bye Argie airforce without or without your Exocets...

Oh don't slag off Sea Dart - still the only system with a proven anti-missile kill in combat in the world ;-)

Simullacrum
27 Apr 06,, 12:03
Oh don't slag off Sea Dart - still the only system with a proven anti-missile kill in combat in the world ;-)


---------------------
Info on Sea Dart
---------------------
Design:-

Sea Dart is a two-stage, 4.4m long missile weighing 550 kg. It is launched using a drop-off Chow solid-fueled booster that accelerates it to the supersonic speed necessary for the operation of the cruise motor, a Bristol Aerojet kerosene-fueled Odin ramjet. This gives a cruise speed of over Mach 2.5, and unlike many rocket powered designs the cruise engine burns for the entire flight, giving excellent terminal manouverability at extreme range. It is capable of engaging targets out to at least 30 nautical miles over a wide range of altitudes.

Guidance is by semi-active radar homing, with targets being identified by a radar Type 1022 (originally radar Type 965) and illuminated by 1 of a pair of radar Type 909. This allows two targets to be engaged simultaneously. Firing is from a twin-arm trainable launcher that is loaded automatically from below decks. The original launcher seen on the Bristol was significantly larger than that that appeared on the Type 42 and Invincible classes.


Combat Service:-


Falklands War

Sea Dart was used during the Falklands War and is credited with 7 confirmed kills (plus one british Gazelle helicopter by friendly fire). One kill was against a high-flying Learjet reconnaissance aircraft beyond the missiles stated technical envelope. Other kills were made against low-flying attack aircraft. However, it was found to be unsuitable when operating close inshore as it was unable to lock onto targets at distance obscured by land and fast-moving low-level targets obscured in ground clutter or sea-returns. These shortcomings were more damning of the Type 42 destroyer than Sea Dart itself, as the former were fitted with obsolete 1950s-era radar Type 965 and had no other defence against aircraft apart from a pair of World War 2-vintage 20mm guns.


Gulf War (1991)

In February 1991 during the first Gulf War the battleship USS Missouri, escorted by the Sea Dart carrying HMS Gloucester and the Phalanx CIWS-equipped USS Jarrett, was engaged by an Iraqi Silkworm missile (also known as a Seersucker). After an unsuccessful response from the Phalanx 20mm CIWS of Jarrett, the missile was intercepted by a Sea Dart fired from Gloucester, making this the first validated, successful engagement of a missile by a missile during combat at sea.

PubFather
27 Apr 06,, 20:02
A very fine piece of British engineering indeed....
As far as I know the RN tested RAM but rejected it in favour of ( eventually) fitting phalanx as CIWS but mainly because of its anti-surface (small boat) capabilities - has anyone else heard this?

I suppose it could be easily retro-fitted on top of the hangar at some stage, and it would be nice to have another layer of defence - just in case...

brian00
28 Apr 06,, 02:12
I attended an arranged visit to HMS Sultan a week ago where the Daring class was discussed:

The Sampson radar weights 9 tons and is situated 45m above sea level, so the superstruture must be capable of withstanding a lot of stress, ergo the unusual apprearance

During recent tests rumour has it that the ship was tracking every aircraft in western europe!! essentially making its long range radar unnecessary

Its powerplant, the design of which i saw today uses an advanced heat exchanger which increases the air temperature before intake, making it very efficient this is somewhat in response to increased fuel prices. However the engine also requires a lot of man hours to maintain

The ship will carry the vertically launched sea wolf

The reason for the daring class only having a weapons module forward of the superstructure is because the rear is dedicated to the hanger for the merlin helicopter. The merlin is far more capable than the sea lynx, overall weight is 3 times greater and it has multi mission capabilities, such as transport of 24 troops, a range of weapons, dunking sonar and a range of 1000km on internal fuel tanks

On another note I was disappointed to hear half the staff i talked to referring to the new CVFs as still only a maybe

rickusn
28 Apr 06,, 03:24
"The ship will carry the vertically launched sea wolf "

AFAIK The Type 45 is to be equipped with 48 ASTER 15 & 30 missles in Sylver A50 VLS cells not Sea Wolf.

If somehow this has changed(which I doubt) then it is no longer capable of area anti-air defense and should be reclassified as a frigate to reflect this drastic change in capability.

As for this:

"During recent tests rumour has it that the ship was tracking every aircraft in western europe!! essentially making its long range radar unnecessary."

Horse Manure

gunnut
28 Apr 06,, 05:17
"The ship will carry the vertically launched sea wolf "

AFAIK The Type 45 is to be equipped with 48 ASTER 15 & 30 missles in Sylver A50 VLS cells not Sea Wolf.

If somehow this has changed(which I doubt) then it is no longer capable of area anti-air defense and should be reclassified as a frigate to reflect this drastic change in capability.

Is this how to differentiate a destroyer from a frigate?

It used to be tonnage, speed, endurance, gun caliber, and armor, right? But that was WW2.

I always wondered why Type 42 is a destroyer at only 4000t, but some frigates displace as much as 6000t.

What makes a cruiser a "cruiser" today? Burke weighs almost as much as a Tico, both have Aegis, Tico has a few more missiles and an extra gun, but Burke is faster, yet Tico is a cruiser but Burke is a destroyer. And Burke is bigger than some WW2 cruisers.

longcat
28 Apr 06,, 05:25
Is this how to differentiate a destroyer from a frigate?

It used to be tonnage, speed, endurance, gun caliber, and armor, right? But that was WW2.

I always wondered why Type 42 is a destroyer at only 4000t, but some frigates displace as much as 6000t.

What makes a cruiser a "cruiser" today? Burke weighs almost as much as a Tico, both have Aegis, Tico has a few more missiles and an extra gun, but Burke is faster, yet Tico is a cruiser but Burke is a destroyer. And Burke is bigger than some WW2 cruisers.
Ticons were originally ordered as destroyers, but were later redesignated as cruisers.

PubFather
28 Apr 06,, 07:06
I attended an arranged visit to HMS Sultan a week ago where the Daring class was discussed:

The Sampson radar weights 9 tons and is situated 45m above sea level, so the superstruture must be capable of withstanding a lot of stress, ergo the unusual apprearance

During recent tests rumour has it that the ship was tracking every aircraft in western europe!! essentially making its long range radar unnecessary

Its powerplant, the design of which i saw today uses an advanced heat exchanger which increases the air temperature before intake, making it very efficient this is somewhat in response to increased fuel prices. However the engine also requires a lot of man hours to maintain

The ship will carry the vertically launched sea wolf

The reason for the daring class only having a weapons module forward of the superstructure is because the rear is dedicated to the hanger for the merlin helicopter. The merlin is far more capable than the sea lynx, overall weight is 3 times greater and it has multi mission capabilities, such as transport of 24 troops, a range of weapons, dunking sonar and a range of 1000km on internal fuel tanks

On another note I was disappointed to hear half the staff i talked to referring to the new CVFs as still only a maybe
What utter nonsense - VL Seawolf instead of Aster? What would be the point of the Sampson radar in the first place? The only point of that would be as a testing point but even then it is as unlikely your statement that Sampson was tracking every aircraft in Europe.

Daring will not carry the Merlin intially - as a cost cutting measure the PRISM deck handling system was deleted so initially it will carry Lynx.

Why come on the board and just make things up that have no basis in reality?

rickusn
28 Apr 06,, 13:58
"Is this how to differentiate a destroyer from a frigate?"

Its how the UK has since the 1970's.

Germany, Spain & the Netherlands have all designated what are really AAW Destroyers as AAW Frigates.

Other nations like Japan France, Korea among others have typed some ships as Destroyers when in fact they are more similar to Frigates.

The distinctions have blurred over the years.

There is only one "real" cruiser left in Peru and that will soon be retired.

Even the humongous Russian Kirovs have more in common with traditional destroyers.And there is only one of these operational another is undergoing a longgggggg refitting period.

The Ticos(CG47) class were retyped to reflect the enormous cost to build them and to reflect their tremendous Command and Control attributes.

For the most part Frigates too have more in common with destroyers than early types.

Or conversely more similar to Ocean Patrol Vessels.

Its best to take a close look at each individual class to see its range, endurance, speed, size along with sensor and weapon fits to judge its capabilities. Not to mention one should take into account the roles and missions a particular navy forsees or uses the vessel(s) for.

Even then it can be tough to pigeon-hole many classes especially the newer ones. As sometimes they have such a mix of attributes it can defy any logical classification system.

brian00
28 Apr 06,, 16:25
What utter nonsense - VL Seawolf instead of Aster? What would be the point of the Sampson radar in the first place? The only point of that would be as a testing point but even then it is as unlikely your statement that Sampson was tracking every aircraft in Europe.

Daring will not carry the Merlin intially - as a cost cutting measure the PRISM deck handling system was deleted so initially it will carry Lynx.

Why come on the board and just make things up that have no basis in reality?

I never said it will carry seawolf instead of aster, it will carry them both

TRY READING A POST BEFORE YOU REPLY TO IT

brian00
28 Apr 06,, 16:39
[QUOTE=rickusn
"During recent tests rumour has it that the ship was tracking every aircraft in western europe!! essentially making its long range radar unnecessary."

Horse Manure[/QUOTE]

Your arrogance surprises me,

Do you work for bae systems or the MoD?

I was told this information by the RN staff who will train the crews for these ships, therefore i will take their word over yours

Unless you can tell me that you got your information from somewhere else than internet sites, books and the discovery channel then on this topic your opinion isnt worth much

Boltonian
28 Apr 06,, 18:58
But the higher the radar the better right?

That radar is capable of detecting an object the size of a golf ball moving at 3 times the speed of sound, so hitting one of these ships with a missile will be pretty difficult.

Boltonian
28 Apr 06,, 19:01
Horse Manure

Your arrogance surprises me,

Do you work for bae systems or the MoD?

I was told this information by the RN staff who will train the crews for these ships, therefore i will take their word over yours

Unless you can tell me that you got your information from somewhere else than internet sites, books and the discovery channel then on this topic your opinion isnt worth much

Brian00 is correct. The radar CAN, and HAS, tracked the aircraft in every airport in Western Europe.

Boltonian
28 Apr 06,, 19:03
I think rickusn is just jealous that the British have more advanced ships than the Americans.

Boltonian
28 Apr 06,, 19:06
New warship is 'quantum leap forward' for the Navy
By Thomas Harding, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 02/02/2006)

The most powerful frontline warship since the Second World War was launched by the Countess of Wessex yesterday, marking a resurgence of British naval ship building.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2006/02/02/navy02.jpg
The first Type 45 destroyer is launched yesterday. It will not be fully "fitted out" until 2009.

The first of Britain's new Type 45 destroyers took to the waters of the Clyde as the world's most advanced air defence ship.

