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
  • Pongoglo
    Rank 5 Registered User
    • Oct 2009
    • 38

    Ski jump....

    Liger,

    I wouldn't be too concerned about the article from meretmarine.marine.com, they are notoriously renowned for getting it wrong -although well done on finding the article amidst a sparcity of news! I have a neighbor who has worked for the design team at the ACA (initialy for Thales) since its inception and at dinner last Thursday he was adamant that all plans for the ski jump have been terminally binned.They don't want to be seen to be responsible for the costs of installing an expensive, redundant and 'useless lump of metal' anymore than the government. He also insists that both ships will be built to the same 'base' configuration, although he says they still don't know if both vessels will be completed with cats and traps, one option may be the usual British compromise of 'for - not with' aka Harpoon/Phalanx on T45? belief is that the first ship ie QE will be fitted with the kit, hence the justification for the delay - again they would look silly if this were not the case. He was also adamant that unlike many other projects in which BAE have had a hand, this one is running on time and budget with only political decisions responsible for delay, and subsequent hike in cost. He was quite up front about this as from a business point of view it will keep quality people in quality jobs for much much longer!




    Originally posted by Liger30 View Post
    Prince of Wales will get the Cats, almost certainly.

    Queenie apparently will be built with the Sky Jump even though the jump jet has been dropped and now she'll be a replacement for HMS Ocean more than a carrier.

    This coming from the following article, at least: http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=115509

    I'm hoping that we can at least avoid building and installing a Sky Jump that would effectively only waste the space for one helicopter landing spot, and that would be undoubtedly dismantled during the first refit.
    Unless there are contracts obligations so powerful that even the sky jump can't be removed...!

    I'm saying Prince of Wales gets the traps because this would allow for expenditure on buying and fitting the cats and traps in 2014/15 or even 2016: back-loading expenditure makes more sense than front-loading it, especially with the 2011 budget being so challenging already as it is and 2012 and 2013 Planning Rounds still officially expected to be "difficult".

    Besides, this way there's all the time to do the redesign work, see how the EMCAT works (by 2015 the US will already be using it on their new Gerard Ford supercarrier) without slowing down the QE timeline at all.
    Thus avoiding cost increases that no one wants.

    I'd be really surprised if things were done the opposite way.
    And anyway, the F35C to fly off the carrier won't be available before 2018 at the earlier.

    Comment

    • Rii
      Rii
      Senior Member
      • Oct 2010
      • 3449

      Originally posted by Al. View Post
      If one's 120km SAM is on a destroyer which is 40km up threat from the flat top then threat is engaged 160km from flat top.
      And maybe the attacking force pinpoints the radiating destroyer via ESM and comes around on different axis reducing engagement range to <120km.
      Last edited by Rii; 19th March 2011, 15:13.

      Comment

      • obligatory
        Senior Member
        • Oct 2008
        • 7043

        Would there be any problem with networking that only ever switch ON the carriers radars if and when missiles are already incoming ?

        Anyway agree the carrier should only have point defenses, but phalanx is getting too short ranged vs hypersonic missiles, perhaps the room for additional electricity generation can in future be put to good use for DEW.
        Last edited by obligatory; 19th March 2011, 15:30.

        Comment

        • Al.
          Al.
          Rank 5 Registered User
          • Nov 2008
          • 1005

          Originally posted by Rii View Post
          And maybe the attacking force pinpoints the radiating destroyer via ESM and comes around on different axis reducing engagement range to <120km.
          Absolutely bang on. One of the reasons that the USN has more than one aegis equipped escort per high value unit (and itself a driver in the development of the Already Brokes the USN recognised that they would just never be able to afford enough Ticos to have multiple Ageis ships per flat top or gator).

          In itself though another reason not to have Sampson and Aster on CVF when originally planned (cost of fitting with would take 1 T45 out of the programme). Of course by the time T45 programme was eviscerated CVF had already been finalised and cost of 'just' fitting PAAMS therefore more expensive.
          Rule zero: don't be on fire

          Comment

          • tsz52
            Rank 3 Registered User
            • Mar 2011
            • 97

            Jonesy: Yup, fully agree about the evils of messing with a design as the object is being built - I suppose that I'm invoking a little hindsight as foresight: There will only be 6 Type 45s; the next level AAW escorts will have Artisan (so no Asters - and assuming that CAMM will perform less than 200-300% better than the manufacturer's current brochure states); CVF design isn't too finalised yet (as it still isn't, really...); CVF won't operate with full airwing, so there's 'spare' deck space.

