Formidable Class Frigate

[Tasman]

Again, not to get sidetracked, but heres what I was talking about. 1st is the main Iranian naval base at Bandar Abbas http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Bandar Abbas-2-1.jpg

Here is the Singaporean base at Tuas http://www.mediamax.com/rich46yo/Hosted/Tuas-2.jpg

For comparison. The naval base at Tuas could just as easily be Brit., Yank, or other 1st world navy.

The difference is striking Rich. The capacity of Singapore to support its fleet, combined with the quality of new vessels like the Formidables reaffirms that this country is moving rapidly towards becoming a major regional naval power. In fact, IMO, it probably already is.

The final weapons and electronics fitout of the Formidables will, I guess, continue to be debated by members with more technical knowledge than me but Singapore does seem to be building a very fine support base and I would see little problem in its ability to upgrade these vessels later, if and when it is required. The capability is certainly there.

Cheers

 

[tphuang]

As does the RSN which relies on its Fokker 50s and E-2Cs for general situational awareness.

wow, RSN is all set, one or two Fokker 50s and E-2Cs at any particular time compared to USN's massive fleet of ships, naval aerial assets + satellites detecting ballistic missiles.

The Herakles rotates at 60RPM, and is electronically steerable for enhanced revisit rates at directions of interest. So where did you get the idea that updates are only available every 2-3 seconds? In fact, the Herakles is capable of forming up to 4 beams.

I get the idea from Herakles operating on the S-band.

You just love to contradict yourself, don't you? Look at the Talwar class with its problems of signal interference on its Shtil system. That proves exactly my point. http://www.indiadefence.com/TwoTs.htm

you asked me for a smaller ship, so I gave you a smaller ship.
new systems, you are going to have some problems, they solved it, didn't they? So, what's the problem?

And how do you know how that change would impact on overall system capability? You sure that the sacrifices in capability in the target acquisition radar and FCR would bring about better overall performance? If you're not, how can you say that's ideal? I remind you that the 052C is a 7000 ton displacement destroyer, and the phased array radar on board also combines "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar". So is it as you say, 'less than ideal'?

who said sacrifice the capability? ask your main 3D radar that provides target acquisition to do a little less (so less hardware required) and then get your long range radar to do early detection. I think that's quite reasonable. I never said I think 052C's radar was ideal. I personally think they took too many concepts from DDG-51.

 

[Transient]

wow, RSN is all set, one or two Fokker 50s and E-2Cs at any particular time compared to USN's massive fleet of ships, naval aerial assets + satellites detecting ballistic missiles.

Nobody claimed that level of situational awareness was equal. But then the level of threat faced isn't equal either. For that matter, the RSN, like the CSG also has 4 E-2Cs at its disposal.

I get the idea from Herakles operating on the S-band.

And that with certainty means a 2 to 3 second update rate?

you asked me for a smaller ship, so I gave you a smaller ship.
new systems, you are going to have some problems, they solved it, didn't they? So, what's the problem?

What you did was prove my point exactly. With the substantial delays and additional costs incurred by the Talwar class, you have the cheek to say 'ideal'?

who said sacrifice the capability? ask your main 3D radar that provides target acquisition to do a little less (so less hardware required) and then get your long range radar to do early detection. I think that's quite reasonable. I never said I think 052C's radar was ideal. I personally think they took too many concepts from DDG-51.

you think I thought who confirm? Based on what analysis was your idea validated? Do you know with certainty how much of an impact a VSR would impact on the Formidable's cost? It's stealth? It's configuration? What's more, note that this discussion goes all the way back to your initial comments "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar" were less than ideal.
This suggests that you think the missile update function should be handles by other antennaes. How would that impact on its stealth? Its size? You think that you are a more accompished and qualified person at evaluating what's ideal than Singapore's evaluators?

With all the radars like EMPAR, APAR, Sampson, Herakles combining the tasks which you mentioned, considering their widespread adoption, you so sure they are less than ideal?