Daring will be able to track and destroy a target the size of a cricket ball travelling at more than three times the speed of sound, a "quantum leap forward in the Navy's capabilities", according the Royal Navy.

The boat's defensive system, combining a hugely powerful radar and missile system, has left American visitors to the yard "shaken and shocked", according to BAE Systems, its builders.

The destroyer's launch was watched by a crowd of 11,000 and hundreds of Daring's Glaswegian shipbuilders.

In the next 10 years, as many as eight T45s could be built at a cost of £650 million each. Also to be commissioned are two large aircraft carriers (£3.5 billion), four Astute class hunter killer submarines (£3 billion) and a fleet of up to FOURTEEN auxiliary ships (£3.5 billion).

Daring will be fitted with its radar and missile systems before its sea trials in early 2007. Its Samson radar, from its current location in Portsmouth, can monitor all take offs and landings from every major European airport.

telegraph.co.uk

gunnut
28 Apr 06,, 19:13
Brian00 is correct. The radar CAN, and HAS, tracked the aircraft in every airport in Western Europe.

That doesn't make sense. How can a radar in England detect an aircraft in Berlin? The curvature of the earth alone would exclude everything under a certain altitude. High flyers I can understand. But to make a claim saying it can track EVERYTHING in western Europe just doesn't make sense.

PubFather
28 Apr 06,, 19:16
"The ship will carry the vertically launched sea wolf "

I did read your original post - funnily enough - and this was your imprecise statement. I would be grateful if you could post a spec of Daring that suggests it does indeed mount VL SeaWolf - as nothing else I have ever seen, including the official data/spec confirms this.

I would be deeply surprised if it did. SeaWolf, although capable, is outdated and requires a different radar setup and command structure than the Aster system. The whole point of Aster 15 is that it fulfills the role of SeaWolf while having a greater range - its min range is 2km up to 30 according to official figures. Inside 2km the Darings will eventually mount phalanx. If Daring was to carry SeaWolf, then the number of Aster missiles would be reduced - again pointless.

The only reason that you might have come up with this anecdotal evidence is that Type 45 were originally meant to carry an inter-layer missile defence system which could have been SeaWolf in 2 8 cell VLS. However this has since been deleted from the specification (rightly or wrongly).

The fact that you are happy to quote evidence from a "visit" without being able to back anything else up - and that you got the whole Merlin issue entirely wrong - suggests that you need to go back to school and learn about sources. One source is not enough. What you have is ill informed and inaccurate unless you can prove it - I can.

I suggest engaging your brain before replying to posts in future.

gunnut
28 Apr 06,, 19:16
I think rickusn is just jealous that the British have more advanced ships than the Americans.

We're not jealous. We know for a fact the Daring is a more advanced AAW ship than our Aegis ships. He just questions the outrageous claim of a radar tracking EVERYTHING in western European airspace from England.

gunnut
28 Apr 06,, 19:19
Its best to take a close look at each individual class to see its range, endurance, speed, size along with sensor and weapon fits to judge its capabilities. Not to mention one should take into account the roles and missions a particular navy forsees or uses the vessel(s) for.

Even then it can be tough to pigeon-hole many classes especially the newer ones. As sometimes they have such a mix of attributes it can defy any logical classification system.

Do the Burkes have comparable command and control capabilities as the Ticos? They are ocean patrol vessels. Wouldn't they just have been appropriate to be categorized as cruisers, especially due to their size and function?

PubFather
28 Apr 06,, 22:23
Do the Burkes have comparable command and control capabilities as the Ticos? They are ocean patrol vessels. Wouldn't they just have been appropriate to be categorized as cruisers, especially due to their size and function?
The Burkes, a generation earlier, would have be classed as cruisers. The size of ships - and the classification thereof - has grown in the same way as cars have. Especially over here in Europe, the mid-range cars as now as big as the "large" cars of a generation before. And there is an analagous relationship between a new breed of "super-minis" etc that perhaps relate to the corvette/LCS class of ships

Above all, I would agree with Ricksun - classification of naval ships is random at best. Hell, I recknon we should bring the reallly old defs of ships - "Man O War" "Ship of the Line"... they just sound so much better....

rickusn
28 Apr 06,, 23:37
Boltonian:

"I think rickusn is just jealous that the British have more advanced ships than the Americans."

Again Horse Manure.

Im not jealous at all.

In fact Ive studied and written extensively on the UK military.

In fact I much lament the fact that the RN is likely only to get six Type 45's vice the originally envisioned 12 that was reduced to eight and now most likely only six.

The Brits have been very innovative over the years and the US military has adopted many features especially the USN.

But there has been alot of exaggeration coming from some quarters of the UK lately and this is just more.

One of the lastest was that the an RAF Harrier took off with the heaviest load in history for a carrier-borne aircraft. Again total nonsense.

The UK media has no credibility when it comes to military issues.

And Boltonian has no credibility when it comes to describing me.

rickusn
28 Apr 06,, 23:41
"Do the Burkes have comparable command and control capabilities as the Ticos? "

No. Although the much larger Flight III ships would have.

But cost cutting prolonged the Flight I/II production then the compromise Flight IIA was built.

rickusn
29 Apr 06,, 00:18
"Your arrogance surprises me,"

What arrogance?

Maybe you should look in a mirror.

Its arrogant to try and pass off "rumor" as fact IMHO.

As for the Telegraph article. They couldnt even spell the name of the radar correctly.

And this from the same article:

"The boat's defensive system, combining a hugely powerful radar and missile system, has left American visitors to the yard "shaken and shocked", according to BAE Systems, its builders."

Cmon give me a break. LOL

PubFather
29 Apr 06,, 11:41
Some people really do need to understand that just because something is in a newspaper it doesnt make it fact or real. Newpapers in the UK are not expert on military issues.

People also need to excercise simply source judgements.. "The boat's defensive system, combining a hugely powerful radar and missile system, has left American visitors to the yard "shaken and shocked", according to BAE Systems, its builders."

Now why would the builders of a ship want to talk it up??? Cant think why... and I think the same thing goes for the "all the airports of Europe" line as well.

In fact - and I might be wrong here - even with the 45 meter high mast, SAMPSON is physically unable to that. And by physical, i mean the laws of physics...

There is no need to make up silly exxagerations - Daring is the most advanced AAW platform currently, end of story. But the limits of missiles carried and numbers of vessels being built make it less deadly than it should have and it is a pity.

There is still the chance that more will be built, and a chance that a larger version of the 45, perhaps optimised for land attack, will be the RN's choice for its MVD program. (To replace some of the Type 23's in the longterm)

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:08
But there has been alot of exaggeration coming from some quarters of the UK lately and this is just more

But the Sampson radar CAN track the movements of planes in every airport in Western Europe, as I've already shown.

Boltonian
29 Apr 06,, 18:11
Navy launches world's deadliest and most expensive warship
By Simon Freeman


HMS Daring, the first of the Royal Navy's £6 billion fleet of six Type 45 Destroyers, thundered down the slipway into the River Clyde in Glasgow today, spouting red, white and blue confetti from her formidable stern.



Weighing 7,350 tonnes, her 14 decks bristling with the latest military technology, Daring's successful launch - on time and within budget - is seen as a symbol of rebirth in the Clydeside shipbuilding yards which faced devastation six years ago.

Sophie, the Countess of Wessex, launched Daring at a ceremony at the shipyard in Scotstoun which was also attended by the Defence Secretary, John Reid.

HMS Daring slid into the water and was manouevred into place by three tugs, who guided her a few hundred yards down river to a dry dock where the finishing touches will be carried out, including the fitting of her guns.

The second and third ships in the six-ship order - HMS Dauntless, Diamond, Defender, Dragon and Duncan - are already being built. BAE Systems hopes the order will be extended to eight. The contract will keep about 3,000 workers employed until the end of the decade at Scotstoun and its sister yard Govan, across the river.

With a price tag of £605 million, the 150-metre long vessels will be the most powerful, advanced and deadly warships in the world when they come into service in 2009.

Among the battery of state-of-the-art equipment is a new Principal Anti-Air Missile System, which can trace and destroy hostile objects as small a cricket ball travelling at three times the speed of sound. Its range is effective over a radius of several hundred miles.

Her PAAMS air defence missiles are the size of a public phone boxes, weigh
two thirds as much as a small car and from launch accelerate to a speed twice that of Concorde in under 10 seconds.

The Defence Secretary said the launch was a proud day for the Royal Navy. "It’s a huge boost for the Royal Navy because this is the most capable, most powerful destroyer ever built in the UK," he said.

"Six years ago a lot of people had written them [the Clyde dockyards] off but not the workforce, not the new management and if I might say so not the then Secretary of State for Scotland [John Reid] either."

The main sections of Daring were built at Scotstoun, with the bow built by VT Group (formerly Vosper Thorneycroft) at Portsmouth and transported by barge to the Clyde. The ship was entirely designed on computer before the various modules were built and assembled in a dry berth.

HMS Daring's 230-strong crew should be happy too. She and her sisters will be the first "gender-neutral" warships to enter Royal Navy service, and the Hotel Facilities, as the living quarters are known, are the most opulent ever fitted in a British warship. Mess decks are replaced by individual cabins, each with their own I-pod charging points, CD player, internet access, five channel recreational audio and larger berths.

thetimesonline.co.uk

Bill
29 Apr 06,, 18:13
Unless you can tell me that you got your information from somewhere else than internet sites, books and the discovery channel then on this topic your opinion isnt worth much

RickUSN was an actual SAILOR.

Were you?

Jackass.

PubFather
29 Apr 06,, 18:19
You havent shown anything about the radar - just newspaper accounts...

BAE Systems say that SAMPSON should be regarded as a long-range sensor, its software-programmable search range (depending on which surveillance domain and update rate is selected) extending out to "several 100s of kilometres" and being described by the company as "significantly more than the 150km-range of APAR" - a performance that is directly related also to the chosen frequency band (E/F-band for SAMPSON as opposed to I/J-band for APAR). In fact, BAE Systems maintains that on the Type 45 destroyer, the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar that is designed to work in partnership with SAMPSON "really is superfluous and is not needed to perform the mission of the ship". The company suggested that the reason the large volume search radar has been incorporated in PAAMS is "more of a historic nature, associated with work sharing issues" that were such a problem during the trilateral Project Horizon.

http://navy-matters.beedall.com/sampson.htm

Several hundred klicks does not cover every airport in western europe... unless you can come up with some real evidence.. accept it as an overblown claim and move on...

rickusn
29 Apr 06,, 20:00
"But the Sampson radar CAN track the movements of planes in every airport in Western Europe, as I've already shown."

Horse Manure.

All youve shown is your ignorance and arrogance.

Theres not a claim coming out of the UK lately that has any basis in reality.

Just look at the Astute article you posted. Just more nonsense.