            Obi Wan Russel: Any ideas about your PAAMs figure now that RDT&E etc (and all the little, niggly integration issues in trials) has all been paid for? Would that cost being halved seem reasonable?: 250m? IIRC, that is more than an entire Formidable Class frigate (which I assume we won't be buying any of), but we'll go with it, in lieu of firmer figures.... We won't have as many Asters (and Sylvers) on CVF, so that's 50m saved (the remaining 16 Asters can be part of a common pool, so they're there anyway, for another ca 25m saved).

            So 350m for a minimal PAAMS on both CVFs? Subtract two Artisans from that cost - wild (conservative) guess at 10m each, for 320m... add a few more crew (maybe) for this upgraded capability.

            With similar savings applied, I'd guess that an extra Type 45 could be procured for, at best 700m? Then she needs a full ship's worth of crew. Costs way more and still may not address the core problem: More than adequate - guaranteed! - CVF defence; where the CVF is, the CVF is (so it would be nice if she could protect herself, in emergency); there is no guarantee that the extra Type 45/s would be in the same place.

            Here's my point:-

            There will be serious wars fought in the near future (ie against peers, in the next few decades);

            CVF will never be deployed on a whim - she will be deployed when needed, so must be able to do her job;

            It is already considered that there are threats that PAAMS is needed to deal with (or we wouldn't have it), so nothing less will do;

            So escorts must include an adequate number of Type 45s (or the Type 26 significantly upgraded for PAMMS-level defence);

            There won't be more Type 45s, and there is not an adequate number of them - even now, pre-losses (God forbid!);

            The operational percentage of Type 45s may be spread thin across multiple theatres;

            [Wildcard: The RN may procure a more tooled up (and expensive) AAW Type 26 variant... I'll believe it when I see it...;]

            So there may come a time when there is only one Type 45 available to escort a CVF who needs to remain on station (it's pivotal to the war effort);

            Stuff breaks down at the worst possible times: The survival and utility of that entire CBG (in a threat environment where PAMMS is needed) will hinge upon a single radar continuing to function properly;

            If that radar malfunctions (or is damaged etc), the CBG has to retreat (which might lose the war), or remain on station, inadequately protected (by definition - see above);

            For not that much more cost (see above), minimal-PAMMS on the CVF herself allows her to remain on station (until the Type 45's radar is fixed);

            In summary - something that potentially vital should not hang upon something as tenuous as a single ship's not having a malfunction in one of its extremely complicated systems at an inopportune moment (or being damaged/sunk).

            The USN does not have multiple top-class AAW escorts per carrier just to show off, nor is it paranoid: we poor Europeans don't have the multiple top-class AAW escorts, cannot take US support for granted forever (they're having their own fiscal problems, and adjusting their priorities accordingly) so need top-class defences on the carriers too, to make up the difference (and even that not enough, really...), that being the cheapest option.

            [Incidentally, it's not the same as fitting a TAS too: TAS requires particular ship movement - radar doesn't; there will be more than a single top-class TAS in the BG already - there may not be more than a single PAAMS; CVF has excellent ASW helos, as do her escorts, which can sort of do the same job at a pinch - there isn't anything else that can come close to the single PAAMS if that goes down.]
            Last edited by tsz52; 19th March 2011, 17:08. Reason: Splling

            Comment

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

              It is my understanding that the actual unit cost of a T45 (often quoted in the press as 1Billion each including R&D) is closer to 750Million minus R&D costs for the class in 2010 prices, of which 48% is PAAMs. Figures come from an interview with an Admiral a year or so back, Sorry no link to hand.
              "Without Organic Air Power at Sea, you don't have a Navy, you have a Coast Guard."

              Comment

              • tsz52
                Rank 3 Registered User
                • Mar 2011
                • 97

                Cheers Obi Wan.

                Obligatory: Re Directed Energy Weapons [I assume that that's what you meant by 'DEW' in this context] vs Hypersonic AShMs.

                The key is detecting the hypersonic AshMs (HSAShMs henceforth) as early as possible - that needs the uber-radar that I'm advocating, which is the lion's share of the expense (the Asters are nuts in comparison, so might as well have them too, again especially since they can be pooled...).