 

[tphuang]

Nobody claimed that level of situational awareness was equal. But then the level of threat faced isn't equal either. For that matter, the RSN, like the CSG also has 4 E-2Cs at its disposal.

yes, but you can't get 4 E-2C out there 24/7 at the same time. I don't think it was that hard to understand "one or two Fokker 50s and E-2Cs at any particular time".

And that with certainty means a 2 to 3 second update rate?

no, but s-band normally have 2-3 s update rate.

nfloorl: What you did was prove my point exactly. :nutkick With the substantial delays and additional costs incurred by the Talwar class, you have the cheek to say 'ideal'?

That speaks more for the competency of Russians than anything else.
they tried to originally put 8 Orekh on there, now that caused serious problems. At least they were smart enough to end up using 4. When you try to integrate as many new sensors in there as the Russians did with Talwar, you are bound to have problems. This is a typical engineering problem. Russians had a billion issues with the new systems they were installing on the 956EM for China too and that had nothing to do with frequency interference.

you think I thought who confirm? Based on what analysis was your idea validated? Do you know with certainty how much of an impact a VSR would impact on the Formidable's cost? It's stealth? It's configuration? What's more, note that this discussion goes all the way back to your initial comments "air search and target data uplink to missiles into one radar" were less than ideal.
This suggests that you think the missile update function should be handles by other antennaes. How would that impact on its stealth? Its size? You think that you are a more accompished and qualified person at evaluating what's ideal than Singapore's evaluators?

I don't agree with a lot of things Singapore chose. I would've chosen typhoon/Rafale ahead of F-15SG, but I'm not paying their bills. More importantly, I'm questioning Herakles here, not Formidable. Remember, Herakles is also used on FREMM. You can develop stealthy shaped radar for missile update. And yes, I would much rather buy a cheaper targetting radar, integrate it with a VSR than a more expensive targetting radar.

With all the radars like EMPAR, APAR, Sampson, Herakles combining the tasks which you mentioned, considering their widespread adoption, you so sure they are less than ideal?

interesting that you failed to mention S1850m and smart-L in this case, since they've been paired with the MFR you mentionned. As I said all along, I prefer having a volume search radar in addition to the a multi-functional surveillence radar.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Isn't 60 rpm = 1 update/sec update? Always tot updates are based on rpms.

 

[Transient]

yes, but you can't get 4 E-2C out there 24/7 at the same time. I don't think it was that hard to understand "one or two Fokker 50s and E-2Cs at any particular time".

Neither can the CSG get 4 E-2Cs out there 24/7 at the same time, for that matter.

no, but s-band normally have 2-3 s update rate.

nfloorl: What kind of evidence is this?

That speaks more for the competency of Russians than anything else. they tried to originally put 8 Orekh on there, now that caused serious problems. At least they were smart enough to end up using 4. When you try to integrate as many new sensors in there as the Russians did with Talwar, you are bound to have problems. This is a typical engineering problem. Russians had a billion issues with the new systems they were installing on the 956EM for China too and that had nothing to do with frequency interference.

So 4 Orekhs providing 4 channels for fire control is more ideal than the Herakles, which can provide at least 10 fire channels!

I don't agree with a lot of things Singapore chose. I would've chosen typhoon/Rafale ahead of F-15SG, but I'm not paying their bills. More importantly, I'm questioning Herakles here, not Formidable. Remember, Herakles is also used on FREMM. You can develop stealthy shaped radar for missile update. And yes, I would much rather buy a cheaper targetting radar, integrate it with a VSR than a more expensive targetting radar.

I see you deliberately ignored what I said about the other factors that would have to be taken into account. To you, it is a simplistic matter of putting another radar. More expensive? Get a 'slightly cheaper' radar. Stealth characteristics affected? "You can develop stealthy shaped radar for missile update".

What would you know about whether the FREMM and the Formidable would have the space and the energy generating capacity to accomodate a VSR? Whether, even if it could be done, whether it could be done within budget allowances? What is your idea of 'ideal', because one gets the distinct impression that to you, 'ideal' simply means more capability without regard for the tradeoffs that occur.

interesting that you failed to mention S1850m and smart-L in this case, since they've been paired with the MFR you mentionned. As I said all along, I prefer having a volume search radar in addition to the a multi-functional surveillence radar.