Im coming to believe that the UK is imploding. Their status on the world stage continues to decline and the only way to deny the inevitable, by many anyway, is to make over-blown claims and attempt to belittle others. Or so it appears.

Its sad. Very,Very sad.

gunnut
30 Apr 06,, 04:13
But the Sampson radar CAN track the movements of planes in every airport in Western Europe...

Maybe for the Flat Earth Society.

PubFather
30 Apr 06,, 10:18
lol at flat earth society...

Boltonian - do you believe that a type 45 in the English channel can track planes flying into Inverness and Geneva ?

If you do then go back to your village.

They want their idiot back...

Shadowsided
04 May 06,, 01:09
lol at flat earth society...

Boltonian - do you believe that a type 45 in the English channel can track planes flying into Inverness and Geneva ?

If you do then go back to your village.

They want their idiot back...

However longer waves can be bounced off the ionosphere for an OTOH effect a lot of surveillance radars do this.

Dago
04 May 06,, 05:21
Yes.

Those are land based where the space and power requirment can be met to power those large transmitters. Also, as you know, tracking and surveillance are quite different.

Dago
04 May 06,, 05:24
But the Sampson radar CAN track the movements of planes in every airport in Western Europe, as I've already shown.

LOL. :biggrin:

By all means, please, post the link.

PubFather
04 May 06,, 06:48
However longer waves can be bounced off the ionosphere for an OTOH effect a lot of surveillance radars do this.
Sampson doesnt. End of. Period.

PubFather
04 May 06,, 06:49
LOL. :biggrin:

By all means, please, post the link.
Don't say that - he will and it will be another newspaper article with no basis in reality...

rickusn
04 May 06,, 23:53
Got this from a noted RN analyst:

"Hi Rick

I also have the Sampson radar listed as being mounted 35 metres above the T45 waterline, presumably this measures the centre of the array assembly directly down to a theoretical water level (at deep load?). 19 of the 35 metres is mast, the remainder being hull and superstructure."

canoe
05 May 06,, 00:22
Going to have to go with the Amercians on this one, I did a little reading and near as I've been able to gather Sampson is a line of site radar. Which makes it physically impossible for it to monitor all the aircraft in western europe.

Unless of course you guys mounted the ship on a giant balloon a lifted it to about 10k feet.

The likely limiting factor for the radars range is the height the radar is mounted at and the curvature of the earth.

PubFather
05 May 06,, 16:04
Going to have to go with the Amercians on this one, I did a little reading and near as I've been able to gather Sampson is a line of site radar. Which makes it physically impossible for it to monitor all the aircraft in western europe.

Unless of course you guys mounted the ship on a giant balloon a lifted it to about 10k feet.

The likely limiting factor for the radars range is the height the radar is mounted at and the curvature of the earth.
Who told you? that was meant to be top secret....

That claim was made in the British press.. never on anything more reliable... and the main stream Brit press knows dick about military matters...

A silly claim repeated by a few idiots... lol

highsea
05 May 06,, 19:46
LOl now thats splitting hairs lol....its still BAE systems...it is still a foreign company which owns and direct other American militry companies..!! :tongue: lol..!!!You're trying to be funny, but you don't understand the way things work. BAe Systems buys out other companies, but that doesn't mean they own the product. They are still under US export rules, and have to get approval for foreign sales, even to the UK. What BAe gets, is their share of the profits. They don't get to determine who gets access to technologies developed in the US.

And as far as this Samson Radar, the MMIC's are the enabling technology for AESA, and they are manufactured right here in the US by Raytheon in their MA foundry. Raytheon is the number one supplier of semiconductors and modules to BAe Systems, and is the sub for the Navigation system on the ship.

BAe and Raytheon are very close, and BAe is also involved in the GAN MMIC development at Raytheon.

You may think these companies are in some kind of direct competition, but they aren't. They are cooperative ventures, and each one tries to do what they are best at.

Dago
05 May 06,, 20:49
The only naval asset I can think of that is capable of "detecting targets" out in East Europe would be the USNS Observation Island, equiped with the first NAVAL phassed array application AN/SPQ-11. Desgined to detect Russian ballistic launches in eastern Russia.

http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/cobra_judy_s.jpghttp://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/observation-island-l-s.jpg

Shadowsided
05 May 06,, 21:02
Nice post Dago you sure do know a lot about radar tech!

highsea
05 May 06,, 21:57
The only naval asset I can think of that is capable of "detecting targets" out in East Europe would be the USNS Observation Island, equiped with the first NAVAL phassed array application AN/SPQ-11. Desgined to detect Russian ballistic launches in eastern Russia. Dago, to answer your question, that would be a passive array since the transmitters are not integrated at the element level.

PubFather
05 May 06,, 23:58
Nice post Dago you sure do know a lot about radar tech!
God but you are a moron

Dago
06 May 06,, 02:31
Dago, to answer your question, that would be a passive array since the transmitters are not integrated at the element level.

Ok.

What was the first active array application as far as ground installations go? Would that be Pave Paws?


Each of the PAVE PAWS radars is housed in a 32-meter (105-foot) high building with three sides. Two flat arrays of individual radiating elements transmit and receive RF signals generated by the radar. The equipment that generates the RF signals and then analyzes the reflected signals is housed inside the radar building. The two array faces are 31 meters (102 feet) wide and are tilted back 20 degrees to allow for an elevation deflection from three to 85 degrees above the horizon. The lower limit provides receiver isolation from signals returned from ground clutter and for environmental microwave radiation hazard protection of the local area.

The active portion of the array resides in a circle 22.1 meters (72.5 feet) wide in the center of the array. Each radiating element is connected to a solid-state transmit/receive module that provides 325 watts of power and a low-noise receiver to amplify the returning radar signals. The RF signals transmitted from each array face form one narrow main beam with a width of 2.2 degrees.

Also, if you have any good material as far has the historical development of phassed array, discrete and solid-state componets, and t/r modules it would be well apprecieated.

Everything I have came across requires a subscription to either IEEE or other higher educational institution.

Primarily, Phased-array development at DARPA
Corey, L. Jaska, E. Guerci, J.
DARPA/SPO; (http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?isnumber=28113&arnumber=1256949&count=111&index=2 ) and http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocresult.jsp?isNumber=28113&page=2.

hello
09 May 06,, 15:38
The T45 is an area air defense destroyer. DDX is strike/ASW like the sprucans.

That's true. But about the Type 45, it's a revolutionary air defense destroyer? Not if the enemy has JSOWs, JASSMs, Storm Shadows or stealth.


Originally Posted by canoe
Going to have to go with the Amercians on this one, I did a little reading and near as I've been able to gather Sampson is a line of site radar. Which makes it physically impossible for it to monitor all the aircraft in western europe.

Unless of course you guys mounted the ship on a giant balloon a lifted it to about 10k feet.

The likely limiting factor for the radars range is the height the radar is mounted at and the curvature of the earth.

That's what AWACS is for! This is a limitation to all land/sea based radars. All SAMs are limited due to this, no matter how long their missile and radar ranges are.

PubFather
09 May 06,, 16:29
That's true. But about the Type 45, it's a revolutionary air defense destroyer? Not if the enemy has JSOWs, JASSMs, Storm Shadows or stealth.

I doubt JSOWs would be too much of a problem for the missile system to track and destroy well out of harms way. A JSOW is over a meter long and not exactly stealthy.

Against Stormshadow and JASSM? Stealthy cruise missiles are obviously going to be a major problem for any warship but the Type 45 + Sampson and Aster were specifically desgined to deal with supersonic (admittedly not stealthy) sea skimmers (which neither the Stormshadow or JASSM are). I suspect that it would be an equally, if not more capable system against them than Aegis is.

As for stealth, Sampson is an extremely capable, powerful radar and will eventually be coupled with AEW. If Aegis has capabilities against stealth - as claimed - I suspect Sampson will have too. Again, I'll probably get shoot down (if you pardon the pun) but Sampson is a very up-to-date, recently designed system. (Even if it cant track all the planes in Western Europe, lol...)

Besides, it depends what you mean by "revolutionary", it has a revolutionary extra level of ability over the Type 42 and thats more than good enough for me.

Dago
09 May 06,, 23:52
I doubt JSOWs would be too much of a problem for the missile system to track and destroy well out of harms way. A JSOW is over a meter long and not exactly stealthy.

Against Stormshadow and JASSM? Stealthy cruise missiles are obviously going to be a major problem for any warship but the Type 45 + Sampson and Aster were specifically desgined to deal with supersonic (admittedly not stealthy) sea skimmers (which neither the Stormshadow or JASSM are). I suspect that it would be an equally, if not more capable system against them than Aegis is.

As for stealth, Sampson is an extremely capable, powerful radar and will eventually be coupled with AEW. If Aegis has capabilities against stealth - as claimed - I suspect Sampson will have too. Again, I'll probably get shoot down (if you pardon the pun) but Sampson is a very up-to-date, recently designed system. (Even if it cant track all the planes in Western Europe, lol...)

Besides, it depends what you mean by "revolutionary", it has a revolutionary extra level of ability over the Type 42 and thats more than good enough for me.


True.

The Type 45 would be by far better in defending against a saturation attack then the Burkes as the Aster doesn't require active illumination. However, with a reduced engagment range.

I wonder, though, how it will fare with future stealthy cruise missiles and what the engagment would be in such a scenero.

PubFather
10 May 06,, 16:26
However, with a reduced engagment range.

Not necessarily against a sea-skimming missile. Sampson should be able to shoot "over the horizon" and hit the missile earlier than Aegis (using the active homing). The limitation with Aegis is the terminal illumination req to guide the missile home. So while the theoretical range of the SM2 is greater (100 k plus) this only counts against higher flying targets. Sea-skimming targets (no matter how powerful Aegis is) will stay below the radar horizon for longer, and this stops the ship illuminating the target. I think - could be wrong - that the horizon is about 30k. The limitation is there purely because ships dont fly.. lol

I have heard that later SM2's have a backup IR homing ability, so I suppose they could use this to shoot over the horizon.. not sure though


I wonder, though, how it will fare with future stealthy cruise missiles and what the engagment would be in such a scenero.

I suspect it would be somewhat f*cked really, the same as any ship currently operating. The only answer would be some form of IRST/EOTS (airborne) coupled with a very sensitive far spectrum ir seeker head on the missile. Nothing to prevent the Aster being redeveloped with this in mind (same as against stealthy aircraft maybe).

As to who might develope them... the Ruskies and Chinese seem happy with they super-sonic missiles, as does India with Brahmos so not really from there. I suspect in the foreseable future, the only threat would come from missiles we had sold to another country that were then used against us.

Unless the French get really cross about something... ;)

Shadowsided
11 May 06,, 15:18
The SM2 is being replaced by the SM 6 though and it's range is classified(uses active seekers).

PubFather
11 May 06,, 16:42
The SM2 is being replaced by the SM 6 though and it's range is classified(uses active seekers).
Good to hear it...