                It'll be a long time before Charged Particle Beams (and not Neutral PBs, obviously) catch up to lasers in utility/cost/space/power/effectiveness (if ever), so we're looking at lasers. It'll be a long time before lasers are effective hard kill weapons (against something like HSAShMs especially), so we're looking at thermal kill... but HSAShMs are significantly thermally shielded already, right?

                Frying the sensors isn't enough against such a target (and it may easily have countermeasures against this in addition) - you need to hard kill it at sufficient distance that its shell and debris don't hit you regardless.

                Fortunately, it is moving so fast that you can use its own (closing velocity derived) kinetic energy against it - hitting it with a lot of physical stuff is your best bet; something like Millennium Gun's or 57mm 3P's cloud of tungsten subprojectiles... at as much distance as possible.

                Comment

                • Rii
                  Rii
                  Senior Member
                  • Oct 2010
                  • 3449

                  Originally posted by tsz52 View Post
                  So there may come a time when there is only one Type 45 available to escort a CVF who needs to remain on station (it's pivotal to the war effort);

                  Stuff breaks down at the worst possible times: The survival and utility of that entire CBG (in a threat environment where PAMMS is needed) will hinge upon a single radar continuing to function properly;

                  If that radar malfunctions (or is damaged etc), the CBG has to retreat (which might lose the war), or remain on station, inadequately protected (by definition - see above);

                  For not that much more cost (see above), minimal-PAMMS on the CVF herself allows her to remain on station (until the Type 45's radar is fixed);

                  In summary - something that potentially vital should not hang upon something as tenuous as a single ship's not having a malfunction in one of its extremely complicated systems at an inopportune moment (or being damaged/sunk).
                  I agree with this line of thought.
                  Last edited by Rii; 19th March 2011, 20:02.

                  Comment

                  • Jonesy
                    Neo-conversative
                    • Jan 2000
                    • 5097

                    Originally posted by tsz52 View Post
                    Jonesy: There will only be 6 Type 45s; the next level AAW escorts will have Artisan (so no Asters - and assuming that CAMM will perform less than 200-300% better than the manufacturer's current brochure states); CVF design isn't too finalised yet (as it still isn't, really...); CVF won't operate with full airwing, so there's 'spare' deck space.
                    Why would CAMM need to perform 2 or 3 times more than in the manufacturers brochure?. Why wont CVF operate with a full airwing?.

                    CVF defence; where the CVF is, the CVF is (so it would be nice if she could protect herself, in emergency);
                    So the inbounds are getting through the CAP, Sea Viper envelope and FLAADS envelope first. Leakers would be the reason for the CIWS and softkill fitted to the carrier. Might be worth you remembering that, operationally, so far precisely one antiship missile has been proven downed by hardkill and at least a dozen I can think of have been defeated by softkill.

                    It is already considered that there are threats that PAAMS is needed to deal with (or we wouldn't have it), so nothing less will do;
                    Save for the other systems that are designed to do the job?. Systems intended to provided local area air defence perhaps?. Future Local Area Air Defence Systems you might say?!.

                    The operational percentage of Type 45s may be spread thin across multiple theatres;
                    We will have a single carrier group. We will, effectively, have a single ARG....what else do you think will have priority call on T45 attachments?.

                    [Wildcard: The RN may procure a more tooled up (and expensive) AAW Type 26 variant... I'll believe it when I see it...;]
                    ...again you are prematurely assuming FLAADS is a flop...otherwise why need an AAW'd up version?. Where is this conviction coming from that FLAADS has failed before its even a fielded system?. You cant be making these definitive decisions based on a manufacturers brochure?.

                    Stuff breaks down at the worst possible times: The survival and utility of that entire CBG (in a threat environment where PAMMS is needed) will hinge upon a single radar continuing to function properly;
                    IF there is a single T45 and IF the MFR breaks there will be an increase in CAP coverage and FLAADS providing goalkeeper. Please remember that Sea Viper is only shooting, at maximum range, at altitude contacts or ones that are exposed above the horizon for long enough to pass RoE for LR shots.

