TYpe 45 v F22 / F35

[dHAKAPETE]

With all the recent discussions about sea trials of HMS Daring would be interested in views on what such a contempoary Ant Air Warfare vessels capabilities would be when faced by Contemporary Stealth aircraft. Press reports in UK say the vessel tracked a Typhoon from Manchester to Western Isles of Scotland during latest trials.

See MOD UK Web site

 

[Sea Toby]

While Sampson is supposed to track a tennis ball, I shall wait and see until I make up my mind one way or another from first hand reports. The ship is still in sea trials.

 

[StingrayOZ]

I would say it would provide a reasonable coverage to proberly deter F-35 or F-22. It would certainly limit the attack possibilities. However the ship wasn't designed to track and kill modern american LO aircraft.

It would be very effective against improved older style aircraft like F-18, F-15, F-16, Migs, Su's, Rafels and against LO missiles etc.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The point isnt wether Sampson can track a VLO fighter, (technically any radar can do that), its wether it can track and engage a VLO platform outside the AShM threat envilope. With JASSM back on track thats doubtfull (considering Aster 30 doesnt have a 250nm sized engagement envilope lets say impossible ), against harpoon, probably not.

As for dealing with stealthy AShM's ala JASSM, well Sampson/ASTER 30 probably has a better chance than practicaly any other radar/SAM combination on the plannet (with only SPY-1D/SM-2 BIII being comperable).

 

[Totoro]

JASSM can't be launched from any VLO platform, unless they integrate it into the B-2, the only VLO plane where it could fit in its internal bomb bay. however, there's always JSOW or NSM to be worried about, NSM especially!

 

[swerve]

JASSM can't be launched from any VLO platform, unless they integrate it into the B-2, the only VLO plane where it could fit in its internal bomb bay. however, there's always JSOW or NSM to be worried about, NSM especially!

JASSM could be carried by F-35, but only externally, thus increasing its radar signature.

 

[swerve]

While Sampson is supposed to track a tennis ball, I shall wait and see until I make up my mind one way or another from first hand reports. The ship is still in sea trials.

Sampson's not the only thing to consider. There's also the S1850 long-range radar.

 

[PeterCrisp]

While Sampson is supposed to track a tennis ball, I shall wait and see until I make up my mind one way or another from first hand reports. The ship is still in sea trials.

I know they are unlikely to give out the results but wouldn't that be really cheap and simple to test? Fire a tennis ball out of a cannon at long range and if the radar sees it then huzzah we have a result. People are always moaning about costs and I can't think of a much cheaper way to test the radar.

 

[King_Typhoon]

Aster 15 or 30 Can hit Cruise Missile With Samspon Or other radar system on type 45. nothing worry about incoming missile strike on fleet flag ship. type 45 is design for protection carrier and other ship type. they will take out any thing to threat to fleet any-way case soloution to threat.

Sampson Are "Super" AESA Radar It Can Scan Full Rotate Area Less 1 seconds

Sampson Can Track ICBM in Far away To USA From UK Sea, But not Capacity Take ICBM Down With No Type 45 Have anti-ICBM Missiles, maybe future buget money and update.

also i know it bit off topic f-22 been lock on by eurofighter typhoon in about BVRAAM Range they cryin out to back and excerise off and no prove it happen but maybe not know the truth ... it prove stealth can detect no matter what happen And F-35 Not Level Stealth As F-22 They Simple Level As Night Hawk (F-117)

stealth are NOT INVINCBLE! they can shot down not matter what it STEALTH. Stealth are design " SURVIVES And SUPRIES" That all about Supries can spoil.

 

[Systems Adict]

I know they are unlikely to give out the results but wouldn't that be really cheap and simple to test? Fire a tennis ball out of a cannon at long range and if the radar sees it then huzzah we have a result. People are always moaning about costs and I can't think of a much cheaper way to test the radar.

???

Have you EVER been involved in Weapons / Systems Trials ??

1. "Hire" the Test area. (@ 'X' thousand £/day)
2. "Hire" the assets to use as targets (@ 'X' thousand £/hr.)
3. Design & build the test rig, using a suitable cannon that's been modified to do the task. (1 off, totally bespoke / Estimate @ £2-£3 Million !)
4. Bring in a team of Engineers to write the trials / testing programme, how they're gonna do it & what the "Acceptance Criteria" results will be. (6 months, x20 engineers, + x5 managers, + office facilities = Estimated £1 -£2 Million).
5. Provide the ship, + crew (with 25 -35 years experience) , + food, + ammunition (Estimate that just having the ship at sea is £250K/per day).


