Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CVF Construction

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Liger30
    Armed Forces supporter
    • Jul 2010
    • 901

    Originally posted by Witcha View Post
    The APS-784 has been has a quoted range 150-200km for missile detection(and probably far more for aircraft). I don't see why it wouldn't qualify. And if the Lockheed Martin proposal is willing to incorporate the Cereberus I don't see why the HEW team wouldn't.
    HEW team never even tried to offer its solution, and it probably won't do it.
    The APS-784 has been produced again after the ones made for the italian order? Probably not.
    The RN is historically a Searchwater radar user, and it makes sense since a similar variant of the Searchwater is also the radar of the Nimrod MR4.

    Other than this, i can just say: go and tell your idea to the Royal Navy or to the radar makers so they make their proposal, because for now, an APS-784 solution for the RN simply isn't considered, nor even offered.
    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

    Comment

    • Witcha
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Jun 2010
      • 1241

      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
      HEW team never even tried to offer its solution, and it probably won't do it.
      The APS-784 has been produced again after the ones made for the italian order? Probably not.
      The RN is historically a Searchwater radar user, and it makes sense since a similar variant of the Searchwater is also the radar of the Nimrod MR4.

      Other than this, i can just say: go and tell your idea to the Royal Navy or to the radar makers so they make their proposal, because for now, an APS-784 solution for the RN simply isn't considered, nor even offered.
      We're not just debating tenders and proposals on these forums, we also discuss existing and hypothetical alternatives. There are people here talking about UCAVs and fixed-wing AEW platforms that neither exist nor are being considered and yet you have to maintain that annoyed attitude towards me alone. It doesn't matter whether or not it was considered; I was pointing to the fact that the HEW is a viable solution given the current MASC goals.

      The RN was quite interested to quite willing to ditch the Searchwater and consider a phased array radome system on the Osprey before dropping the idea of a new fixed-wing AEWC platform. Just because they've used only one system till now doesn't mean they only want to replace it with the same And the Lockheed AESA isn't the Searchwater, either.

      Comment

      • Liger30
        Armed Forces supporter
        • Jul 2010
        • 901

        Originally posted by Witcha View Post
        We're not just debating tenders and proposals on these forums, we also discuss existing and hypothetical alternatives. There are people here talking about UCAVs and fixed-wing AEW platforms that neither exist nor are being considered and yet you have to maintain that annoyed attitude towards me alone. It doesn't matter whether or not it was considered; I was pointing to the fact that the HEW is a viable solution given the current MASC goals.

        The RN was quite interested to quite willing to ditch the Searchwater and consider a phased array radome system on the Osprey before dropping the idea of a new fixed-wing AEWC platform. Just because they've used only one system till now doesn't mean they only want to replace it with the same And the Lockheed AESA isn't the Searchwater, either.
        Of course it is a potentially viable alternative. A proven one in its way, too, since Italy has been using for a few years already.
        On the RN willing to ditch searchwater, i doubt it though. The last AEW V22 that was offered still used Searchwater, merely coupling Cerberus with the advantages of a VTOL platform capable to fly on greater distances and, even more important, higher altitude for better detection range.
        Lockheed is not Searchwater-based indeed, no. But it is also the tender less likely to be picked up, the most risky, and admittedly the most innovative in its way, since it is totally different from what we have seen so far. Interesting concept, but i doubt the RN will want to pursue such a path, especially in times of cruel budget constraints.

        As to the attitude, it wasn't my intention having any attitude, but i was pointing out facts. I apologize if i did sound rude.
        Last edited by Liger30; 22nd July 2010, 18:11.
        "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

        Comment

        • Witcha
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Jun 2010
          • 1241

          Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
          Of course it is a potentially viable alternative. A proven one in its way, too, since Italy has been using for a few years already.
          On the RN willing to ditch searchwater, i doubt it though. The last AEW V22 that was offered still used Searchwater, merely coupling Cerberus with the advantages of a VTOL platform capable to fly on greater distances and, even more important, higher altitude for better detection range.
          Lokheed is not AESA indeed, no. But it is also the tender less likely to be picked up, the most risky, and admittedly the most innovative in its way, since it is totally different from what we have seen so far.

          As to the attitude, it wasn't my intention having any attitude, but i was pointing out facts. I apologize if i did sound rude.
          Apology accepted, in this case at least.

          About the AESA, I remember seeing at least one V22 concept that had a triangular radome over the fuselage, presumably a fixed phased array radar. Also given the larger size and capacity of the V22 it could accomodate something much bigger than Searchwater.

          As for Lockheed's plan,
          ...

          The two potential bidders for the project, known as Crows Nest, are proposing radically different solutions.

          The Thales/AgustaWestland team is offering to use the existing Searchwater 2000 radar and Cerberus mission control system from the Sea King in what it calls a low-cost, low-risk solution to provide the airborne surveillance and control capability for the new Queen Elizabeth carriers when the first of two warships enter service in 2016.