                    A low altitude striker, with offboard direction, that remains under the Sampson horizon will not be engaged by Sea Viper until it crosses that horizon regardless - which could be little more than the FLAADS envelope anyway. You would hope airborne radar (whatever MASC becomes) would ensure the detect, but, without Sampson midcourse guidance long-range shots are not going to happen!. The fleet isnt going to turn tail and run if the outer MEZ is down for a bit.

                    For not that much more cost (see above), minimal-PAMMS on the CVF herself allows her to remain on station (until the Type 45's radar is fixed)
                    No it doesnt. It forces the carrier to emit. Once again...the carrier emits on a recognisable radar set and an enemy force can pinpoint it with passive sensors. We will NOT do that. Its the absolute basics of naval maneuver warfare. The ability to undertake your missions while denying information to your opponent is the most fundamental concept in carrier strike operations and is trained for religiously. You dont throw away your manoeuvre advantage by steaming along blithely beaconing away on a powerful radar set. If the opposition cant detect you without going active themselves (giving away THEIR posit) you win. I cant stress this enough no area missile on the carrier - and you certainly aren't going to pay out large sums of money to fit a set like Sampson JUST as an insurance policy against a T45's set breaking!.

                    In summary - something that potentially vital should not hang upon something as tenuous as a single ship's not having a malfunction in one of its extremely complicated systems at an inopportune moment (or being damaged/sunk).
                    ...and it never would. The answer isnt redundant radar sets on ships that would never turn them on though. The answer is complimentry systems that cover the threat.

                    [Incidentally, it's not the same as fitting a TAS too: TAS requires particular ship movement - radar doesn't;
                    OK fundamentals again - yes it does require specific deployment latitude. You want to SAM trap with the carrier do you?. You cant picket up-threat if the area missile is on the HVU you are trying to screen. There is just two examples!.

                    Comment

                    • tsz52
                      Rank 3 Registered User
                      • Mar 2011
                      • 97

                      Jonesy: It's tricky without knowing the hard data, so I'm trying to come at this from another angle (deductive reasoning, with all of the strengths and flaws of that).

                      PAAMS must be both superior to FLAADS and necessary, or it wouldn't exist.

                      So it's irrelevant how good FLAADS is (or how many FLAADS-capable escorts there are), if it's still inferior to PAAMS, in a threat environment that requires PAAMS specifically.

                      I honestly have no doubt that CAMM will be an unholy terror to most threats (in the air and on the surface), and given my way every RN craft bigger than a rowing boat would have them... buuut....

                      PAAMS exists to deal with the top-end threats that CAMM simply couldn't reach (in altitude terms, not horizontal range), or catch quickly and reliably enough, however many CAMMs are fired. It's the acceleration, speed and agility of Aster that makes the difference in catching those top-end threats: which is why Aster 15 is still relevant on a ship that carries CAMM, despite CAMM having almost the same horizontal range.

                      My '2-3 times better than the brochure claims' is in regard to these properties (speed, agility: ie compared to Aster). I'm not just going by the brochure, but by what seems reasonable in terms of its size, mass and niche, in view of the class of missiles that it's replacing.

                      I'm still catching up with my military tech, but I suppose I should state some of the top-end threats I'm thinking about: high altitude/endurance extremely LO UCAVs (which you can't hide your carrier from, so you can still be seen even if you zap the enemy's surveillance sats, and carrier emcon and LO won't help) which can drop LO gravity munitions; AShBMs; Hypersonic AShMs with some agility - these are what PAAMS is for, not for trying to hit more mundane targets an extra 100km further out than FLAADS can.

                      So if you need PAAMS you need PAAMS; and a few more FLAADS, or launching a few more F-35s and an E-2 instead simply won't do. If you need PAAMS you need more than one of them there for basic redundancy. There aren't enough Type 45s for a guaranteed two per BG (again, I'm assuming a serious, widespread war, and possibly a post-losses scenario), and its cheaper to fit minimal-PAAMS to the CVFs than buy additional PAAMS DDGs.

                      Ummm, what else?

                      I've already gone into it, but to minimise your frustration - yup I'm totally down with emcon and the advantages/disadvantages of active sensors, but that might turn out to be an ideal and luxury, say with the example of the UCAVs I mentioned, or against incoming missiles so fast (or/and launched from so close, or/and are so LO) that it's active (coupled with an exceedingly fast and agile defensive missile) or dead.