Simullacrum
02 Jun 06,, 11:16
yes it does it has digital beamforming thanks for asking. It's an X band targeting radar (fire control). It's already being developed. It's already been tested and shipped to the anvy 3 years ago. :cool:

Thought you were wrong with your answer in regards to my question... if its was in main stream production with the US navy.
Last I heard, was that it was built and was on Trials yet to be implemented on ships.
The AN SPY-3 Multifunction Radar has just only been tested as is not yet active in the US navy.!



Here you go:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tewksbury MA (SPX) May 30, 200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Navy's first shipboard active phased array multifunction radar, Raytheon's AN/SPY-3, has successfully participated in a series of at-sea tests to confirm its unique capabilities -- including the first time the radar has acquired and tracked a live controlled aircraft while at sea.

"The multifunction SPY-3 is unprecedented in the field of naval radar technology," said Mike Hoeffler, Raytheon vice president, Future Naval Capabilities. "Here we have one exceedingly robust X-band system that can effectively meet the Navy's requirements for the 21st century fleet by simultaneously sustaining anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, land attack, naval gun fire support and navigation missions.

"Moreover, SPY-3 embraces new ship-design requirements for reduced radar cross-section, significantly reduced maintenance and manning requirements, and total-ownership cost reduction. No other naval radar delivers such an astounding array of capabilities and benefits in a single package."

Raytheon will integrate the SPY-3 radar with S-band volume search radar arrays to comprise a unique dual band radar system that will be employed on the Navy's new Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) multi-mission destroyers and the transformational CVN-21 aircraft carrier.

Under the DDG-1000 detail design and integration contract awarded by the U.S. Navy in May 2005, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems continues its role as the prime mission systems equipment integrator for all electronic and combat systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know the yanks and limies have been working on and sharing information on phassaed array radars for years now.....
Rehtoric aside, 'my c*o*c*k is bigger the yours'.......Would be intrigued, to see how the US SPY-3 and UK Sampson stack up versus each other.

Any views..??

merlin2
20 Mar 12,, 13:42
:) lol.......not all your systems are wholy built by the USA...there is a lot of input from the UK into most of your projects......from weapon defnece system, Radar, Hud displays example Raptor HUD is built by BAe systems, misiles.....Arty guns..... list goes on.!!! Now even your Bradlys and some subduries of lockhead martin are under BAE systems..!! :P

Not only BAE systems...but also QinetiQ also has its fingers diped into American pies..!!
lol..What an inferiority complex..You Brits wouldnt even be able transport your troops from one place to the other without US made C-130's, Boeing Globemasters. Your entire nuclear submarine technology comes from the US. Apache helicopters for the Army , AWACS for early warning, Tomahawks cruise missiles, Trident 2 SLBM, Predetors,Reapars for battlefield informations ..The list is soo long its not worth wasting one's time..In short, Britain would be defenceless without US weapons.You guys buy US defence technology 10 times more than you sell there.

bigross86
20 Mar 12,, 13:47
Damn, dude! Necro much?!

USSWisconsin
20 Mar 12,, 14:13
6 years dead - very decayed... The kittens and the zombie chicks have come - and a hide is being eyed for poncho duty

Ytlas
20 Mar 12,, 15:44
I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

USSWisconsin
20 Mar 12,, 16:25
I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

We would probably value the information you would add, this necro was just a swat at the Brits (for example: BAE is all over the place in US defense systems) - nothing much added, and not much of a new asshole ripped either - its more of a traditional poke than a reaming. BTW, I got my first necro lesson from doing just that - posting on the naval books thread that had been inactive for some time.

TopHatter
20 Mar 12,, 16:57
I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

It's not that warships change. It's the extreme age of the thread and as USS Wisky mentioned, nothing much added to the subject.

bigross86
20 Mar 12,, 17:29
It's in the survival guide. You add pertinent or relevant information, all's good. The above post, however? Not so much...

astralis
20 Mar 12,, 18:35
sorta weird why some belgium guy would get all american nationalistic too :biggrin:

antimony
20 Mar 12,, 19:30
6 years dead - very decayed... The kittens and the zombie chicks have come - and a hide is being eyed for poncho duty

I object strongly to your post : we need the hot dead chick and zombie SWSNBN :insane:

Ytlas
20 Mar 12,, 19:37
It's not that warships change. It's the extreme age of the thread and as USS Wisky mentioned, nothing much added to the subject.

Lot of boards, they prefer that people check in past threads for similar information. We post because we have something to say whether other people think it's relevant or not.

bigross86
20 Mar 12,, 19:48
We post because we have something to say whether other people think it's relevant or not.


Show respect for dead threads If the thread in question has not seen a post in a couple months and is dormant you might be able to breathe new life into it. However unless there is some ground breaking revelation-if a thread has been idle for 6 months or more its dead and leave the corpse alone.

We're not saying you shouldn't post in dead threads. We're saying you shouldn't post in dead threads if there's nothing worth saying. The old threads are founts of information that should be accessed frequently and updated with new and relevant information whenever possible. That tad of American jingoism was neither new nor relevant information, and therefore relatively worthless.

Besides, everyone is free to post what they like in whatever thread they like. In return, we are all free to post about necro-ing threads...

USSWisconsin
20 Mar 12,, 20:01
I wasn't implying the older information in the thread was bad, just emphasizing the necro-ness of the necropost, this is the kind of post that might get by in a current discussion, though I bet it would be questioned there - based on the inaccuracy of the statements and its nationalistic nature, when but posted like this, it becomes a classic necropost and is subject to silliness about SWNSNBM, zombies and dead kittens - I added the poncho slide because it made me laugh. I saw it as a WAB tradition, one of our little rituals to show necroposting newbies that the board has rules and conventions we follow - and a few amusing traditions. ;)

Admiral Nelson
20 Mar 12,, 20:10
AMERICA HAS TEH worlds MOST ADVANCE NECRO POST!

YellowFever
20 Mar 12,, 23:07
Can you tell me what compelled you to captialize every word except "worlds"?

I'm kinda curious.

Gun Grape
20 Mar 12,, 23:30
I object strongly to your post : we need the hot dead chick and zombie SWSNBN :insane:

As you wish.

Ytlas, You will never see me post Necro pics on a thread that has been opened to provide an update or relivant information. This one falls in neither catagory.

bigross86
21 Mar 12,, 00:38
Gunny, can we get some new pics? Looking at the same ones over and over again is getting kinda boring...

Stitch
21 Mar 12,, 01:26
Can you tell me what compelled you to captialize every word except "worlds"?

I'm kinda curious.

WAS WONDERING THE SAME thing MYSELF . . . . .

Admiral Nelson
21 Mar 12,, 02:28
BECUASE ONLEY AMERICA IS AWESOME ENOUGH FOR CAPITALS UNLIKE TEH REST OF world. CAPITALS ARE THE MOST ADVANCE LETTERS AND ONLEY WE HAVE THEM.

Doktor
21 Mar 12,, 09:08
BECUASE ONLEY AMERICA IS AWESOME ENOUGH FOR CAPITALS UNLIKE TEH REST OF world. CAPITALS ARE THE MOST ADVANCE LETTERS AND ONLEY WE HAVE THEM.

Or... simply you can't find the Caps Lock button :)

merlin2
21 Mar 12,, 14:25
sorta weird why some belgium guy would get all american nationalistic too :biggrin:

I don't .. I am just telling the truth.. Any problem with this??

USSWisconsin
21 Mar 12,, 14:51
I don't .. I am just telling the truth.. Any problem with this??

The post is not in following with our guidelines, here they are:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/46580-completely-unoffical-wab-survival-guide.html
please note #13 and #20 (taking the stance the US is better without accurate information i.e. "British Submarine tech is entirely derived from US technology", this is not accurate, the British SSBN's use Trident this much is correct, otherwise it is not accurate - British submarines are British technology))

One of the traditions here is the introduction - you can do that here - once you reach 25 posts - you can open threads to discuss your idea.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/61571-new-all-one-introduction-thread-26.html#post865466

merlin2
21 Mar 12,, 21:04
The post is not in following with our guidelines, here they are:

http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/46580-completely-unoffical-wab-survival-guide.html
please note #13 and #20 (taking the stance the US is better without accurate information i.e. "British Submarine tech is entirely derived from US technology", this is not accurate, the British SSBN's use Trident this much is correct, otherwise it is not accurate - British submarines are British technology))

One of the traditions here is the introduction - you can do that here - once you reach 25 posts - you can open threads to discuss your idea.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/wab-information-center/61571-new-all-one-introduction-thread-26.html#post865466





I rephrase: Most of British nuclear Submarine tech is derived from US technology.. I hope you agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear submarines, much time would be saved by accepting the American technological lead and taking advantage of US nuclear technology. Although Rickover wished to supply the third generation S3W reactor of the Skate class, Mountbatten exerted his influence and the entire machinery system for an American Skipjack-class submarine, with its fifth generation S5W reactor, was obtained.[1] This was known as the "American Sector" (see 1958US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement).

USSWisconsin
21 Mar 12,, 21:39
I rephrase: Most of British nuclear Submarine tech is derived from US technology.. I hope you agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear submarines, much time would be saved by accepting the American technological lead and taking advantage of US nuclear technology. Although Rickover wished to supply the third generation S3W reactor of the Skate class, Mountbatten exerted his influence and the entire machinery system for an American Skipjack-class submarine, with its fifth generation S5W reactor, was obtained.[1] This was known as the "American Sector" (see 1958US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement).

Sorry, that early 1960's sub was decomm'd in 1980. This is very old info - take a look at this current boat.

Astute class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine), you will see she is a British design.

How about introducing youreself?

merlin2
22 Mar 12,, 13:10
Sorry, that early 1960's sub was decomm'd in 1980. This is very old info - take a look at this current boat.

Astute class submarine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astute_class_submarine), you will see she is a British design.

How about introducing youreself?

Wisconsin mate, Of course I know what Astute Class is ..The point I was trying to make was that British Nuclear Submarine technology ( unlike French) was based on whatever they imported from the US in 1950's and 1960's. The new Astute could be a British design but this is not the point !Remember , even the Astute class was 2 years late and 2 billion pounds over Budget when Electric Boat engineers from Groton came to Britain and saved the program from collapse but this is also another story. I couldn't agree with some comments of this so called British Defence Professionals who started this thread and I felt I should post some comments of my own even if they came 5 years late !!! but OK.
Is the Type 45 the most advance warship in the world?? If you are truly a defence professional, you wouldn't even waste your precious time on funny jokes like this one .