          ...

          Industry executives at the show said the company is looking at using a Northrop Grumman AESA radar adapted from a fighter application.

          Under the Lockheed plan, several radar arrays are believed to be dotted around the Merlin fuselage to give the 360-degree coverage demanded by the RN.
          From the above link.

          Comment

          • Liger30
            Armed Forces supporter
            • Jul 2010
            • 901

            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
            Apology accepted, in this case at least.

            About the AESA, I remember seeing at least one V22 concept that had a triangular radome over the fuselage, presumably a fixed phased array radar. Also given the larger size and capacity of the V22 it could accomodate something much bigger than Searchwater.

            As for Lockheed's plan,


            From the above link.
            Correct, there were concept arts of a top-mounted triangle radome with an undisclosed radar type, possibly derivated from the Hawkeye's system.

            And as to the Lockheed matter, i did write an idiocy in my precedent post: i wanted to write that it is not Searchwater, and instead i wrote what i wrote. I read about their particular offer, i even was the one to post the link to the article. I just had a lapsus writing my last comment. I'll edit it now.
            "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

            Comment

            • harryRIEDL
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jan 2006
              • 375

              Originally posted by Witcha View Post
              Apology accepted, in this case at least.

              About the AESA, I remember seeing at least one V22 concept that had a triangular radome over the fuselage, presumably a fixed phased array radar. Also given the larger size and capacity of the V22 it could accomodate something much bigger than Searchwater.

              As for Lockheed's plan,


              From the above link.
              The Lockmart AEW seems quite risky as im curious how are they going to deal with disruption to the picture by the rotors with a 360 AESA system
              To Be or not TO be That is The Question you all should know the writer of that quote

              always look on the bright side of life monty python

              Comment

              • Bager1968
                Rank 5 Registered User
                • May 2005
                • 3635

                To recap from earlier posts, etc... the HM1 has no rear ramp, the aft fuselage is quite different, and would need to be replaced to allow the proposed palletised system to be fitted.

                The HM1 (and its upgrade, HM2) are NOT "utility variants"... they are specialized ASW variants! The "utility variants" all have the ramp!

                Note the following:

                HM1 Merlin: [A visit, board, search and seizure team from the Royal Navy frigate HMS Monmouth (F235) performs a fast-rope insertion on the flight deck of the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) via Monmouths AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin HM1 helicopter from 829 Naval Air Squadron while at sea on 8 September 2007.]




                HC3 Merlins have the ramp.




                Just a slight difference... the entire airframe aft of the main-wheel sponsons.


                Here is the proposed system:



                Last edited by Bager1968; 23rd July 2010, 22:33.
                Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                Comment

                • Bager1968
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • May 2005
                  • 3635

                  Originally posted by harryRIEDL View Post
                  The Lockmart AEW seems quite risky as im curious how are they going to deal with disruption to the picture by the rotors with a 360 AESA system
                  The same way that radars have screened out reflections from close objects since at least the 1960s (if not earlier).

                  A little circuit called a "time-gate"... which rejects signals that return too quickly, indicating the came from an object very close to the transmitter/receiver antenna.

                  Besides, with the antenna fitted on the fuselage, the rotors won't be in the way, as they will be on a flat plane above the radar panels.

                  "360 degrees" refers to the horizontal plane... not to directly above or below the helicopter.
                  Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                  Comment

                  • Grim901
                    Rank 5 Registered User
                    • May 2009
                    • 1143

                    Based on the concept picture of the Merlin ASAC it is definitely a Utility variant, so not the spare HM1's. I doubt they could easily alter the back end so radically.

                    There also appears to be differences further forward on the fuselage, an extra window for example.

                    The Searchwater in its proposed postion should give 360 degree coverage anyway, so what exactly is the point in going for the LockMart idea?

                    Comment

                    • Bager1968
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • May 2005
                      • 3635

                      Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                      There also appears to be differences further forward on the fuselage, an extra window for example.

                      The Searchwater in its proposed postion should give 360 degree coverage anyway, so what exactly is the point in going for the LockMart idea?
                      Window number & placement seem to be up to customer specification... the fuselage is designed so that each location can be either skinned or fitted with a window. Note the difference in window numbers on the starboard side of the HC.3 and the concept drawings.


                      The main justification for the Lockheed proposal is to re-use the HM1 airframes... however that is likely to be the most expensive option, given the likely development & integration costs.

                      Second-most expensive would be new "utility variant" airframes to keep numbers up, while transferring Searchwater/Cerberus from the Sea King ASaC.7s to the palletized Merlin variant.