                      Also, yeah I'm always very mindful of the Fighting G's singular accomplishment, and there might be every chance that no anti-missile missile system ever works reliably enough to fully count, however uber-spangly... how can we know really? But the more and the better will always be better, and anything less a false economy when the AShMs start to fly....

                      Comment

                      • Jonesy
                        Neo-conversative
                        • Jan 2000
                        • 5097

                        PAAMS must be both superior to FLAADS and necessary, or it wouldn't exist.
                        This being the flaw in the logic though 52. FLAADS does a different job to UKPAAMS. UKPAAMS is area defence out to 100km+. The local area variant of the Aster weapons system is the Franco-Italian SAAM arrangement. As you know we dont have SAAM or its longer ranged variant as used on the Forbins and their MMI siblings. We elected not to use those versions because our requirements for UKPAAMS were significantly more stringent.

                        UKPAAMS IS capable of undertaking the inner-layer mission, replicating SAAM's raison d'etre, but is more flexible and powerful as a system. The price we paid for that was loaded onto the T45 build.

                        The reason for that extra capability, in UKPAAMS, wasn't the local area defence mission though and this is where the logic fails. Rather it was the whole scope of the battlespace that the system could cover, the track volume etc, etc. The Franco-Italian EMPAR array was considered insufficient by the RN - who were in the loop on the continuing MESAR research BAE had been undertaking since the 80's (iirc).

                        As already described the requirements for coping with the two different engagement zones (area and local) are significantly different in sensor terms. Certainly, close-in, our European partners (plus the client states) are quite satisfied that the less-advanced PESA Arabel and Heracles arrays are satisfactory for their incarnations of SAAM. Easy job for the MFR pointing the missiles nose onto the threat, banging out a couple of updates (comparitive to a 100km shot) and letting seeker capture do the rest.

                        Now though we have active seeker technology on cheaper systems like VL Mica. We also have a 'new breed' of accurate 3D search/track sets capable of enough resolution to provide Target Indication to a missile that just needs a bearing, elevation/declination and a predicted seeker capture point. If we find, as VL Mica ostensibly has, that the need for SAAM's beamshifting MFR and the whole expensive system infrastructure to get the SAM seeker to capture was never really there does that still make SAAM the optimum system for local defence or just one thats massively over-specced for the job.....with the price tag to accompany it?.

                        IF FLAADS can do about the same job, locally, to SAAM/Aster15, but, with the standard RN 3D search/track set for cueing and with quad-pack capable installation how can any claim be made for it being replaced with SAAM or UKPAAMS with Aster15?.

                        Comment

                        • tsz52
                          Rank 3 Registered User
                          • Mar 2011
                          • 97

                          Yup, I totally take your point that for the vast majority of the time FLAADS might be more than adequate (and in some respects superior to UKPAAMS), and UKPAAMS a bit over the top: I'm talking about the other times where FLAADS isn't enough (which need only be once, ever, for catastrophe) - that's the usual point of the more expensive sensor/weapon evolution - to deal with those minority of times and top-end threats.

                          I'd be really interested in your best guess as to the usual numbers of note of the FLAADS system - I honestly wouldn't be surprised if it so fills its niche that that niche has to expand to accommodate it... but only so far is possible: the remainder is where the greater power of Sampson, and the far superior flight performance (speed and agility particularly) of Aster, comes in. I'll have a crack at matching some likely scenarios with some numbers, to show what I mean.

                          [Of course you have FLAADS escorts as well, just to be clear.]

                          Comment

                          • Jonesy
                            Neo-conversative
                            • Jan 2000
                            • 5097

                            52,

                            Lets see what system is fielded out of FLAADS before we try and plot it out?. At the moment its still far too early to make statements about what it is and isnt capable of as a system.

                            You seem hung up on outright kinematic performance of the missile?. You do realise that the simple expedient of salvo firing two missiles at a 'high-end threat' would cover pK as much as a higher performance interceptor?. Quad-packing of a less complex missile will provide the option to utilise salvo fire where doing so with Aster would be a stretch through the lower density.

                            Then we need to explore what you mean by high-end threat. If you are talking about long-range supersonics or ASBM's then the threat reduction exercise is as important as any active defence. Those systems are big, unwieldy, and utterly dependent on theatre targetting. If they dont get a targetting solution they stay in their launch tubes. You defeat them by staying out of that targetting window until you close sufficiently to engage the launching platforms.