USSWisconsin
22 Mar 12,, 13:41
Wisconsin mate, Of course I know what Astute Class is ..The point I was trying to make was that British Nuclear Submarine technology ( unlike French) was based on whatever they imported from the US in 1950's and 1960's. The new Astute could be a British design but this is not the point !Remember , even the Astute class was 2 years late and 2 billion pounds over Budget when Electric Boat engineers from Groton came to Britain and saved the program from collapse but this is also another story. I couldn't agree with some comments of this so called British Defence Professionals who started this thread and I felt I should post some comments of my own even if they came 5 years late !!! but OK.
Is the Type 45 the most advance warship in the world?? If you are truly a defence professional, you wouldn't even waste your precious time on funny jokes like this one .

I am not saying the type 45 is the most advanced warship in the world, (this thread is old - you will notice I did not post in it before you did). Niether would I say the British navy is mostly derivative from the USN. The USN is the most powerful navy, at this time, this is accurate. The British navy was before WWI, the change started to occur between the world wars - by the end of WWII - the USN was the greatest navy in the world. Ships like Arleigh Burke are more probably the most advanced surface combat ships in commission. The US led the world with nuclear submarines, before that the Germans had built the most advanced submarines - and might have developed nuclear propulsion had they been able to work on it for a few more years (they were stopped by the end of WWII). The first British nuclear sub did borrow US tech heavily - and merged it with British tech - since then the two designs have diverged. Most serious navies these days have some fine ships they can be proud of, the USN doesn't have a monopoly on advanced designs - there are too many to name, and they fly many flags. Being on top is something that changes over time, history shows us that.

So you might have mentioned a ship you felt was more advanced than the type 45 and told us why - instead you put down the British, which made your comment offensive to some people. We love to discuss ships, not so much which country is greatest. The necro thing is a WAB tradition, it isn't a personal attack - it is one of the little things that make WAB different. The point is to respect the old threads by adding something thoughtful and new to them or not adding anything at all.

We ask new members to introduce themselves and take a look at out guidelines. It sounds like you have much to discuss, we would like to welcome you into the WAB, in return, we ask that you respect its practices.

USSWisconsin
23 Mar 12,, 15:15
[QUOTE=MMyers;866502]The truth about the riots...[quote]

what does this have to do with warships???

Doktor
23 Mar 12,, 15:15
The truth about the riots...

:slap: Here we go again

Tarek, Asty, guys please delete the whole thread. With cherry on top.

bigross86
23 Mar 12,, 15:34
Whiskey, it's a bot

Tarek Morgen
23 Mar 12,, 15:45
While we can prevent bots from opening new threads, we can not stop them from spamming old threads (without making it very hard for new users to join this community). Hence we can only reduce and not prevent spam.

YellowFever
23 Mar 12,, 15:53
Whiskey, it's a bot

I'm beginning to think Whiskey is a bot himself....

Admiral Nelson
23 Mar 12,, 15:55
HA HA DOKTOR YOU DONT NOE THAT THE WORLDS MOST ADVANCE WARSHIP IN THE world IS TEH TROLL DREDKNOT:

YellowFever
23 Mar 12,, 15:57
I did not noe know....

You learn teh new things on wab everyday. :eek:

USSWisconsin
23 Mar 12,, 16:16
CARE-FILL da TROLL-KNOT -DIS watrchong WHIT a knotted PLOW line AND cide got yee in tubble - treecubbs teh AWEsOME gun IS bigger
and MY MOM kenews OOUGH.

Tarek Morgen
23 Mar 12,, 16:18
ähm yeah..so..how about returning back to topic?

Admiral Nelson
23 Mar 12,, 16:24
One cadidate for the topic at hand completed a major milestone Tuesday. DDG-1000 completed an important test of its Integrated Power System: GulfLive.com article (http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-business/2012/03/ddg_1000_successfully_completes_developmental_test .html).

JRT
27 Mar 12,, 06:50
One cadidate for the topic at hand completed a major milestone Tuesday. DDG-1000 completed an important test of its Integrated Power System: GulfLive.com article (http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-business/2012/03/ddg_1000_successfully_completes_developmental_test .html).

I'm curious about the following two sentences excerpted from that linked article: "DDG 1000 is the first surface combatant to be built with an IPS, which will use electric power for propulsion and ship services. The IPS generates the total ship electric power requirements, then distributes and converts it for all ship loads, including propulsion, combat systems and ship services."

Is their claim true, that this is really the first to do this?

SlaterDoc
27 Mar 12,, 07:09
That depends! :confu:
Our little DE, being diesel/electric in 43 meant the engines provided the electricity that drove all ships functions as well as propulsion!
So it sounds to me like the difference between between a Ford Fairlane and a 2012 Ford with all it's fancy technology! It's still got an engine and an alternator!

Im soory! shud I knot hav payed a tension to teh spel chek? I meen jist reedin bac................

Admiral Nelson
27 Mar 12,, 10:45
AFAIK the UK has several classes with an IPS --T45 class DD, ALBION class LPD and WAVE class oiler. There are LPDs with an IPS in Netherlands and Australia, too. The T-AKE logistics ships use a commercial IPS (many cruise ships use this technology). The difference between an IPS and the 1930s electric drive supposedly is "the integration of electric propulsion and the electric auxiliaries all into one system.”

SlaterDoc
27 Mar 12,, 16:35
Thanks Admiral! Now it makes sense!
Combine everything into one system, including auxiliary! That way if one goes down they all go down!:eek:
We are so much smarter these days!
We got it wrong all this time! Turns out the term "artificial intelligence" was really meant to refer to the decision makers not the equipment!:biggrin:

Admiral Nelson
27 Mar 12,, 16:56
Well, the literature tends to emphasize that everything is modular, with no single point of failure. Anything that can generate electricity can power any part of the ship. For instance, an auxiliary diesel generator can propel the ship, something impossible in a typical current warship.

JRT
27 Mar 12,, 19:47
That depends! :confu:
Our little DE, being diesel/electric in 43 meant the engines provided the electricity that drove all ships functions as well as propulsion!


The Slater is exactly the ship I had in mind when I asked the question, but wasn't sure if the Cannon class DEs used separate systems to provide electric power to the various ship's systems unrelated to propulsion.

SlaterDoc
29 Mar 12,, 01:22
She does have an 8 Cyl Diesel for ships main generator and another 8 cyl for the emergency generator.(both rebuilt and running) The four main propulsion engines are GM 16 cyl 278As
But of course you know that US Navy engineers could create miracles when called upon. I can see them running power from whatever engine/generator the enemy fire didn't get to her propulsion motors! I think today's crews would have a hard time using ingenuity to keep a ship going as they did during the war!

Admiral Nelson
06 Apr 12,, 13:18
Two new videos have been posted to the Bath Iron Works front page (https://www.gdbiw.com/). One is a speech discussing start of fabrication of DDG-1002. No real need to watch this unless you really want to, but it does make it clear that this ship will not be canceled. They other is quite interesting. It shows a large component of DD-1000 being moved to an outside construction facility on a giant trailer.

Admiral Nelson
13 Apr 12,, 13:11
There are a number of articles on DDG-1000 in the current issue of Surface Warfare Magazine (http://surfwarmag.ahf.nmci.navy.mil/index.html). These cover construction, life aboard and an overview of her systems and weapons.

Admiral Nelson
03 May 12,, 19:13
A Chinese Admiral claims to be able to destroy the world's most advance warship with a bunch of old fishing boats... ;) Washington Times article (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/2/inside-china-admiral-says-china-can-destroy-destro/).

GrayGhost1975
03 May 12,, 20:15
I like that the author of the article mentions that this particular admiral is called "Admiral Gaffe".

Tin Man
10 Nov 12,, 03:59
Hi guys, missed this place:)) I saw this on the Type-45 and had to chime in.

The following is only my opinion on this ship from what I have read over the last few years, some of the details may be incorrect but you will get the sentiment I hope, please forgive me for any errors, I have been out of the loop for ages:)

T-45 V a USN Burke, right now the T-45s AAW capabilities are more modern, more effective in littoral environments I am hearing because of Sampson and Sea Viper. A T-45 PAAMS equipped ship is more difficult to saturate than even the latest AEGIS system because Sampson can see further and therefore identify targets before SPY/AEGIS and can engage more targets. CEC increases capability massively for the Burkes so a lot of that is addressed. SAMPSON "should" be better because it is a newer system and mounted higher up (radar) on the ship. Increased horizon.

The USN has been working on a similar system to SAMPSON for quite a while , SPY-3?? so is in no way behind except in actually fielding a system.

In nearly every other way the Burkes are better ships, ie more rounded because the Burkes carry Tomahawk land attack missiles and Harpoons. The T-45 has no anti ship missiles or TLAMS. the only way for the T-45 to attack another ship is with it`s 4/5 inch gun and as far as I know Aster has no surface attack mode. (ye olde Sea Dart does:))
My biggest worry is a lack of funding for RN CEC which I think is a mistake.

The T-45s sonar is a cheaper version than the excellent sonar they were supposed to have, the type now fitted to half of the T-23 fleet.
48 missile cells I think is adequate, there has not been a war since WWII where 100 VLS cells have been a requirement. In the Falklands war the T-42s only carried around the 20 mark in terms of Sea Dart rounds plus a T-42 is the only ship in history to shoot down an ASM in combat, admittedly a HUGE and slow ASM:))) (Chinese Silkworm).

Everything I have read to date states the Royal Navy actually wanted the US MK 41 STRIKE length VLS on the T-45s because of the capability you get with it, but got Sylver instead for political reasons, ie not being overly reliant on the US for kit.

I "think" the RNs new short range missile CAMM will quad pack in Sylver but I am not at all sure if CAMM will be used on the T-45s as they have Aster -15. CAMM is planned to quad fit in the Seawolf VLS on T-23s and later on the new frigates, the T-26 GCS.

The T-45 is built FOR, but WITHOUT the weapons systems that would make it a more effective ship than a Burke, for that reason, I would prefer to go to war in a Burke. As a Brit I have no worries about saying this.
The T-45 has fantastic potential but because of its lack of certain kit, I would be worried about operating this ship on its own where I would have no worries for a Burke class destroyer.

The SAMPSON/ PAAMS/ASTER missile combination gives this ship world leading AAW capability, I think it`s the best out there in that regard and edges AEGIS/SM/SPY in the AAW role, not saying the Burkes are not a class act in this regard too.

In what ways is the T-45 innovative?? The propulsion system is innovative, ASTER/ PAAMS is innovative. These two additions the most advanced in the world to date on a destroyer. Apart from that I don`t see anything else on the ships that can be claimed to be "world beating" but I stand to be corrected.

Its gas turbines the WR-21s, RR has said it wont be making anymore and will concentrate on the MT-30s from here on in its gonna be Trent engine based turbines and I don't like the fact that the diesels were made by a company that is now defunct but I am sure the navy has servicing/replacements covered in some way or at least hope they do.