Now add that up plus, spending 3 weeks attempting to get the results, then spending another 6 weeks analysing them.(Estimate another £1 Million)

...Is it any wonder that these ships are EXPENSIVE ???


However, the BEST doesn't come CHEAP !!



Systems Adict

 

[Systems Adict]

While Sampson is supposed to track a tennis ball, I shall wait and see until I make up my mind one way or another from first hand reports. The ship is still in sea trials.

Sorry, Ship tied up In Glasgow on Friday, after 33 days @ sea, 2 days AHEAD of the planned trials schedule.


http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.12624/changeNav/6568

Sorry if I've blagged the link from a previous posting....


Systems Adict

 

[Aussie Digger]

I know they are unlikely to give out the results but wouldn't that be really cheap and simple to test? Fire a tennis ball out of a cannon at long range and if the radar sees it then huzzah we have a result. People are always moaning about costs and I can't think of a much cheaper way to test the radar.

How many JSOW's, JASSM's, Harpoons etc can a tennis ball drop and under what flight profiles?

 

[Aussie Digger]

JASSM can't be launched from any VLO platform, unless they integrate it into the B-2, the only VLO plane where it could fit in its internal bomb bay. however, there's always JSOW or NSM to be worried about, NSM especially!

The F-35 WILL carry JASSM as a standard "baseline" weapon.

FYI, JASSM was just approved for serial (full rate) production and the "extended range" variant (which will use the same external "mold line", ie: is NOT a bigger missile) will have a standoff range of 1000+ kilometres.

Good luck stopping that with your Sampson radar...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Aster 15 or 30 Can hit Cruise Missile With Samspon Or other radar system on type 45. nothing worry about incoming missile strike on fleet flag ship. type 45 is design for protection carrier and other ship type. they will take out any thing to threat to fleet any-way case soloution to threat.

Sampson Are "Super" AESA Radar It Can Scan Full Rotate Area Less 1 seconds

Sampson Can Track ICBM in Far away To USA From UK Sea, But not Capacity Take ICBM Down With No Type 45 Have anti-ICBM Missiles, maybe future buget money and update.

also i know it bit off topic f-22 been lock on by eurofighter typhoon in about BVRAAM Range they cryin out to back and excerise off and no prove it happen but maybe not know the truth ... it prove stealth can detect no matter what happen And F-35 Not Level Stealth As F-22 They Simple Level As Night Hawk (F-117)

stealth are NOT INVINCBLE! they can shot down not matter what it STEALTH. Stealth are design " SURVIVES And SUPRIES" That all about Supries can spoil.

Prove it.

The words of a Eurofighter pilot is NOT enough, given the comments of opposing F-22 pilots...

 

[Grand Danois]

Aster 15 or 30 Can hit Cruise Missile With Samspon Or other radar system on type 45. nothing worry about incoming missile strike on fleet flag ship. type 45 is design for protection carrier and other ship type. they will take out any thing to threat to fleet any-way case soloution to threat.

Sampson Are "Super" AESA Radar It Can Scan Full Rotate Area Less 1 seconds

SAMPSON is supposed to do well vs low RCS targets in cluttered environments. time budget is focused on sea skimmers and interrogation of suspect returns. this is also the reason for the height of the sensor mast.

Sampson Can Track ICBM in Far away To USA From UK Sea, But not Capacity Take ICBM Down With No Type 45 Have anti-ICBM Missiles, maybe future buget money and update.

That's what the S-1850 is for, would be a waste to use SAMPSONs time-budget on that kind of volume search. But as you say, no ABM missiles. Note that taking shots at an ICBM requires queing by very distant sensors - no radar can do it alone.

also i know it bit off topic f-22 been lock on by eurofighter typhoon in about BVRAAM Range they cryin out to back and excerise off and no prove it happen but maybe not know the truth ... it prove stealth can detect no matter what happen And F-35 Not Level Stealth As F-22 They Simple Level As Night Hawk (F-117)

stealth are NOT INVINCBLE! they can shot down not matter what it STEALTH. Stealth are design " SURVIVES And SUPRIES" That all about Supries can spoil.

No reason for F-35/F-22 to get close to a dangerous system like PAAMS/SAMPSON. Stand-off ordnance is the way of the day anyway.

 

[Totoro]

Why even use a JASSM on a ship? That seems like a bit of an overkill. NSM fired from a LO plane, at some 150+ km seems more cost effective. Not to mention a lot can happen and situation can change during the transit time of a subsonic missile over hundreds of kms. Current range of JASSM is more than enough for antishipping purposes, as anything over wouldn't be usable due to lack of targeting info from such distances. If one has a search and targeting radar at some 400 km away from the target ship (best possible case scenario, might have to be closer in real world situation) - why fire a JASSM from 1000 km away?