                      Cheapest would be to just use the existing HC.3s, and accept the reduction in numbers available for troop/cargo use. This is, unfortunately, the most likely choice.
                      Germany, Austria and Italy are standing together in the middle of the pub, when Serbia bumps into Austria, and spills Austria's pint.

                      Comment

                      • Witcha
                        Rank 5 Registered User
                        • Jun 2010
                        • 1241

                        Originally posted by Grim901 View Post
                        The Searchwater in its proposed postion should give 360 degree coverage anyway, so what exactly is the point in going for the LockMart idea?
                        Unless I'm mistaken the Searchwater has a conventional mechanically scanned antenna that rotates for a 360 deg scan. In comparison the LockMart AESA would give constant all-round coverage with no down time between 'refreshing' 360 deg scans. Aside from the inherent advantages of electronically steered radars it be better equipped to deal with, something like supersonic AshMs coming from multiple directions.

                        Comment

                        • Liger30
                          Armed Forces supporter
                          • Jul 2010
                          • 901

                          Originally posted by Bager1968 View Post
                          To recap from earlier posts, etc... the HM1 has no rear ramp, the aft fuselage is quite different, and would need to be replaced to allow the proposed palletised system to be fitted.

                          The HM1 (and its upgrade, HM2) are NOT "utility variants"... they are specialized ASW variants! The "utility variants" all have the ramp!

                          Note the following:

                          HM1 Merlin: [A visit, board, search and seizure team from the Royal Navy frigate HMS Monmouth (F235) performs a fast-rope insertion on the flight deck of the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) via Monmouths AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin HM1 helicopter from 829 Naval Air Squadron while at sea on 8 September 2007.]




                          HC3 Merlins have the ramp.




                          Just a slight difference... the entire airframe aft of the main-wheel sponsons.


                          Here is the proposed system:



                          I wouldn't rule out the use of HM1 airframes anyway. I know very well the differences, but still, if Westland says it will "marinize" HC3 with a folding tail, i don't see why the HM1 couldn't be fitted with a rear ramp instead. Or better, have their tail section modified to allow the space to embark the pallet and deploy/stowe the radar dome. If you notice, the ramp in AEW version is removed anyway, so it may be feasible to disembark the sonar of the HM1 and modify the tail to open the space needed.
                          Mounting that on HC3 would require the ramp to be removed. It is not the ramp that matters, but the rear door.

                          I'm hoping that, anyway, the RN will be wise enough to push either for the re-use of HM1, or for a new buy, and that they will be smart enough to accept the Service's points for once.
                          28 airframes are truly too few to cover training and two operative roles as well: the Commandos would be left without an helicopter mobility.
                          Last edited by Liger30; 23rd July 2010, 07:29.
                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                          Comment

                          • StevoJH
                            Rank 5 Registered User
                            • Jun 2008
                            • 1024

                            Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                            Unless I'm mistaken the Searchwater has a conventional mechanically scanned antenna that rotates for a 360 deg scan. In comparison the LockMart AESA would give constant all-round coverage with no down time between 'refreshing' 360 deg scans. Aside from the inherent advantages of electronically steered radars it be better equipped to deal with, something like supersonic AshMs coming from multiple directions.
                            Possibly. But cost and the power requirements of an AESA radar will be key issues.
                            Can't wait to join the 'real' world. Hopefully only one week to go....

                            Comment

                            • Portagee
                              Rank 5 Registered User
                              • Nov 2007
                              • 598

                              Just a thought regarding the use of the HM1, would it not be possible to insert a permanent/beef up the existing vertical bulkhead on a line with the rear of the Sponsons on which the Searchwater system would be mounted, with the rear fuse reworked to wrap around into a more simple fairing that would keep the radar out of the worst of the slipstream whilst in the stowed position. In much the same way as the sides of the rampless HC3 would.

                              Obviously I know nothing about centre of gravity or aircraft design to make such a proposal, but from the cut away in Badger1968's post it appears that the crew stations are set forward perhaps to counteract the weight of the radar and it's kit when in the palletised form. With a permanent bulkhead the crew station might work better being against that bulkhead and still leave what appears to be a reasonable usable space at the side door for a secondary role.
                              Last edited by Portagee; 25th July 2010, 20:25.

                              Comment

                              • Stan hyd
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • May 2009
                                • 605

                                such a terrible compromise - hate it.

                                Comment

                                • Jonesy
                                  Neo-conversative
                                  • Jan 2000
                                  • 5097

                                  Originally posted by Stan hyd View Post
                                  such a terrible compromise - hate it.
                                  Why?.

                                  There is absolutely no pressing need to embark an E-2 on a CVF because, as frequently stated, we aren't going to be doing bluewater sea control. For littoral ops you want persistence on station and distributed coverage and that is no more Hawkeye than it is Merlin ASaC.

