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
  • radar
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Apr 2005
    • 216

    artisan 3d is compareable to its competitors smart-s mk2, trs-3d and el/m-2238. it might use some sampson technology for signal processing or something else but it can't be compared to sampson. sampson is an aesa and a real mfr. it's much more capable than artisan 3d.

    Comment

    • flanker30
      Rank 5 Registered User
      • Sep 2009
      • 517

      Anyone know if the favourite aircraft of the Chief of the Defence Staff - the Super Tucano - could land and take-off on the CVF?

      Comment

      • Trident
        Rank 5 Registered User
        • May 2004
        • 3970

        Originally posted by Geoff_B View Post
        Whip Aerials for the radio system, they are stored in the verticle position but drop to horizontal for flight deck ops.

        They are no longer on the current design as those comms systems not using satalite systems will have any aerials on the island.
        I was going to suggest fishing rods On a more serious note, I've wondered about those for a long time myself, so thanks for clearing that up! They are practically ubiquitous on aircraft carriers, even the Kuznetsov has them.
        sigpic

        Comment

        • Liger30
          Armed Forces supporter
          • Jul 2010
          • 901

          Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
          Anyone know if the favourite aircraft of the Chief of the Defence Staff - the Super Tucano - could land and take-off on the CVF?
          Most likely, no. I'm pretty sure they couldn't. And anyway, i'm surprised that a proposal to arm Tucano planes was considered serious enough for the UK to stay in the air so long. Personally, i think it is... totally absurd a proposal for a whole series of reasons.

          1) The RAF has Tucano planes, but they are used for training and i doubt they could be used for any other role, so NEW Tucano would have to be bought.
          2) The RAF Tucanos have no weapons capability, nor any credible self-protection electronic suite. Even to fight guerrilla, a Tucano would need to be integrated with weaponry, from Paveway IV to Brimstone to rocket and gun pods, and armed with sensors that allow the usage of this weaponry. All this would have to obviously be paid for, and a series of electronic countermeasures would also need to be added onto the planes.

          Result is: buy new planes, integrate weaponry and defenses, and run a "Counterinsurgency" air squadron. Savings over using Tornado and Harrier already available? None, in the short term. To be precise, money (a lot of it) would have to be spent creating this capability.
          Same thing would happen using the Hawk or any other "unexpensive" platform.
          The hope is to realize "savings" on fuel and running costs.

          The most concrete result, anyway, is that there would be even less money to spend on actual planes like the F35, which will be able to do anything from High-Intensity Warfare to Counterinsurgency work.
          While the Tucano would be a flying coffin if used against any sort of even weak air defence system and thus is good just for Afghanistan (and not without serious risks either).

          And anyway, arguably, the best platform to support from the air an operation like Afghanistan would be a bunch of AC130 Spectre working together in a network with a number of Fire Shadow loitering ammunitions and possibly other drones like Predators.
          That would offer:
          A) Endurance on the field to ensure the lads on the ground are covered constantly, true 24/24 hours, 7/7 days.
          B) Intelligence and overhead observation of the battlefield
          C) Selective precision effect against a range of targets, with the ability to go from pin-point accuracy strikes in villages to a potentially devastating barrage of fire to quickly erase any serious resistance or moving group of enemies.
          "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

          • nocutstoRAF
            Rank 5 Registered User
            • May 2010
            • 954

            IF they go down the route of turbo prop carrier based COIN aircraft then I have always been partial to the idea of new version of the Skyraider (or the Skyshark) with modern avionics and a new engine. Sure it would be costly to develop but at least you be flying something with a proven track record in COIN.

            Obviously the draw back of turbo-prop planes is there lack of speed - so no dash ability and harder to escape MANPADS
            If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

            Comment

            • Witcha
              Rank 5 Registered User
              • Jun 2010
              • 1241

              Originally posted by radar View Post
              artisan 3d is compareable to its competitors smart-s mk2, trs-3d and el/m-2238. it might use some sampson technology for signal processing or something else but it can't be compared to sampson. sampson is an aesa and a real mfr. it's much more capable than artisan 3d.
              Actually ARTISAN is also an AESA. Having inherited technology from the Commander radar set it has more operating modes than the Sampson(air traffic control and so on). The area where it falls short of Sampson is probably basic operating characterisitcs: range, no. of targets, target tracking capability etc. In any case it's (reportedly) quite a bit cheaper than Sampson, and it still has the ability to track supersonic AshMs at 25km or so(hence being coupled with the CAMM SHORAD system).