I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down:)))

Tin Man
10 Nov 12,, 04:11
I rephrase: Most of British nuclear Submarine tech is derived from US technology.. I hope you agree with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Dreadnought_(S101)

Although the plan was to build all-British nuclear submarines, much time would be saved by accepting the American technological lead and taking advantage of US nuclear technology. Although Rickover wished to supply the third generation S3W reactor of the Skate class, Mountbatten exerted his influence and the entire machinery system for an American Skipjack-class submarine, with its fifth generation S5W reactor, was obtained.[1] This was known as the "American Sector" (see 1958US-UK Mutual Defence Agreement).

I dimly recall that the RN favoured PGRs for its SSN powerplants but we eventually went with USN PWRs after US pressure.
I don`t know enough about UK nuclear sub building history to agree that MOST British submarine tech is US derived apart from the powerrplant. Certainly today all of our Sub reactors are PWR1s and 2s built by Rolls Royce. Either way I think both nations have in the past borrowed heavily from each others designs, angled deck carriers and landing systems, radar and sonar to SLBMS to name but a few.

dundonrl
03 Dec 12,, 07:52
[B]Hi guys, missed this place:))

T-45 V a USN Burke, right now the T-45s AAW capabilities are more modern, more effective in littoral environments I am hearing because of Sampson and Sea Viper. A T-45 PAAMS equipped ship is more difficult to saturate than even the latest AEGIS system because Sampson can see further and therefore identify targets before SPY/AEGIS and can engage more targets. CEC increases capability massively for the Burkes so a lot of that is addressed. SAMPSON "should" be better because it is a newer system and mounted higher up (radar) on the ship. Increased horizon.


I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down:)))


well, being a former Fire Controlman onboard a couple new Aegis equipped DDG's.. the "range" issue with them isn't due to the radar, but treatys.. the actual SPY radar sees one HELL of a long way, but if the target is beyond a certain range, the computer is programmed to ignore it (same with altitude) now if it has TBDM capability that portion is basically "unlocked" and the full range of the radar is enabled, now if the radar is tracking a target inside that range, and it flys outside the range, it is still tracked and able to been seen on the scope.

merlin2
17 Dec 12,, 18:42
Hi guys, missed this place:)) I saw this on the Type-45 and had to chime in.


I recently read an article where one of the T-45s was training with the USN and the Americans asked the T-45 captain to switch SAMPSON off because it was "Impairing the training", apparently the ship was seeing every aircraft sent out to "attack" it, from take off to shooting them all down:)))



Unconfirmed,unsubstantiated baseless rumors..BAE propaganda pure .. I also read similar comments made by an officer about Astute class subs capability during a training with one of the Virginia class subs ..RN officer said' The Americans were blown away by what they have seen. He was referring to the Astute class Sonar, one of the eight wonders of the world ( supposedly capable of hearing ships from 3000 miles away !!!!!!! The sonar officer of the USS New Mexico said ' we had the Astute in our crosshair all the time !! enough said , he must have been laughing his head off when reading Astute class technical deficiencies revealed by British newspapers recently.

JRT
23 Jan 13,, 19:12
According to Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, US Navy, the guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) "is now the most advanced warship on the planet".

:whome:

Below is the related excerpt from a recent article available at this link (http://defense.aol.com/2013/01/22/navy-seeks-savings-from-paint-chips-to-littoral-combat-ships-a/).


Navy already modernizes its ships, of course, but current vessels weren't designed from the start to make that easy. Sometimes the Navy decides upgrades are simply cost-prohibitive, as with the three Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers -- aging and overloaded ships with minimal margin for growth -- that it wanted to retire (Congress refused). Sometimes it bites the budgetary bullet, as with the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class, which first entered the fleet in 1991 and which it plans to keep modernized and in service until 2072 -- not an easy task. Thanks to one such recent upgrade, the third-oldest Arleigh Burke, DDG-53 John Paul Jones, is now the most advanced warship on the planet, boasted Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations. But to install new systems, Rowden told the Surface Navy Association bluntly, "we had to gut that ship." And gutting a ship ain't cheap or fast. Every time a DDG-51 goes in for such a comprehensive overhaul, Rowden went on, "I lose that ship for two years."

blidgepump
23 Jan 13,, 22:17
According to Rear Adm. Thomas Rowden, director of surface warfare on the staff of the Chief of Naval Operations, US Navy, the guided missile destroyer USS John Paul Jones (DDG-53) "is now the most advanced warship on the planet".

:whome:

Below is the related excerpt from a recent article available at this link (http://defense.aol.com/2013/01/22/navy-seeks-savings-from-paint-chips-to-littoral-combat-ships-a/).

A proud ship with a great name.... :danc: now the most advance warship on the seven seas :confu:

John Davy
13 Feb 13,, 22:15
Type 45 destroyers are the most advanced destroyers to date. They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

Gun Grape
13 Feb 13,, 22:41
I didn't know crickets had balls.

Gun Grape
13 Feb 13,, 22:45
Type 45 destroyers are the most advanced destroyers to date. They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

yep, cause the best the US can do is hit the fuel tank of a satellite that is 247 KM above the ground traveling at 17 thousand MPH;)

Granted it was a CG that took the shot. But at least 16 Burkes are equipped with the same ABMD capability

That was 5 years ago. Before the latest updates.

JRT
13 Feb 13,, 23:41
I didn't know crickets had balls.

.

Do these guys still get rum rations?

How much rum would somebody have to drink before they start seeing supersonic crickets and get the idea of trying to castrate some of them with missiles, etc.?

I'm thinking it would have to a rather large quantity.

31927

blidgepump
14 Feb 13,, 00:27
Do these guys still get rum rations?

How much rum would somebody have to drink before they start seeing supersonic crickets and get the idea of trying to castrate some of them with missiles, etc.?

I'm thinking it would have to a rather large quantity.

31927

Perhaps a new standard in marksmanship to surpass the traditional " bullseye" ???? :tank:

surfgun
14 Feb 13,, 00:43
The type 45 has good AA capability. How about anti-surface capability? A 4.5" gun, is all it has. Regretfully a 4.5" gun, is not tops when it comes to anti-ship tech. or firepower.

Stitch
14 Feb 13,, 01:29
Perhaps a new standard in marksmanship to surpass the traditional " bullseye" ???? :tank:

"Cricket's-ball"?

dundonrl
21 Feb 13,, 20:52
Type 45 destroyers are the most advanced destroyers to date. They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

that's not that impressive, when you think of it.. what is impressive is a cricket that can move at 2200 mph..

Tin Man
19 Mar 13,, 03:33
Unconfirmed,unsubstantiated baseless rumors..BAE propaganda pure .. I also read similar comments made by an officer about Astute class subs capability during a training with one of the Virginia class subs ..RN officer said' The Americans were blown away by what they have seen. He was referring to the Astute class Sonar, one of the eight wonders of the world ( supposedly capable of hearing ships from 3000 miles away !!!!!!! The sonar officer of the USS New Mexico said ' we had the Astute in our crosshair all the time !! enough said , he must have been laughing his head off when reading Astute class technical deficiencies revealed by British newspapers recently.

BAE propaganda from a serving RN SSN SKipper with no vested interest in BAE....ummm dont think so. I saw the same comments on the navy's own website rather than picked up in the Sun newspaper.
If you think that is the case then the comments of the "USS NEW Mexico sonar operator" can be regarded in the same vein, ie, unsubstantiated hyperbole.

Astute is still a trials boat being first of class and did a lot of things for the first time on that ex and of course had suffered problems, which first of class ships, subs and aircraft always suffer, from F-22 to F-35 to Typhoon.
Why is it so hard to believe that the Astute may have had a very good ex in the same way a T-45 can have a good ex?
Either way both are probably the two best class of SSN out there today.

Looking between the lines on all of the guff churned out by British tabloids the only serious issue you can latch onto is "maybe" a problem with Astutes top speed underwater but then again, the RN denies there is a problem.

Tin Man
19 Mar 13,, 03:45
well, being a former Fire Controlman onboard a couple new Aegis equipped DDG's.. the "range" issue with them isn't due to the radar, but treatys.. the actual SPY radar sees one HELL of a long way, but if the target is beyond a certain range, the computer is programmed to ignore it (same with altitude) now if it has TBDM capability that portion is basically "unlocked" and the full range of the radar is enabled, now if the radar is tracking a target inside that range, and it flys outside the range, it is still tracked and able to been seen on the scope.

That`s interesting on the treaty limitations and makes a lot of sense.
I have read articles and analysis regarding issues with SPY operating close to land regards clutter but I think that can be said of practically any naval radar.
I have no doubt the Burkes are fine ships and as of right now a more rounded and capable ship than a T-45 but I think it would be fair to say that the rest of the world may have at last caught up with SPY, with Sampson and APAR so the introduction of AMDR-S, AMDR-X will certainly balance the books again.

USSWisconsin
19 Mar 13,, 04:38
Sounds expensive, castrating crickets with missiles - wouldn't a tweezers and an exacto knife be more effective? :whome:

Why bother with castrating them in the first place, just squashing them is good enough. ;)

Stitch
19 Mar 13,, 06:04
Sounds expensive, castrating crickets with missiles - wouldn't a tweezers and an exacto knife be more effective? :whome:

Why bother with castrating them in the first place, just squashing them is good enough. ;)

Um, yeah, sure . . . .

rundown
16 Apr 13,, 18:02
Type 45 destroyers are the most advanced destroyers to date. They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

Most of the modern radar (3-d air-surface) are capable of detecting very small objects (golf-ball sized) at significant distances. This is not the issue at all--the issue is the elevation of the object, its maneuverability and its organic ECCM. Well, speed too, obviously. The formula of the radio horizon is very famous--it is formula of the visible horizon (discounting all electronic issues with radar). Most modern sea-skimmers fly at the elevations of 5-10 meters above water (consider the situation with the sea state 5-6--that also means a significant surface "noise"). The radio horizon for the ship with her radar array elevation of, say, 30 meters thus will be, against sea-skimmer flying at elevation 10 meters, about 3.57(sq.root 30+sq.root10)=31 kilometers. So, the missile flying with M=3 at straight line will have speed in m/s around 1000 m/s or 1 km/s. So, in ideal conditions (sunny, calm, no interferences and no ECM) the ship will have about 30-seconds to detect, track and develop firing solution against such target. But then, of course, comes a real life and things do go haywire all the time. Now imagine this missile being not one but, say three--a modest salvo--attacking from different course angles, having a comprehensive ECCM suite, having stealthy properties and, in addition, maneuvering like crazy with g-loads unsustainable by human body. Things really get messy very fast. Obviously M=6 missiles (with the speed of 2 km/s) leave (in ideal conditions) merely 15 seconds for ship to react. Those missiles are already flying--Norwegians recently flew successfully its M=6 prototype, so did Russians. Looks like M=6 Brahmos-2 is not too far away either. That is the reality of modern surface warfare today and in the nearest future. I will not describe here the differences between ASM and ballistic targets, however fast, those targets are.