What's the displacement for the Horizon class which uses the S1850M again? 6,700t. What's the displacement for the De Zeven Provincien which uses the Smart-L? 6,050t. The Sachsen class? 5600 tons. Now what's the displacement for the Formidable class again? The FREMM class also doesn't have a long range VSR. if you still don't get the point, this indicates that there are practical restrictions imposed by ship size on number of sensor installations. Incidentally, the Talwar class also doesn't have a dedicated long range VSR - the fregat range is of the Herakle's class.

Isn't 60 rpm = 1 update/sec update? Always tot updates are based on rpms.

Yes. In fact, with the herakles being passively scanned, there is the possibility of a greater than 1 sec revisit rate if it is able to scan in both azimuth as well as elevation.

 

[tphuang]

Neither can the CSG get 4 E-2Cs out there 24/7 at the same time, for that matter.

yes, they got the F-18s, other ships, different AEW assets, satellites and a bunch of other things. A lot of assets to datalink. What's the point of arguing about this? It's obvious RSN can't possibly have the same level of early warning and target sharing as a USN CSG.

So 4 Orekhs providing 4 channels for fire control is more ideal than the Herakles, which can provide at least 10 fire channels!

http://home19.inet.tele.dk/airwing/ships/sam.htm

Multi channel capability is provided by the MR-90 Orekh antenna assemblies

Each Orekh radar can provide terminal guidance for 2 missiles against 1 target. so, that's already 8 channels vs 10 channels.
On top of that, Orekh operates on H/I band, meaning better resolution, faster update compared to something operating on S band. (same reason why CIWS sensors operate on this frequency) You have radars dedicated to locking onto targets and providing targetting information for missiles.

Do we need to really need to continue this argument? We argued this for days on SDF months back until you got suspended for having multiple accounts. We've already made our points.

I see you deliberately ignored what I said about the other factors that would have to be taken into account. To you, it is a simplistic matter of putting another radar. More expensive? Get a 'slightly cheaper' radar. Stealth characteristics affected? "You can develop stealthy shaped radar for missile update".

What would you know about whether the FREMM and the Formidable would have the space and the energy generating capacity to accomodate a VSR? Whether, even if it could be done, whether it could be done within budget allowances? What is your idea of 'ideal', because one gets the distinct impression that to you, 'ideal' simply means more capability without regard for the tradeoffs that occur.

what factors? I think I made my point clearly. Get a lighter, cheaper and less capable targetting radar and pair it with a VSR.

What's the displacement for the Horizon class which uses the S1850M again? 6,700t. What's the displacement for the De Zeven Provincien which uses the Smart-L? 6,050t. The Sachsen class? 5600 tons. Now what's the displacement for the Formidable class again? The FREMM class also doesn't have a long range VSR. if you still don't get the point, this indicates that there are practical restrictions imposed by ship size on number of sensor installations. Incidentally, the Talwar class also doesn't have a dedicated long range VSR - the fregat range is of the Herakle's class.

let's see your original post

With all the radars like EMPAR, APAR, Sampson, Herakles combining the tasks which you mentioned, considering their widespread adoption, you so sure they are less than ideal?

it's clear that you were implying that they are ideal operating on their own, so I'm telling you that they are always operating with LRR.
let's wait and see a FREMM class come out first.
You are the person that made this into purely a Formidable issue. All along, I've talked about not liking Herakles, saying that a VSR will make it far more effective.
As for Talwar, top plate isn't the fire control radar. It doesn't provide mid-course correction or end-target illumination. So, it's like a search radar.

 

[Transient]

yes, they got the F-18s, other ships, different AEW assets, satellites and a bunch of other things. A lot of assets to datalink. What's the point of arguing about this? It's obvious RSN can't possibly have the same level of early warning and target sharing as a USN CSG.

So? The RSN doesn't face the same threat level as the USN. Just because the Herakles doesn't have a 400km search range doesn't make it not 'ideal'.