                            They are not the significant threat though. The danger is from the conventional 'low-end' C-80x class threat in saturation attacks. The flashy Yakhont/Klub style weapons will be a long time filtering down to the middle-rank states, we could conceivably deploy against alone, in sufficient quantity to present a significant threat. Supersonics tend to be large and need large platforms to deploy them. There is nothing magical about supersonic terminal velocities on inbound weapons - GWS25 SeaWolf could handle the Soviet era supersonic diving weapons so supersonics, like any other system, need to saturate target defences for high probability of success. Suddenly to deploy you need to be able to fire large numbers of big missiles.

                            How many middle-rank powers are going to be fielding squadrons of advanced heavyweight strikefighters that they can task solely to the antiship mission? How many of those powers will have the ISTAR capability to track a carrier group without counter-detecton?. The numbers, even out to the late 2020's, are small on both - the Venezuela's etc of the world are starting from too far back to develop anti-access capabilty any faster and if you think that we are, alone, going to attack a regional superpower in their own littoral recreational pharmaceuticals must be involved!. What would the single brigade landing force we could put on the beach and support actually achieve against the Indian or Chinese army's on their own soil one wonders!!!.

                            Bottom line FLAADS should have little issue dealing with supersonics because they aren't all that difficult to hit - you just dont have a long engagement window to try and hit them. Salvo fire maximises your chances there. Saturation fire with highly manoeverable/LO subsonics is best defended with high-density SAMs that can be embarked in volume without costing half the price of the ship!. FLAADS is, definitely, the right direction to take, but, it remains to be seen what the system is actually capable of before we can tell whether CAMM will deliver on the promise.
                            Last edited by Jonesy; 20th March 2011, 17:41.

                            Comment

                            • seawolf
                              Rank 3 Registered User
                              • Mar 2011
                              • 14

                              Originally posted by tsz52 View Post
                              Cheers Obi Wan.


                              Fortunately, it is moving so fast that you can use its own (closing velocity derived) kinetic energy against it - hitting it with a lot of physical stuff is your best bet; something like Millennium Gun's or 57mm 3P's cloud of tungsten subprojectiles... at as much distance as possible.

                              I did mention 57mm guns earlier on this thread, I would love to see 3 or 4 of these on CVF instead of the 20mm Phalanx. If Aster or caams isnt going to be fitted it would be good to have a greater range CIWS and the 57mm is a fine system, otherwise the USN wouldnt have selected it for LCS and Zumwalt classes. Its also very good against surface targets such as small boats.

                              Talking about missiles, CVF is due to have artisan and a long range air search radar so fitting Caams silos could be an easy and affordable option at a future refit especially if the threat level is perceived as great enough and the missile is seen as useful after a few years of use on Type 23/26.

                              The US has a range of defensive systems both gun and missile on their CVN's and the French have the very good Aster on their CVN. The key letter here is "N". If a vessel is nuclear then the admirals have more of an argument to arm that vessel to the teeth with defensive armament. CVF isnt going to be nuke powered (unfortunately) otherwise we might have seen a design with Aster and 30mm goalkeeper as well as a couple more T45's.

                              Comment

                              • Jonesy
                                Neo-conversative
                                • Jan 2000
                                • 5097

                                Originally posted by seawolf View Post
                                I did mention 57mm guns earlier on this thread, I would love to see 3 or 4 of these on CVF instead of the 20mm Phalanx....
                                Talking about missiles, CVF is due to have artisan and a long range air search radar so fitting Caams silos could be an easy and affordable option at a future refit especially if the threat level is perceived as great enough and the missile is seen as useful after a few years of use on Type 23/26.
                                57mm Bofors would have been an excellent choice had the funds been available. Millenium 35mm's probably more suitable for minimsation of ship impact and similarly effective in the surface role. Thing is either would be unique weapons systems just for the CVF's and would add complexity to the logistics chain unnecessarily when we have Phalanx-1B already supported across the fleet.

                                If a vessel is nuclear then the admirals have more of an argument to arm that vessel to the teeth with defensive armament. CVF isnt going to be nuke powered (unfortunately) otherwise we might have seen a design with Aster and 30mm goalkeeper as well as a couple more T45's.
                                Nope we wouldnt have seen the carrier progrmme survive. Nuclear costs money....developing a suitable reactor from PWR2 for the carrier would have been prohibitively expensive....building the support infrastructure for nuclear surface vessels would have been similarly expensive. Defensive armament would have been the absolute least concern for the program!