For those interested:

http://tscm.com/rdr-hori.pdf

Tin Man
17 Apr 13,, 02:45
So, in ideal conditions (sunny, calm, no interferences and no ECM) the ship will have about 30-seconds to detect, track and develop firing solution against such target. But then, of course, comes a real life and things do go haywire all the time. Now imagine this missile being not one but, say three--a modest salvo--attacking from different course angles, having a comprehensive ECCM suite, having stealthy properties and, in addition, maneuvering like crazy with g-loads unsustainable by human body.

That`s the idea behind sticking Sampson as high up as possible on the T-45s, to give a crew and defences longer time to react. The pop up attack with an ASM from a submarine is still the most worrying form of attack considering that aircraft will be seen from a long way out as long as you have AEW.
This ASM terminal phase maneuvering is hard to understand for someone like me with no ASM technical knowledge, how much "maneuvering" can a 1 ton Mach 2.5 missile flying at wavetop height actually do?
Wouldn't it have to stop moving and stabilize at some point as it homed in on its prey to ensure it actually hit something at those speeds?

rundown
17 Apr 13,, 17:26
That`s the idea behind sticking Sampson as high up as possible on the T-45s, to give a crew and defences longer time to react. The pop up attack with an ASM from a submarine is still the most worrying form of attack considering that aircraft will be seen from a long way out as long as you have AEW.
This ASM terminal phase maneuvering is hard to understand for someone like me with no ASM technical knowledge, how much "maneuvering" can a 1 ton Mach 2.5 missile flying at wavetop height actually do?
Wouldn't it have to stop moving and stabilize at some point as it homed in on its prey to ensure it actually hit something at those speeds?

Exactly and elevation of the array is partially designed to give some additional time for systems to react. As for terminal maneuvering, I cannot describe this phase in meaningful detail since I do not know about all technical (and algorithm) issues involved. But modern missiles can maneuver with g-loads (from the top of my head--you may find this info even on internet) in excess of g=20+. How the missile seeker updates itself during this phase I don't know but, evidently, this problem was overcome.

desertswo
05 Jun 13,, 20:07
77 DDG 51 vs six T-45. Game, set, match. As Joseph Stalin once supposedly said, "Quantity has a quality all it's own."

CAPT, USN(Ret)

kato
06 Jun 13,, 16:04
Except when 40% of those DDG51 are stuck in the Western Pacific and other places for geostrategic reasons, 30% are stuck in port because the ship they escort ain't going anywhere, 20% is stuck in the yard for repairing eyebrow-raising stuff like broken gearboxes or shifting superstructures and only 10% of them are available in a similar fashion as the Type 45.

desertswo
06 Jun 13,, 16:33
So, you mean they are typical ships? Self propagating expansion joints (aka "shifting superstructures") are not new. I've never known of a ship class without them. Broken gear boxes? If you mean stress fractures in the dual pinion, articulated, lock trained double reduction gear, again, a known problem going all the way back the Spruance-class. I would have thought Westinghouse would have figured that out by now, but suffice it to say that the LM2500 generates a lot of torque; the proximate cause of the stress fractures. So by your numbers, 40% are doing their jobs, 30% can do their jobs if the National Command Authority orders it, 20% are in the yards because it's their turn, and 10% are "free agents." Looks to me like roughly 60 ships are deployed or deployable.

Stitch
06 Jun 13,, 20:09
I would have thought Westinghouse would have figured that out by now, but suffice it to say that the LM2500 generates a lot of torque.

The 2500+G4 (latest gen) generates almost 50,000 SHP.

chatrapatiSAS
29 Jun 13,, 11:10
very beautiful and a true destroyer and attacker with great defense systems.

kamikaze06
09 Nov 13,, 14:20
Perhaps they don't like it because like the Concorde, which they would not let into the US of A at first, they had nothing like it.
TSR2 the most advanced aircraft in the world, is still thought of as mind bending technology for it's time, until the politicians pulled the plug on it.
We use to be a small country, with big ideas and produced. Sadly we are slowly sinking, once again due to politicos.

Blademaster
09 Nov 13,, 15:53
Except when 40% of those DDG51 are stuck in the Western Pacific and other places for geostrategic reasons, 30% are stuck in port because the ship they escort ain't going anywhere, 20% is stuck in the yard for repairing eyebrow-raising stuff like broken gearboxes or shifting superstructures and only 10% of them are available in a similar fashion as the Type 45.

You should apply the same percentages to the Type 45 as Britain has territories all over the world. That means it is 8 DDG51 versus 1 Type 45..

merlin2
19 Nov 13,, 20:17
Perhaps they don't like it because like the Concorde, which they would not let into the US of A at first, they had nothing like it.
TSR2 the most advanced aircraft in the world, is still thought of as mind bending technology for it's time, until the politicians pulled the plug on it.
We use to be a small country, with big ideas and produced. Sadly we are slowly sinking, once again due to politicos.

You guys are delusional and living in a world of fantasy . First, the very existence of the Concorde was thanks to the US allowing it to fly NY because without New York there wouldn't be any Concorde. Americans didn' t try to build an SST like Concorde,the American SST was a full generation ahead a Mach 3 plane with 260 passenger and made out of titanium ! far more complicated and advanced . .. They cancelled the project the moment the Congress realized it would be a huge waste of tax payers money.and they were right.. After 1973 oil crises everybody except Air France and BA cancelled their orders. TSR2 most advanced in the world??? LOL who says that ? American XB-70 and SR-71 projects were both ahead of TSR2 by miles .The whole TSR-2 story is highly exaggerated nonsense and has little to do with reality . Only 4 prototypes were built and none of them achieved full operational capability as they had been experiencing serious technical problems ! and one crashed if I recall correctly .Everything about TSR-2 was on the paper most of them a compassion babble..
These TV documentaries about TSR2 are merely an emotional attachment that has long outlived its purposes. On the other hand, TSR.2 would have been a beast to maintain. Brits really didn’t worry much about maintainence when designing aircraft in those days. PM Harold Wilson clearly saw this when he cancelled the project .TSR2 was a project far above Britains pay grade in 1960's ..

General opinion after 40 years is that assuming everything worked, TSR.2 had better TFR and recon capability than F-111 not sure whose strike avionics was better, TSR.2’s would have been better slightly than the F-111A’s, but not as good as the D’s and definitely inferior to Fs.
Yes, everybody has big ideas ,the problem is to put them into practice. Americans,Germans and Japanese have always been a little bit more efficient than Brits as history shows.

merlin2
19 Nov 13,, 20:24
Type 45 destroyers are the most advanced destroyers to date. They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound.

No they are not..A destroyer that has no land attack capability,no credible ASW capabilty, no anti-ship capability can't be the most advanced destroyer in the world
Everything she has is 48 Aster air defence missiles, she is pretty much a single mission destroyer. Arleigh Burke flight III versions are equipped with the latest version of Standard missiles twice the range of Aster ! and they have 96 of them !!!!

blidgepump
20 Nov 13,, 05:00
hmmmm...."They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound."


I am not a weapons system guru... but when someone makes a statement announcing the opportunity to hit a cricket ball moving as 3x's SoS.... I can only think how many times in a row can that claim be successful. :rolleyes:

merlin2
20 Nov 13,, 18:49
hmmmm...."They're armed with Aster missiles which are capable of knocking down a cricket ball-sized object travelling at three times the speed of sound."


I am not a weapons system guru... but when someone makes a statement announcing the opportunity to hit a cricket ball moving as 3x's SoS.... I can only think how many times in a row can that claim be successful. :rolleyes:

Marketing rubbish of the BAE Systems trying to convince gullible British taxpayers that the price of 1 billion £ for each destroyer is justified ! I heard the same about the Astute class submarines equipped with sonars allegedly capable of detecting ships from 3000 miles away !!!! WOW in an ocean with millions of interferences ! Both projects have something in common, long delays and enourmous cost overruns ! familiar song to my ears.

desertswo
20 Nov 13,, 19:32
No they are not..A destroyer that has no land attack capability,no credible ASW capabilty, no anti-ship capability can't be the most advanced destroyer in the world
Everything she has is 48 Aster air defence missiles, she is pretty much a single mission destroyer. Arleigh Burke flight III versions are equipped with the latest version of Standard missiles twice the range of Aster ! and they have 96 of them !!!!

Thank you. I've made that very point on other websites. For the life of me, as great as Sampson and Aster are, and they are fine, I don't see the point of such a "one trick pony." I spent my adult life in the CRU-DES world, and even in the "double ender" cruiser in which I served we had a credible ASW and ASUW capability, including the Standard Missile which can be a very nasty piece of work in the surface mode. The T-45 seems like an awfully large hull to be so one dimensional.

Tin Man
19 Feb 14,, 23:48
The type 45 has good AA capability. How about anti-surface capability? A 4.5" gun, is all it has. Regretfully a 4.5" gun, is not tops when it comes to anti-ship tech. or firepower.

Harpoon block 1C will be fitted to four of the six Type 45 Destroyers and probably rotated, 2 of them will probably be in refit with 4 ships available. The embarked helicopter/s already carry Stingray torpedo`s as i understand.

Tin Man
20 Feb 14,, 12:24
Thank you. I've made that very point on other websites. For the life of me, as great as Sampson and Aster are, and they are fine, I don't see the point of such a "one trick pony." I spent my adult life in the CRU-DES world, and even in the "double ender" cruiser in which I served we had a credible ASW and ASUW capability, including the Standard Missile which can be a very nasty piece of work in the surface mode. The T-45 seems like an awfully large hull to be so one dimensional.

I think some understanding of what economic atmosphere the T-45 was born into is required here and the way British defence equipment procurement has become as a whole across all services.
Bottom line is we cannot afford as a nation or are unwilling as a nation to spend the vast sums required to commission a warship with every single piece of kit needed for multi purpose ops right from the start.

In any case the T-45 is not a multi purpose ship, that task will fall to the T-26 frigate as it falls to the small frigate force we have at present ie the T23. It boils down to a difference in budgets rather than a philosophy.
The T-45 has plenty of room to have additional capability bolted on during its lifetime such as Harpoon, CAMM which will increase the missile load when it can be quad packed into one vertical launch tube.
Sonar fit can be upgraded in the future if required but I dont see this happening.

T-45 Captains want to concentrate on AAW and not worry about ASW, the T-26 is there along with Astute to do that job but this thinking has been shaped by spending cuts rather than tactical thinking i admit and I do believe is flawed, what it means is that a T-45 dare not "go it alone" , an Arliegh Burke is equipped to do that and is a real multi purpose DDG.

A larger strike length vertical launcher such as Sylver A70 may be a possibility too to enable Scalp to be used but this is a wishlist item. At present the T-45 has the A-50 VLS and Scalp EG just wont fit as its too short. I have seen some studies on putting smaller (fewer tubes) VLS systems into other areas of the ship to accommodate Scalp for a land attack capability.