                                  What is needed is a flight of navalised Mantis UAV's providing flexible forward ISTAR, radar picket, SIGINT and commo relay linked back to an offboard C2 node. If you can place that offboard node on a chopper then any amphib or auxilliary able to operate Merlin can take over the role of C4I hub. An inherently flexible and attractive capability as it means that the area battlespace surveillance capability can be seperated from the carrier, save for the use of the flight deck for the actual long-cycle UAV ops.

                                  Comment

                                  • Liger30
                                    Armed Forces supporter
                                    • Jul 2010
                                    • 901

                                    Meanwhile, this is a new interview with Liam Fox where he very wisely points out that Britain is still surrounded by sea and needs the Royal Navy. http://www.defensenews.com/story.php...16&c=FEA&s=INT

                                    It is the bits about "cold war legacy systems" that scares me, as always.

                                    Besides, the Financial Times online has been reporting that in past saturday's meeting to shape up the cuts to the Armed Forces, the RN was reportedly being cornered into either losing one of the carriers or losing its amphibious ships and hand control of the Marines to the army.
                                    Potentially two of the most demented moves ever proposed in history, if not the absolute worst of all. I'm hoping that Liam Fox or whoever saw the idiocy of this army-driven position.

                                    The generals of the army lately have been more than disappointing, i must say. They are the ones that, with the excuse of Afghanistan and "boots on the ground" are asking the other services to sacrifice vital capabilities and leave the nation nearly incapable to project any power at all outside its coasts.
                                    The amphibious capability must stay in place, and the carriers as well, otherwise everything loses sense.

                                    Unfortunately, the press had a lot to say before the meeting actually happened, and now i can't find any rumor about what was said in the discussion. If someone hears something more, please share!
                                    "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                    Comment

                                    • Stryker73
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Jun 2010
                                      • 274

                                      Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                                      Besides, the Financial Times online has been reporting that in past saturday's meeting to shape up the cuts to the Armed Forces, the RN was reportedly being cornered into either losing one of the carriers or losing its amphibious ships and hand control of the Marines to the army.
                                      Being discussed in the Defence Review thread. And I think you mean the Telegraph as I can't find it reported anywhere else in the FT

                                      All options however remote the chance of the MoD agreeing to them, are on the table and are being reported as though everything WILL happen. The article even quoted that the 6 Type 45's could be under threat! No direct quotes from anyone and has not to my knowledge appeared in any other paper.

                                      Though accquiring CVF and then losing amphib capability is so self defeating it sounds like something defence planners would do!

                                      Anyway, a bit of real 'CVF Construction' news for the thread, Cammell Laird will begin the work on the flight deck and hangars today
                                      http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-26930251/
                                      Last edited by Stryker73; 26th July 2010, 09:41.

                                      Comment

                                      • kev 99
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2008
                                        • 1535

                                        Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                                        Though accquiring CVF and then losing amphib capability is so self defeating it sounds like something defence planners would do!
                                        It does sound like a particularly stupid idea.

                                        Comment

                                        • Liger30
                                          Armed Forces supporter
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 901

                                          Originally posted by Stryker73 View Post
                                          Being discussed in the Defence Review thread. And I think you mean the Telegraph as I can't find it reported anywhere else in the FT

                                          All options however remote the chance of the MoD agreeing to them, are on the table and are being reported as though everything WILL happen. The article even quoted that the 6 Type 45's could be under threat! No direct quotes from anyone and has not to my knowledge appeared in any other paper.

                                          Though accquiring CVF and then losing amphib capability is so self defeating it sounds like something defence planners would do!

                                          Anyway, a bit of real 'CVF Construction' news for the thread, Cammell Laird will begin the work on the flight deck and hangars today
                                          http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/...2534-26930251/
                                          Unfortunately, the Financial Times reported it even before the Thelegraph: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2b00b9cc-9...44feab49a.html, and the FT was awfully right about ASCOD's victory in FRES SV.

                                          I'd like to be able to be as optimist as you seem to be overall, but i've got the chills instead. It is a totally demented idea, but this is not enough to ensure it is not forced upon the navy.

                                          As to the Type 45, i think they are relatively safe because they are by now pretty much there and i doubt there would be a nation ready to buy any of them.
                                          But they awfully seem to be the ships that Fox called cold-war relics too high tech and single-task specific, which was bad on his part and made little sense as statement, but was indicative of a very low apprecciation of the Daring class in the ministry.

                                          It was a stupid statement, also because, actually, the Type 45 would be the most excellent of the multimission vessels if it was completed with the many "fitted for but not with".

                                          But you know, i got the feeling that if Saudi Arabia was to make a good offer for two of them, i fear the ministry may even accept, regardless of the RN cries.

                                          I hope i'm totally wrong... but i still worry a lot for October 20.
                                          "It is upon the navy under the providence of God that the safety, honour and welfare of this realm do chiefly attend." - King Charles II

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X