The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates

[rip]

Not comparing Apples with Apples. Spy-1 is old technology phased array, and the power goes along wave guides (with lots of losses) and then on return goes back through wave guides (with more losses).

Spy-1 therefore needs a return many times more intense to detect it through all the losses, and needs to put out many time more power to achieve the same return.

Plus Sampson has many other technologically advantages. Sampson can do everything Spy 1 can, but better. Sampson can also do much more

The simplest (but not the only) reason why it is better is height. Calculate the additional horizon you get on a sea skimmer from Sampson's height. Think about the time that gives you to engage.

Why has MoD not promoted it? RN have been terrible at PR over recent years - look at QEC, they allowed the biggest story about its construction to be a smouldering fan that was portable walk-om equipment and did no damage

Your assumption, which you did not state and which no information is publicly available to be examined, is that the semiconductor components in the active array are on the transmit side, just as efficient as tube amplifiers have shown to be and that the semiconductor receive modules, on the receiver side, are just as sensitive with the same signal to noise ratio as their tube equivalents. Typically they are not and the physical layout of the SPY-1 has short wave-guide runs with less than 3 bd loss. And we are not even talking about cooling which is far more difficult problem with semiconductors and densely packed arrays.

I am not saying that the Sampson is not a very good radar and perhaps even better than the latest versions of the SPY-1, only that your expiation of its superiority is doubtful.

 

[ProM]

my point related to the suggestion that Daring had been asked to turn her radar off as it was interfering with training - any unit used to working around US ships would have been exposed to that huge output many times.

That isn't the 'rumour'. It isn't that other units were exposed to much radiation - the S1850 throws out much more on T45 for a start- but that with Sampson on, those playing enemy got defeated too easily

 

[RobWilliams]

CAMM is a soft launch system using a cold gas generator - it happens to fit into Sylver and Mk41 but you can bung it into a trainable box launcher quite easily.

Main requirements are some sort of data link and and radar of some sort. The radar update rate is key here. It doesn't require much more integration than Phalanx 1b or Ram but the driver is the quality of update rate. If that data link is being fed by a radar with a low update rate, vs a rapidly manoeuvring target travelling at high speed, in a cluttered environment, basically, you're screwed.

CAMM does have a secondary anti surface role and against an FAC or similar, I'd expect the results to be definitive (four or five rounds of 84mm vs an Argentinian corvette damn near sank her, I'm sure a prox hit vs an FAC will do the trick)

CAMM could work fine with a low grade radar if it was against a low grade threat (clear skies, subsonic target at 20km in open water for instance)

ESSM has the advantage of range - nearly treble that of CAMM, although of course, it does require either a TI or constant wave interrupted illumination from a very high quality AESA radar.

Price wise, tbc, but CAMM was supposed to be sub £400K and ESSM is a bit more.

If you have a really good radar like Sampson, CAMM is a great inner layer missile because of course, it's harder to saturate.

Ian

Thats pretty interesting, thanks for the info!

In regards to the price issue, I suppose that gives CAMM an exportability of sorts; a basic self-AAW capability at a cheaper cost to ESSM but could be used with a cheaper infrastructure to use or maintain the capability on ops? (Assuming i've understood correctly that is)

 

[RobWilliams]

That isn't the 'rumour'. It isn't that other units were exposed to much radiation - the S1850 throws out much more on T45 for a start- but that with Sampson on, those playing enemy got defeated too easily

I think he doesn't mean radiation, he means in regards to US training operations they have been 'exposed' to a radar with that kind of range and efficiency comparable to the T45 numerous times before.

At least, thats my interpretation of his comment anyway

 

[ProM]

I think he doesn't mean radiation, he means in regards to US training operations they have been 'exposed' to a radar with that kind of range and efficiency comparable to the T45 numerous times before.

At least, thats my interpretation of his comment anyway

That was my first interpretation, which is why I explained a few things why Sampson is more efficient and has better range. But he knew that. So I'm not sure now. Sorry if I am still misunderstanding you Stobie

Rip. I am certainly not going to start quoting figures, and nor was I being comprehensive. There are also losses in Spy-1 due to the phase shifting which are not incurred by Sampson. If we take 3db loss (your figure, I am making no assertion one way or another) for these as well, then this means already that we need 16x more power from Spy-1 to achieve the same range. These sort of things mount up quickly.
That is without considering other factors such as noise.

 

[RobWilliams]

That was my first interpretation, which is why I explained a few things why Sampson is more efficient and has better range. But he knew that. So I'm not sure now. Sorry if I am still misunderstanding you Stobie

Well i'd take from that, that SAMPSON is indeed a better radar but its not such a massive jump ahead of anything the US has that the USN would resort to asking the T45 to simply 'turn it off' because it was literally so good.

The US has perfectly capable and effective radar systems on their ships, certainly something which is comparable to SAMPSON so the chances of it being *that* much of an inhibitor to training are slim given the capability of what the USN has.

 

[ProM]

Well i'd take from that, that SAMPSON is indeed a better radar but its not such a massive jump ahead of anything the US has that the USN would resort to asking the T45 to simply 'turn it off' because it was literally so good.