Basically we built what we could afford as of now, the ship will mature over time and may well turn into the ship the RN wanted from the start but couldnt afford.
The biggest flaw for me was NOT putting a strike length Mk 41 VLS on the ship, which is what the RN wanted in the first place but Westminister always knew this would push us forever into the US weapons reliance camp rather than a Euro centric one so it was political as it always is.

surfgun
20 Feb 14,, 13:58
I wonder if it was ever pondered, if the UK found itself in a"hot" war, where it thinks it will get its resupply of missiles? Would it be easier to obtain them from bits of kit scattered about Europe or from the US. One just has to let history to be ones guide.

Doktor
20 Feb 14,, 14:28
I wonder if it was ever pondered, if the UK found itself in a"hot" war, where it thinks it will get its resupply of missiles? Would it be easier to obtain them from bits of kit scattered about Europe or from the US. One just has to let history to be ones guide.

The general consensus within EU is that they are not under direct thread of a war on their own turf on the continent.
Don't take my word on this, just look at the defense budgets of EU countries vs their GDP.

Stitch
20 Feb 14,, 19:02
The general consensus within EU is that they are not under direct thread of a war on their own turf on the continent.
Don't take my word on this, just look at the defense budgets of EU countries vs their GDP.

IIRC, the defense budgets of most EU contries runs about 2-3% of GDP, whereas ours is about double that.

kato
20 Feb 14,, 19:40
EU combined it's 1.7% of GDP, while the US budget is 4.4% of GDP (2012 numbers).

There are only four members that consistently break the 2% barrier, and that's France, the UK, Greece and Estonia (all about 2.3-2.5%).

Doktor
20 Feb 14,, 20:00
To be fair, US took the same path, but switched after 2001, when they had record low @ 3%.

kato
20 Feb 14,, 20:03
Most (Western) European nations didn't go much beyond 3% during the Cold War either.

dundonrl
21 Feb 14,, 05:54
She does have an 8 Cyl Diesel for ships main generator and another 8 cyl for the emergency generator.(both rebuilt and running) The four main propulsion engines are GM 16 cyl 278As
But of course you know that US Navy engineers could create miracles when called upon. I can see them running power from whatever engine/generator the enemy fire didn't get to her propulsion motors! I think today's crews would have a hard time using ingenuity to keep a ship going as they did during the war!

I beg to differ.. US Navy Sailors today are VERY ingenious, look what they did with the USS Cole after the bomb attack.. IF they would have been able to keep the fuel going to the engines, she would have been operational after the attack.. also, in response to the Cole bombing, the design of the newer Burkes and retrofits to older ones (and other US Warships) basically have enough redundancy to keep fighting WITH a hole that size blown in her side.

desertswo
21 Feb 14,, 09:35
I beg to differ.. US Navy Sailors today are VERY ingenious, look what they did with the USS Cole after the bomb attack.. IF they would have been able to keep the fuel going to the engines, she would have been operational after the attack.. also, in response to the Cole bombing, the design of the newer Burkes and retrofits to older ones (and other US Warships) basically have enough redundancy to keep fighting WITH a hole that size blown in her side.

Uh, no. I was the guy who broke down the CASREP and plotted the battle damage on DDG-51 Damage Control plates for the Chairman back in October of 2000. You really have no clue what you are talking about. She wasn't going anywhere. I will agree that what that crew did to keep her afloat until help arrived was truly heroic, and I told the Chairman that very thing. I think what happened to her CO in the aftermath is nothing short of criminal. He's the reason she didn't sink. He willed her to stay afloat and kept his crew's heads in the game in a situation that most here cannot even begin to imagine, but operate? Nah, her back was broken, and the overhead of her engine room, which was also the deck of the mess decks above it, was blown nearly to the overhead of the mess decks. In other words, the mess decks went from being eight feet in height, to 18 inches in a fraction of a second, and pretty much all of those killed were standing in the chow line when that happened. I think you might be able to picture how gruesome that scene was.

blidgepump
21 Feb 14,, 14:43
Uh, no. I was the guy who broke down the CASREP and plotted the battle damage on DDG-51 Damage Control plates for the Chairman back in October of 2000. You really have no clue what you are talking about. She wasn't going anywhere. I will agree that what that crew did to keep her afloat until help arrived was truly heroic, and I told the Chairman that very thing. I think what happened to her CO in the aftermath is nothing short of criminal. He's the reason she didn't sink. He willed her to stay afloat and kept his crew's heads in the game in a situation that most here cannot even begin to imagine, but operate? Nah, her back was broken, and the overhead of her engine room, which was also the deck of the mess decks above it, was blown nearly to the overhead of the mess decks. In other words, the mess decks when from being eight feet in height, to 18 inches in a fraction of a second, and pretty much all of those killed were standing in the chow line when that happened. I think you might be able to picture how gruesome that scene was.


With a hole in the port side of the ship about 40 feet in diameter, killing 17 crewmembers and injuring 39 and a 9mm pistol in his hand Commander Kirk Lippold and his book "Front Burner" is a good read.

I have yet to be aware of any naval warship ( WWII battle damage specifically) that suffered a "broken back" that remained in action.
A ship may of been kept afloat using water tight compartments, cables and welding to slow the cracks in the plates from growing, battle damage control to keep electrical circuits operational ( weapons and pumps ) but to sustain and return to combat action.... I don't think there has been a ship ???? anyone? :confused:

85 gt kid
21 Feb 14,, 15:25
While trying to find ships with broken backs i came across this. Amazes me how stupid people can be sometimes. I only skimmed through it but what i read he was completely wrong about (like the fact that all our "modern" enemies are gonna use nuclear tipped missiles, torpedos, etc).

Edit: There is mention of the Cole a little over half way through the article.

http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

desertswo
21 Feb 14,, 15:55
While trying to find ships with broken backs i came across this. Amazes me how stupid people can be sometimes. I only skimmed through it but what i read he was completely wrong about (like the fact that all our "modern" enemies are gonna use nuclear tipped missiles, torpedos, etc).

Edit: There is mention of the Cole a little over half way through the article.

Came across what?

desertswo
21 Feb 14,, 15:57
With a hole in the port side of the ship about 40 feet in diameter, killing 17 crewmembers and injuring 39 and a 9mm pistol in his hand Commander Kirk Lippold and his book "Front Burner" is a good read.

I have yet to be aware of any naval warship ( WWII battle damage specifically) that suffered a "broken back" that remained in action.
A ship may of been kept afloat using water tight compartments, cables and welding to slow the cracks in the plates from growing, battle damage control to keep electrical circuits operational ( weapons and pumps ) but to sustain and return to combat action.... I don't think there has been a ship ???? anyone? :confused:

Not to my knowledge, and I used to own the school.

blidgepump
21 Feb 14,, 16:21
The tour on "The Sullivans" @ Buffalo noted "repairs to the hull at or just below the waterline".

It touched a "hot button" with the docent when I mentioned the rubber patches with stiffeners and a bolt holding the exterior and interior sides together.
He effortlessly when into a recital of "combat repairs". Obviously he was well drilled in responding no doubt as a result of USN training.

85 gt kid
21 Feb 14,, 17:46
Came across what?

Fixed it :rolleyes:

Tankersteve
25 Feb 14,, 01:40
The tour on "The Sullivans" @ Buffalo noted "repairs to the hull at or just below the waterline".

It touched a "hot button" with the docent when I mentioned the rubber patches with stiffeners and a bolt holding the exterior and interior sides together.
He effortlessly when into a recital of "combat repairs". Obviously he was well drilled in responding no doubt as a result of USN training.

Can you elaborate on what the photo is showing?

Tankersteve

zraver
25 Feb 14,, 02:49
Most (Western) European nations didn't go much beyond 3% during the Cold War either.

They didn't have to with te US footing the bill to fend off the Soviets. It let Europe rebuild from WWII and build its social democrat system.

ramakrishna
25 Feb 14,, 12:19
I believe DDG 1000 Zumwalt class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21) as the best and Advanced Warship World wide...

surfgun
28 Feb 14,, 01:08
With Corinthian Leather appointments, this is clearly the most advanced ship. The USS Cordoba.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HVELhUyLZGk

Bigfella
28 Feb 14,, 01:23
I believe DDG 1000 Zumwalt class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dd21) as the best and Advanced Warship World wide...

Only one quibble. Should have called it the 'Elmo Class'. Would have been so much cooler, and just think of the merchandizing!!!

DonBelt
28 Feb 14,, 03:16
The licensing fees to Sesame Street would have pushed the budget over the top, though and we'd have ended up with only 2 instead of 3.

YellowFever
28 Feb 14,, 05:49
But think of the possibilities.

We could name one of them "Big Bird" and if any country gets out of line, we can just say, "Send them the bird"

Bigfella
28 Feb 14,, 06:19
The licensing fees to Sesame Street would have pushed the budget over the top, though and we'd have ended up with only 2 instead of 3.

Sesame would give Kermit's right arm for a marketing partnership with the Pentagon. Can you imagine Miss Piggy on recruiting posters? Sam the Eagle as new mascot for the 101st Airborne? B-52 being re-named 'Big Birds'. Sesame would cut in the DoD for a slice of the profits to get access to that sort of free advertising & distribution.

DonBelt
28 Feb 14,, 06:48
You might have a point there - Big Bird is much better marketing wise than Big Ugly Fat F--ker for the B-52's. But who would Animal represent?

Bigfella
28 Feb 14,, 06:59
You might have a point there - Big Bird is much better marketing wise than Big Ugly Fat F--ker for the B-52's. But who would Animal represent?

Could be an issue there. Army would say Marines, Marines would say Army. Awkward.

Alternatively, the M270 MRLS isn't nearly as sexy a name as Animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270)

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 15:33
Alternatively, the M270 MRLS isn't nearly as sexy a name as Animal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M270)

Lets just keep the nickname "Steel Rain"

blidgepump
28 Feb 14,, 16:36
Lets just keep the nickname "Steel Rain"

Agreed, the moniker fits well! ;)

Gun Grape
28 Feb 14,, 22:25
But think of the possibilities.

We could name one of them "Big Bird" and if any country gets out of line, we can just say, "Send them the bird"

Should name one the Kraken.

Then when any country gets out of line, The President can come on TV and command

"Release the Kraken!!!!"

ramakrishna
04 Mar 14,, 07:46
2013- An another remarkable year in World Navy, Technology has gone peaks many changes has been made some innovative concepts came live in this year , game changing naval craft, UAS, weapons and other hardware came of age in 2013 as several exciting new technologies were either launched or achieved significant milestones.

Check the TOP NAVAL MILESTONES OF 2013 (http://www.naval-technology.com/features/feature2013-this-years-biggest-navy-stories-4155635/)