              Comment

              • Liger30
                Armed Forces supporter
                • Jul 2010
                • 901

                Originally posted by Witcha View Post
                Actually ARTISAN is also an AESA. Having inherited technology from the Commander radar set it has more operating modes than the Sampson(air traffic control and so on). The area where it falls short of Sampson is probably basic operating characterisitcs: range, no. of targets, target tracking capability etc. In any case it's (reportedly) quite a bit cheaper than Sampson, and it still has the ability to track supersonic AshMs at 25km or so(hence being coupled with the CAMM SHORAD system).
                It is incomparably cheaper than Sampson, but also has far, far less range. For what i heard, the Artisan is anyway a close relative to the Sampson: the aerial of the Artisan is a "sized down" Sampson aerial.
                The Sampson, however, has 2 aerials facing opposite directions, and larger ones, giving an obviously massively enhanced capability.
                The Artisan 3D is a good radar, anyway. My only doubt is about the range... a bit too limited to act as main sensor for the Type 23 and for the future frigates. For the CVF, however, it seems pretty perfect since it is in couple anyway with the radar for Long Range search sitting atop the other island.
                "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

                • flanker30
                  Rank 5 Registered User
                  • Sep 2009
                  • 517

                  Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                  Most likely, no. I'm pretty sure they couldn't. And anyway, i'm surprised that a proposal to arm Tucano planes was considered serious enough for the UK to stay in the air so long. Personally, i think it is... totally absurd a proposal for a whole series of reasons.

                  1) The RAF has Tucano planes, but they are used for training and i doubt they could be used for any other role, so NEW Tucano would have to be bought.
                  2) The RAF Tucanos have no weapons capability, nor any credible self-protection electronic suite. Even to fight guerrilla, a Tucano would need to be integrated with weaponry, from Paveway IV to Brimstone to rocket and gun pods, and armed with sensors that allow the usage of this weaponry. All this would have to obviously be paid for, and a series of electronic countermeasures would also need to be added onto the planes.

                  Result is: buy new planes, integrate weaponry and defenses, and run a "Counterinsurgency" air squadron. Savings over using Tornado and Harrier already available? None, in the short term. To be precise, money (a lot of it) would have to be spent creating this capability.
                  Same thing would happen using the Hawk or any other "unexpensive" platform.
                  The hope is to realize "savings" on fuel and running costs.

                  The most concrete result, anyway, is that there would be even less money to spend on actual planes like the F35, which will be able to do anything from High-Intensity Warfare to Counterinsurgency work.
                  While the Tucano would be a flying coffin if used against any sort of even weak air defence system and thus is good just for Afghanistan (and not without serious risks either).


                  It's the Super Tucano the General was talking about, not the earlier Tucano trainer used by the RAF. The Super Tucano has been evaluated recently by the US Navy as a COIN aircraft to support Special Forces, under the 'Imminent Fury' programme; they seem to be very happy with it. It flies almost as fast as the A-10, which as we all know, has been extremely popular and successful in Afghanistan.

                  Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
                  ....And anyway, arguably, the best platform to support from the air an operation like Afghanistan would be a bunch of AC130 Spectre working together in a network with a number of Fire Shadow loitering ammunitions and possibly other drones like Predators.
                  That would offer:
                  A) Endurance on the field to ensure the lads on the ground are covered constantly, true 24/24 hours, 7/7 days.
                  B) Intelligence and overhead observation of the battlefield
                  C) Selective precision effect against a range of targets, with the ability to go from pin-point accuracy strikes in villages to a potentially devastating barrage of fire to quickly erase any serious resistance or moving group of enemies.
                  Not sure, but I think the AC-130 is limited to night ops only, because it's too vulnerable in daytime.

                  Comment

                  • Liger30
                    Armed Forces supporter
                    • Jul 2010
                    • 901

                    It's the Super Tucano the General was talking about
                    Correct, but i'm pretty sure the Tucano could possibly be armed, even if lightly.

                    That's not the point anyway. The point that keeps standing is that the proposal inexorably requires a new buy of new planes. New integration work for weaponry. A new squadron to found and sustain. Be it Super Tucano, Skyraider or even the old enemy Pucara (which would offer the advantage of the TWO engines, always welcome when they fire on you), there would be a quite large sum to money that would have to be splashed out to create a very single-task unit.

                    End result: NO savings at all. Actually, it would be added costs.

                    Only the USA have enough money in their defence budget to seriously consider a fleet for all roles of warfare and point to obtain such long-term savings. The UK must do with its little fleets, and have few of them, because each different fleet is a different sustainment, training and support cost. It is essential that its planes can cover as many roles as possible.