                                Comment

                                • verbatim
                                  Rank 5 Registered User
                                  • Aug 2010
                                  • 261

                                  Arabel radar is part of SAMP-T, the mobile land based area defence variant, is not par of any naval variant.

                                  On board of Forbin and Andrea Doria DDG classes, PAAMS employ S1850M long range radar exactly as UKPAAMS, and use EMPAR as 3D MFR.

                                  Herakles is employed on board of frigates, like Singapore's Formidable class and french FREMM's variant named FREDA.

                                  Italian Navy uses PAAMS, coupled with Aster30, the same very way Royal Navy uses UKPAAMS coupled with Aster30.

                                  Aster15 will be employed just for local defence on FREMM frigates, to be compared with the future Type 26 frigates, coupled with EMPAR.

                                  As for the innermost defensive layer, Italian Navy will deploy on board of almost all the vessels the DART system, based on the OTO 76/62s employing radar beam riding projectiles fired on short salvos of three to four shots at a time, first salvo fired to engage the target at around eight km away, additional salvos to be fired if first one fail to shot down the target.

                                  Comment

                                  • Jonesy
                                    Neo-conversative
                                    • Jan 2000
                                    • 5097

                                    Arabel radar is part of SAMP-T, the mobile land based area defence variant, is not par of any naval variant.
                                    Nope. Arabel/SAAM has been at sea some years:

                                    http://www.opex360.com/2009/02/18/ti...les-de-gaulle/

                                    http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/al_riyadh/

                                    Comment

                                    • verbatim
                                      Rank 5 Registered User
                                      • Aug 2010
                                      • 261

                                      Anyways, Arabel is not employed in any real DDG, and both french and italian DDGs employ the very same triad LRR+MFR+Aster30 as the Darings, in the same very way, plus the DART system as extended CIWS to be refitted later on the italian DDGs.

                                      It could be that SAMPSON is a better MFR than EMPAR or the british CMS is better than the italian and french one, as could be true the opposite, but the philosophy behind is just exactly the same.

                                      Comment

                                      • Jonesy
                                        Neo-conversative
                                        • Jan 2000
                                        • 5097

                                        Anyways, Arabel is not employed in any real DDG, and both french and italian DDGs employ the very same triad LRR+MFR+Aster30 as the Darings, in the same very way, plus the DART system as extended CIWS to be refitted later on the italian DDGs.

                                        It could be that SAMPSON is a better MFR than EMPAR or the british CMS is better than the italian and french one, as could be true the opposite, but the philosophy behind is just exactly the same.
                                        No intent to score points here Verbatim, please dont think that, EMPAR fit the requirements for the French and Italian ships - no problem with that at all. Our requirements were tougher and, conveniently, fit the resulting product of 20+ years AESA research from BAE!. Quelle suprise that Sampson was part of UKPAAMS!.

                                        What you are saying about Arabel is quite the point I was trying to make to 52. SAAM is a more basic system than either the Franco/Italian PAAMS or what we turned into Sea Viper. Its not a system to site on a principle AAW destroyer....rather its a local area capability for escorts with a close protection tasking or for a particularly high value unit. The local area tasking is far less demanding than the full Area air defence capability and can be delivered by less capable systems. Full up PAAMS isnt a requirement to deliver local-area coverage only.

                                        Comment

                                        • swerve
                                          Rank 5 Registered User
                                          • Jun 2005
                                          • 13612

                                          Note that the Italian FREMMs are reported to be getting the active version of EMPAR.

                                          I'm not sure if it's in there somewhere, but one thing which occurs to me is that a PAAMS fit on a carrier will only be useful for defending the carrier. If we want to conduct an operation for which a carrier is not needed, or to which we do not want to commit one, that's a PAAMS set not available to that operation.

                                          With only two carriers, I'd rather have one extra T45 with a PAAMS set than two PAAMS sets, one on each carrier, for just that reason: flexibility.
                                          Last edited by swerve; 22nd March 2011, 14:35.
                                          Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
                                          Justinian

                                          Comment

                                          Unconfigured Ad Widget

                                          Collapse

                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X