 

[King_Typhoon]

here go info about type 45 go look under info

also it have say can target missiles and aircraft too

PAAMS should be capable of dealing with almost any type of situation. During the Falklands War in 1982, the radar used was confused by things like flocks of seagulls. PAAMS will be a lot more reliable and able to operate regardless of jamming or electronic warfare. The system can target sea skimming anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, diving anti-radar missiles and fighter aircraft. It can protect both its own ship and other vessels in the taskforce.


It More Advanced That USA Anti-Air Defence Ship Aegis Class 1 generation away from type 45 which meant type 45 are most advanced of it type in thier class

Go To Navy Matter Website Or Other MOD Website Used Google because stupido rules say must one link per 15 post

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Why even use a JASSM on a ship? That seems like a bit of an overkill. NSM fired from a LO plane, at some 150+ km seems more cost effective. Not to mention a lot can happen and situation can change during the transit time of a subsonic missile over hundreds of kms. Current range of JASSM is more than enough for antishipping purposes, as anything over wouldn't be usable due to lack of targeting info from such distances. If one has a search and targeting radar at some 400 km away from the target ship (best possible case scenario, might have to be closer in real world situation) - why fire a JASSM from 1000 km away?

First of all 1000km launch envilope is going to be outside of practically any CAP umbrella, which is very handy against high end threats (which a PAAMS like system would be defending), BIG advantage.

You dont want to use JASSM on a ship just because of its range, its the LO & IIR seeker pluss the payload's nice. It means against high end stuff like PAAMS the probability of a kill is going to be much higher than legacy AShM's like Harpoon.

As for targeting info, well there are plenty of systems that can provide such data from outside the 1000km envilope. AEW&C, SBIRS, OHR, SSK/SSN to name a few.

 

[AegisFC]

PAAMS should be capable of dealing with almost any type of situation. During the Falklands War in 1982, the radar used was confused by things like flocks of seagulls. PAAMS will be a lot more reliable and able to operate regardless of jamming or electronic warfare. The system can target sea skimming anti-ship missiles, cruise missiles, diving anti-radar missiles and fighter aircraft. It can protect both its own ship and other vessels in the taskforce.

No radar isn't confused by a flock of sea gulls that sounds a lot like an operator problem either in set up or in training, a well trained operator will see a slow moving and shifting track as environmental and either drop the track or mark it as such.

It More Advanced That USA Anti-Air Defence Ship Aegis Class 1 generation away from type 45 which meant type 45 are most advanced of it type in thier class

The first generation (CG-47 through 51) yeah probably. But unless you have experience dealing with both types of systems then you don't know how one is superior to the other, nor are you qualified to state that unless you have some sort of proof. Their are different generations of Aegis with updates coming all the time so I doubt the Type 45 is superior in any way that counts.

Don't get me wrong, the Type 45 will be a VERY capable ship but to call it a generation ahead isn't exactly true.

 

[Totoro]

there are plenty of systems that can provide targeting data from outside the 1000km envilope. AEW&C, SBIRS, OHR, SSK/SSN to name a few.

That list is really pushing it. In real world conditions most of those would be not very reliant, and good deal of them would usually not be available at the needed time and needed place.

Submarines would first need to be at the right spot at the right time - which in itself is not an easy task, especially for SSKs. Then they'd need to be very close to surface, if not at periscope depth to trasmit data - all of which would greatly endanger them.

Over the horizon radars would have an extremely hard time distinguishing what they're seeing, definitely not enough for targeting. Besides, only a portion of the seas is covered with them and only a few countries use them - not applicable for all the jassm users.

SBIRS, as it stands today, is A) not meant to be used for naval ship identification (even if a satellite detects something - how will it know which what sort of ship and whose ship that is?) and B) even in perfect conditions, there arent enough of them to go around detecting ships. Those sats still be detecting such small IR signatures on a wide area - they'd need to be fairly overhead. It's highly unlikely they could be relied upon for regular targeting info.

AWACS and any other airborne radar platform would need to be at some 400-450 or so km away from the target, probably a bit less if we want positive ID. So it is again a moot point to fire a missile a 1000 kms away from a plane A, when plane B can't be more than 400 kms away.

Once again, a NSM with its LO features and IIR seeker is more than enough for most missions. If you've got to fight through enemy fighter cover to get within launching range - that means they're either got an aircraft carrier (in which case you've got bigger problems to worry about than a ship with PAAMS) or you've pinned them down, fairly close to their coastline and they're using their air force to protect their ships - in which case their navy is already half neutralized anyway. Either way, throwing fighter cover in this equation changes everything, as it's silly to even think of engaging the ships themselves without taking care of their air cover.