                    As to the AC-130 being vulnerable in day-time, i can agree to a point. It certainly is easy to spot in daylight. But i don't think it would be so much more vulnerable than choppers flying in and out, and it wouldn't be any more vulnerable than the Super Tucano.
                    Most serious threat being MANPADS, and the Spectre is well equipped with adequate countermeasures.
                    "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

                    • radar
                      Rank 5 Registered User
                      • Apr 2005
                      • 216

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

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

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

                      Comment

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        Why would anyone think Artisan is a full PESA or AESA?. The ships its being fitted to have no need of an expensive MFR set do they?. So why would they be fitted with one?.

                        The name of the set even gives this one away - ARTISAN-3D. Its a mechanical azimuth electronic elevation 3D search/track set with TI capability!. The pull through from MESA as I understand it is in the processing and is significant!.

                        Comment

                        • Hawkeye
                          Rank 4 Registered User
                          • Dec 2009
                          • 70

                          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11274060

                          12 September 2010 Last updated at 00:52

                          Figures reveal cost of new aircraft carriers decision
                          Computer generated image of aircraft carrier The new Royal Navy aircraft carriers are expected to cost 5bn

                          Contracts worth about 1.25bn have been awarded for building two aircraft carriers even though the project may not go ahead, figures have revealed.

                          The figures came in answer to a parliamentary question by a Labour MP.

                          It emerged on Wednesday that the 5bn project to build HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales on the Clyde, at Rosyth in Fife, in Appledore, Devon, and Portsmouth could be under threat.

                          The Ministry of Defence is under pressure to cut its budget by a fifth.

                          The figures - which were obtained by Thomas Docherty, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife - show that more than 100 contracts have already been awarded to companies across the UK.

                          Mr Docherty, who represents the Rosyth dockyard, said: "These figures highlight that the carrier contracts don't just affect thousands of jobs here in Rosyth and on the Clyde or indeed just across Scotland, but in fact across the whole of the United Kingdom.

                          "To rip up these contracts worth millions at this stage would not only be financial madness, but political suicide and I hope the coalition government sees sense."
                          'Uncertain world'

                          Shadow Scottish secretary Jim Murphy, also Labour MP for East Renfrewshire, said cancelling the contracts would not only "sink the prospects of thousands of families across the UK" but result in the loss of technical skills "that are so vital for this country".

                          "In an uncertain world, we need the flexibility the carriers offer to project our naval and military power around the world," he said.

                          The new figures were released as Labour's team in Govan launched a petition - organised by MSP candidate Stephen Curran and Ian Davidson, Labour MP for Glasgow South West - calling on the Ministry Of Defence to end speculation around the carriers.

                          On Wednesday, BAE systems chief executive Sir Ian King told the Defence Select Committee in the Commons the company had been asked to consider a number of options ranging from "one carrier to no carriers".

                          Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon is due to meet members of the opposition parties in Edinburgh on Sunday to discuss a joint submission to the UK Strategic Defence and Security Review, to protect defence jobs and skills in Scotland.

                          First Minister Alex Salmond had written to Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives on Friday inviting them to a meeting to make a joint submission.

                          HMS Queen Elizabeth and HMS Prince of Wales are due to launch in 2016 and 2018 respectively.

                          Defence Secretary Dr Liam Fox is expected to make an announcement about the defence spending review, which is currently under way, at the end of October.

                          Comment

                          • Guest's Avatar
                            Guest

                            1.25 billion - roughly what I thought it was previous to reading that.

                            HMS Queen Elizabeth II won't be cancelled. The question is what will happen to PoW, assuming it could contractually be cancelled without massive penalties. I think it's more likely it would be built but, if the Treasury wanted its pound of flesh, mothballed or otherwise kept off full duties for some time.

                            Comment

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

                              Originally posted by Musashi View Post
                              1.25 billion - roughly what I thought it was previous to reading that.

                              HMS Queen Elizabeth II won't be cancelled. The question is what will happen to PoW, assuming it could contractually be cancelled without massive penalties. I think it's more likely it would be built but, if the Treasury wanted its pound of flesh, mothballed or otherwise kept off full duties for some time.
                              Bair in mind that a hefty chunk of that 1.25b in contracts will be for PoW as well, all contracts for have been placed for 2 ships.