Each Orekh radar can provide terminal guidance for 2 missiles against 1 target. so, that's already 8 channels vs 10 channels.

That's only a max of 4 engagements at once, while the Herakles can support 10 or more. And the FCRs on the Talwar are direction limited. And ultimately, there is still 2 fire channels less! Again.... ideal? nfloorl:

On top of that, Orekh operates on H/I band, meaning better resolution, faster update compared to something operating on S band. (same reason why CIWS sensors operate on this frequency) You have radars dedicated to locking onto targets and providing targetting information for missiles.

See, this is where your simplistic analysis fails you. The thing is that the greater accuracy that I band provides is not required since the Aster is actively guided.

Do we need to really need to continue this argument? We argued this for days on SDF months back until you got suspended for having multiple accounts.

The moderator there doesn't understand that many ISPs provider force a transparent proxy-server between users and the net, making it seem like the users are one and the same.

what factors? I think I made my point clearly. Get a lighter, cheaper and less capable targetting radar and pair it with a VSR.

Simplistic. As an example: from the site you supplied, 5 Orekh antennas to provide the same level of capability as the herakles will weigh 6 tons. That's just for fire control. Now say add another Signaal DA 08 which weighs 1.1 tons. Add a Smart L whose antenna unit weighs 6.2 tons. So now you have a system that weighs a grand total of 13.3 tons. The Herakles antenna unit weighs just 3.5 tons. You got yourself a less capable system for much greater weight. Ideal?

it's clear that you were implying that they are ideal operating on their own, so I'm telling you that they are always operating with LRR.

No, I was stating that these MFRs were all doing what you said was not 'ideal', because they combined the functions of air search and missile updates in one radar. So those radar designers must have missed their consultation with Tphuang the radar guru.

All along, I've talked about not liking Herakles, saying that a VSR will make it far more effective.

That's like saying a fork is not ideal because there isn't a spoon. A spoon provides a separate, though complementary function. That doesn't mean the fork is not ideal in its task.

As for Talwar, top plate isn't the fire control radar. It doesn't provide mid-course correction or end-target illumination. So, it's like a search radar.

Yes, it is the search radar because a dedicated long range VSR cannot be accomodated. The same goes for the Herakles in the case of the Formidable. However, unlike the Herakles, the Top Plate is less capable in that it is unable to provide missile guidance.

 

[tphuang]

So? The RSN doesn't face the same threat level as the USN. Just because the Herakles doesn't have a 400km search range doesn't make it not 'ideal'.

okay

That's only a max of 4 engagements at once, while the Herakles can support 10 or more. And the FCRs on the Talwar are direction limited. And ultimately, there is still 2 fire channels less! Again.... ideal? nfloorl:

haven't we gone through this already? It can handle more than 4 engagements, it only provides illumination in the terminal stages, so the missiles in the air could very well be going after more than 4 targets. And yes, 2 missiles give you better chance of shooting down a modern AShM.

See, this is where your simplistic analysis fails you. The thing is that the greater accuracy that I band provides is not required since the Aster is actively guided.

yes, the weak radar on Aster vs a more powerful radar with far better resolution. Which one do you think will be able to counter soft kill measures better?

The moderator there doesn't understand that many ISPs provider force a transparent proxy-server between users and the net, making it seem like the users are one and the same.

do we need to continue this Aster vs Orekh?

Simplistic. As an example: from the site you supplied, 5 Orekh antennas to provide the same level of capability as the herakles will weigh 6 tons. That's just for fire control. Now say add another Signaal DA 08 which weighs 1.1 tons. Add a Smart L whose antenna unit weighs 6.2 tons. So now you have a system that weighs a grand total of 13.3 tons. The Herakles antenna unit weighs just 3.5 tons. You got yourself a less capable system for much greater weight. Ideal?

as I explained, it's more capable. Of course, the Russian systems are large and awkward in general. You don't need something as heavy as smart L. You can miniaturize all these sensors. And where did you get Herakles being 3.5 tons?