The US has perfectly capable and effective radar systems on their ships, certainly something which is comparable to SAMPSON so the chances of it being *that* much of an inhibitor to training are slim given the capability of what the USN has.

In some respects I would assert it is. To repeat just one case (because it can be deduced from public material)

Take the height of Sampson vs Spy-1 . Calculate horizon for a target at (say) 10m. Ignoring OTH effects that gives your max detection range for each.
Calculate how long a (say) Mach 3 missile takes to cover that distance

Now you to have to deduct track formation times (both have look-back so relatively small), decision making times, arming/warm-up times etc. Now assuming they are all the same (as they are a function of the C2 and weapons not sensor). How far out is the target now? And how much more effective will your weapons be with that much more time to engage

 

[RobWilliams]

In some respects I would assert it is. To repeat just one case (because it can be deduced from public material)

Take the height of Sampson vs Spy-1 . Calculate horizon for a target at (say) 10m. Ignoring OTH effects that gives your max detection range for each.
Calculate how long a (say) Mach 3 missile takes to cover that distance

Now you to have to deduct track formation times (both have look-back so relatively small), decision making times, arming/warm-up times etc. Now assuming they are all the same (as they are a function of the C2 and weapons not sensor). How far out is the target now? And how much more effective will your weapons be with that much more time to engage

Again I do agree with you, but my point is that as good as SAMPSON is, it's not going to be so advanced compared to SPY-1 that it would actually inhibit training so the rumour seems very unlikely to say the least.

AFAIK the instance you described is in regards to sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.

 

[Bonza]

To be honest I don't know if comparing the effectiveness of US radars versus UK ones will tell you whether or not the story is accurate. It could very well be the case that a Daring was asked to switch its radar off during exercises, because military exercises are meant to simulate a threat in order to train against it. If a radar's performance was detracting from the realism of a given scenario (whether it's on a Daring or an Arleigh Burke or anything else) then I'm sure it's going to get switched off. But it's not as though they're going to sea and saying "okay, my planes versus your ship, let's see whose is better"...

 

[RobWilliams]

To be honest I don't know if comparing the effectiveness of US radars versus UK ones will tell you whether or not the story is accurate. It could very well be the case that a Daring was asked to switch its radar off during exercises, because military exercises are meant to simulate a threat in order to train against it. If a radar's performance was detracting from the realism of a given scenario (whether it's on a Daring or an Arleigh Burke or anything else) then I'm sure it's going to get switched off. But it's not as though they're going to sea and saying "okay, my planes versus your ship, let's see whose is better"...

I agree, but the 'rumour' that was going around claimed that it was being turned off because it was identifying threats and was able to counter them too early to get any effective training for the rest of the ships in the exercise.

As for realism, wouldn't it be more real to have all radars fully operational? At least to me it seems the most realistic option available.

 

[Bonza]

I agree, but the 'rumour' that was going around claimed that it was being turned off because it was identifying threats and was able to counter them too early to get any effective training for the rest of the ships in the exercise.

As for realism, wouldn't it be more real to have all radars fully operational? At least to me it seems the most realistic option available.

I think it depends on what you're training for - yes, all radars fully operational is one thing. But maybe you're training to best address a threat without that kind of radar performance, so maybe you'd want to modify the training to best reflect that. Likewise, I'm sure there's benefit to a ship like the Daring training to fight without its radar operating at peak capacity - perhaps they want to gauge the effectiveness of using off-board targeting passed to the ship via datalink, or something like that.

It's not that I think training with everything going full-tilt is unrealistic, it's that I think there's probably more to it than that. I'm certain that it's covered, but I'm equally certain there are a wide range of scenarios in which the performance of a given system is "tailored" to best simulate the threat, and thus provide the best training.

You sometimes hear the same thing about air exercises - how one air force smashed another one and clearly this indicates the superiority of their chosen fighter, etc etc... but unfortunately you almost never hear about what the opposing force was supposed to be simulating. So I always treat any exercise-based evidence of a system's superiority or effectiveness with a bit of a grain of salt.

 

[StobieWan]

That isn't the 'rumour'. It isn't that other units were exposed to much radiation - the S1850 throws out much more on T45 for a start- but that with Sampson on, those playing enemy got defeated too easily

Well, I'm guessing at a set of things here, so bear with me. If the Daring was asked to play the role of an opposing force with different capabilities then certainly in DACM (dissimilar aircraft combat missions) it's not unusual for one side to be asked to play a role quite different to their actual capabilities. So, if the T45 was asked to simulate say, a Russian AWD then yes, degrading her capabilities accordingly would make sense.

Hard to say, we're guessing on rumours here,

(Edit, Bonza got there first with better examples)

Ian

 

[ASSAIL]

Merchant regulations are hull inspection at NMT 36 month intervals and twice in a five year period, but only one of those must be out of water (assuming IWS is approved by Class/Flag for the intermediate survey). So drydock (or shiplift etc) is only compulsory every five years.

Lloyds Register Naval Rules appear to allow for a 6 year period between drydocking with an intermediate in water survey after 3 years.