                              Comment

                              • Obi Wan Russell
                                Rank 5 Registered User
                                • Oct 2006
                                • 522

                                It's not called HMS Queen Elizabeth II, the first ship of the class will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth. The QE2 was a liner, and she is still afloat out in the gulf as a floating hotel. So many seem to have missed the point that the contract for the carriers is a single primary contract for two ships, not two separate contracts. The contracts took several years to iron out, and as they are the only thing keeping the British warship building industry afloat for the next few years bridging the gap between the end of the T45 program and the beginning of the T26 (still at least four years away from main gate), cancellation of any part of the contract puts the UK out of the warship building business permanently. Right now, the cheapest option is to just go ahead and build them, and the bulk of the costs of POW will occur once we have climbed out of the financial crisis. We are not bankrupt, we just put our money into the banks, and we will get it back around 2015. POW isn't due in service until 2018... coincidentally, the next general election is due around 2015 and if the economy is still in such a bad shape the ConDems will be out on their ears. Expect some financial miracles to occur in 2014 at the latest...
                                "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

                                Comment

                                • Orion
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Jun 2009
                                  • 707

                                  Originally posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
                                  It's not called HMS Queen Elizabeth II, the first ship of the class will be called HMS Queen Elizabeth. The QE2 was a liner, and she is still afloat out in the gulf as a floating hotel. So many seem to have missed the point that the contract for the carriers is a single primary contract for two ships, not two separate contracts. The contracts took several years to iron out, and as they are the only thing keeping the British warship building industry afloat for the next few years bridging the gap between the end of the T45 program and the beginning of the T26 (still at least four years away from main gate), cancellation of any part of the contract puts the UK out of the warship building business permanently. Right now, the cheapest option is to just go ahead and build them, and the bulk of the costs of POW will occur once we have climbed out of the financial crisis. We are not bankrupt, we just put our money into the banks, and we will get it back around 2015. POW isn't due in service until 2018... coincidentally, the next general election is due around 2015 and if the economy is still in such a bad shape the ConDems will be out on their ears. Expect some financial miracles to occur in 2014 at the latest...
                                  A better analysis than most!

                                  Regards
                                  David Mylchreest
                                  Steam and Model Railway videos http://www.youtube.com/user/PenrithBeacon
                                  Aviation videos http://www.youtube.com/user/austerfive

                                  Comment

                                  • benroethig
                                    Rank 5 Registered User
                                    • Aug 2010
                                    • 487

                                    Originally posted by flanker30 View Post
                                    Anyone know if the favourite aircraft of the Chief of the Defence Staff - the Super Tucano - could land and take-off on the CVF?
                                    in a CATOBAR configuration with some reinforcement it should no problem at all. OV-10s used to operate from LHA/Ds though landing was tricky on the narrow LHDs. My issue would be with the prop hitting the ski-jump in a STOVL configuration.

                                    Comment

                                    • nocutstoRAF
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • May 2010
                                      • 954

                                      Originally posted by Obi Wan Russell View Post
                                      ...cancellation of any part of the contract puts the UK out of the warship building business permanently.
                                      Could the scenario be to build QE then keep the yards busy with MARS instead of PoW?

                                      Also, in the Torygraph today (I put a link to the article in the SDSR thread on the main board) they suggest that they will consider smaller carriers - sounds daft to me, as do most of the Torygraph stories - but could it be a sign that they are moving away from strike carriers to building LHD's?
                                      If having a little knowledge is dangerous then I must be bloody deadly

                                      Comment

                                      • benroethig
                                        Rank 5 Registered User
                                        • Aug 2010
                                        • 487

                                        Its either the QEs or nothing unless the UK miraculously suddenly develops competent politicians. The cost of LHDs would be whatever their price is plus the CVF quit contracts.

                                        Comment

                                        • John K
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jul 2010
                                          • 311

                                          Obi Wan is spot on. Cancellation of CVF01, CVF02 or both, will, apart from wrecking the whole basis of the Royal Navy, destroy our military ship building industry. Without the CVF programme there are no orders, it's as simple as that. I consider ship building to be a strategically vital industry for our island nation, and any government which cannot see that is dilletante in the extreme.

                                          A more interesting conundrum is what aircraft to fly off the carriers? I can see great advantages from the RAF moving to an all Typhoon force, since it seems the Tornados will be phased out some years early. If we could afford, say, 60 F35s, that would be enough for two active squadrons and an OCU, which will suffice given that only one CVF will be in full commission at any one time. The F35s should therefore be given over to the Fleet Air Arm. British military aircraft ownership will then be simple, Typhoons for the RAF, and F35s for the Royal Navy. We won't be buying 150 F35s, so we may as well face reality: the service which needs the F35 is the Navy, and we will only be able to buy enough F35s for one service.

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X