6 years between between docking for any ship is outrageous let alone for a high performance (in relative terms) warship.
Speed and economy would suffer horrendously and vibration and unknown effects from electrolysis would all be and engineering nightmare.
Still, with SDSR.........................!

 

[ASSAIL]

To be honest I don't know if comparing the effectiveness of US radars versus UK ones will tell you whether or not the story is accurate. It could very well be the case that a Daring was asked to switch its radar off during exercises, because military exercises are meant to simulate a threat in order to train against it. If a radar's performance was detracting from the realism of a given scenario (whether it's on a Daring or an Arleigh Burke or anything else) then I'm sure it's going to get switched off. But it's not as though they're going to sea and saying "okay, my planes versus your ship, let's see whose is better"...

100% correct Bonza and further, it doesn't matter how good Sampson is or isn't, until the ships are fitted with CEC they are just another contributing escort that can't take full advantage of the force multipliers such as AEW.

 

[Anixtu]

6 years between between docking for any ship is outrageous let alone for a high performance (in relative terms) warship.
Speed and economy would suffer horrendously and vibration and unknown effects from electrolysis would all be and engineering nightmare.

Depending on what areas you are operating in (i.e. cold southern/northern waters vs warm tropical) and with modern anti-fouling coatings the performance reduction through fouling may not be so bad. If 5 years between drydocking is acceptable and desirable in the commercial world where cost efficiency is paramount the effects cannot be so severe.

 

[ProM]

100% correct Bonza and further, it doesn't matter how good Sampson is or isn't, until the ships are fitted with CEC they are just another contributing escort that can't take full advantage of the force multipliers such as AEW.

Don't disagree with that or Bonza's post. I was talking about comparing in the wider sense.

Though getting our own AEW again is more important than CEC to me. Roll on QEC

 

[ADMk2]

I think it depends on what you're training for - yes, all radars fully operational is one thing. But maybe you're training to best address a threat without that kind of radar performance, so maybe you'd want to modify the training to best reflect that. Likewise, I'm sure there's benefit to a ship like the Daring training to fight without its radar operating at peak capacity - perhaps they want to gauge the effectiveness of using off-board targeting passed to the ship via datalink, or something like that.

It's not that I think training with everything going full-tilt is unrealistic, it's that I think there's probably more to it than that. I'm certain that it's covered, but I'm equally certain there are a wide range of scenarios in which the performance of a given system is "tailored" to best simulate the threat, and thus provide the best training.

You sometimes hear the same thing about air exercises - how one air force smashed another one and clearly this indicates the superiority of their chosen fighter, etc etc... but unfortunately you almost never hear about what the opposing force was supposed to be simulating. So I always treat any exercise-based evidence of a system's superiority or effectiveness with a bit of a grain of salt.

On top of which, Radars and other Sensor/EW systems full capability are a closely guarded secret. None of the systems present operate at full capacity during a training exercise and the suggestion that the T45's 'radar' was so overwhelmingly powerful that US AEGIS ships couldn't participate in the exercise is ludicrous.

Impressive I've absolutely no doubt but anyone arguing it completely dominates the SPY-1 to the level that the SPY-1 can even't operate is being foolish.

 

[StobieWan]

Don't disagree with that or Bonza's post. I was talking about comparing in the wider sense.

Though getting our own AEW again is more important than CEC to me. Roll on QEC

We already have AEW in the form of the Seaking Searchwater system - we don't have *any* CEC fitted to any of the Type 45's - and that's a must for situations like the current one in the Straits of Hormuz. The Daring's would be a major contributor to the situation if they were fitted with CEC - it'd be a really useful set of overlapping capabilities, given the apparently very good performance in crowded littoral waters.

It's been put back enough - as far as I'm concerned, it needs to be brought in asap now we've got a worked up T45 in service.

 

[lopez]

Isn't it common practice during exercises for assets such as planes ships radar etc are assigned a notional effectiveness? So as not to give away actual capability

I know this to be the case for air to air exercises. Does it apply to ships also. It would make sense.

 

[RobWilliams]

I think it depends on what you're training for - yes, all radars fully operational is one thing. But maybe you're training to best address a threat without that kind of radar performance, so maybe you'd want to modify the training to best reflect that. Likewise, I'm sure there's benefit to a ship like the Daring training to fight without its radar operating at peak capacity - perhaps they want to gauge the effectiveness of using off-board targeting passed to the ship via datalink, or something like that.

It's not that I think training with everything going full-tilt is unrealistic, it's that I think there's probably more to it than that. I'm certain that it's covered, but I'm equally certain there are a wide range of scenarios in which the performance of a given system is "tailored" to best simulate the threat, and thus provide the best training.

You sometimes hear the same thing about air exercises - how one air force smashed another one and clearly this indicates the superiority of their chosen fighter, etc etc... but unfortunately you almost never hear about what the opposing force was supposed to be simulating. So I always treat any exercise-based evidence of a system's superiority or effectiveness with a bit of a grain of salt.

Thats true, didn't think about it that way.

EDIT: Does anyone have any solid info on any nations interested in the T26 frigate? I hear plenty of names being thrown around but thats about it, nothing to back them up with.