No, I was stating that these MFRs were all doing what you said was not 'ideal', because they combined the functions of air search and missile updates in one radar. So those radar designers must have missed their consultation with Tphuang the radar guru.

and I said, those ship builders also agree with me that it was worth the cost and additional weight to add the LRR.

That's like saying a fork is not ideal because there isn't a spoon. A spoon provides a separate, though complementary function. That doesn't mean the fork is not ideal in its task.

this argument isn't going anywhere.

Yes, it is the search radar because a dedicated long range VSR cannot be accomodated. The same goes for the Herakles in the case of the Formidable. However, unlike the Herakles, the Top Plate is less capable in that it is unable to provide missile guidance.

as long as it can do search better, that's all that matters.

 

[Transient]

haven't we gone through this already? It can handle more than 4 engagements, it only provides illumination in the terminal stages, so the missiles in the air could very well be going after more than 4 targets.

That isn't what your source suggests.

And yes, 2 missiles give you better chance of shooting down a modern AShM.

Yeah, so why not shoot 5 missiles at each target? Stop putting a spin on things. It is, as your literature suggests, limited to 4 engagements.

yes, the weak radar on Aster vs a more powerful radar with far better resolution. Which one do you think will be able to counter soft kill measures better?do we need to continue this Aster vs Orekh?

The Aster happens to be closer to the target, and is getting much closer at a higher rate than is the ASM getting to the ship. So both have their advantages, of which you do not know which outweighs the other. Or would you like to provide proof that the a semi-active solution is definitely better?

as I explained, it's more capable. Of course, the Russian systems are large and awkward in general. You don't need something as heavy as smart L. You can miniaturize all these sensors.

Rationalising all the constraints and problems away won't get you anywhere. I mention problems of maintaining stealth, you come up with 'design for stealth'. I mention problems of cost, you come up with 'find cheaper radar'. I talk about size constraints, you say 'miniaturise'. Nowhere do you come up with representative numbers or examples to back yourself up.

And where did you get Herakles being 3.5 tons?

Jane's IDR June 2005 issue.

and I said, those ship builders also agree with me that it was worth the cost and additional weight to add the LRR.

VSR was incorporated for long range detection of targets. That does not displace the MFR's task of air search and missile update.

this argument isn't going anywhere.

Not for you, when you have no points to back yourself up.

as long as it can do search better, that's all that matters.

To quote from IDR, "Doppler processing is used for clutter rejection, and the radar (Herakles) is claimed to be capable of initiating most tracks within one second (the first rotation after detection) — or, in highly stressful cases such as an incoming sea-skimming missile, within two seconds (the second rotation after detection)."

"The Herakles is basically operated as a multibeam radar for surveillance modes and as a pencil-beam radar for target tracking — activities that are happening simultaneously as they are inter-leaved by the radar’s space-time management unit. “To cover a volume out to 250 km and up to 80,000ft; 360° around; up to an elevation of 70°, every second, there has to be a secret, and the secret is that we use the multi-beam concept,” a Thales engineer said."

The Herakles has 4 independent reception channels operating up to 4 beams concurrently.

In comparison the Fregat rotates at 12 or 6 RPM. Which can search better?

 

[tphuang]

That isn't what your source suggests.

it's well known that for 9M317, the Orekh radar only need to provide terminal guidance.

Yeah, so why not shoot 5 missiles at each target? Stop putting a spin on things. It is, as your literature suggests, limited to 4 engagements.

do I need to give you a mathematical model. Look at some basic predator/prey simulation. You will see why 2 missiles is preferred. My literature suggest that each Orekh radar can provide guidance for 2 missiles against one target. And for 9M317, as I said already, you only need to light up the target for terminal stage.

The Aster happens to be closer to the target, and is getting much closer at a higher rate than is the ASM getting to the ship. So both have their advantages, of which you do not know which outweighs the other. Or would you like to provide proof that the a semi-active solution is definitely better?

That doesn't change the fact that a much more powerful radar operating on H/I frequency has much better target descrimination and that the powerful radar is unlikely to be overpowered by opposing ECM efforts. It's physics, no matter how far you are from a target, if you send out more waves per second, you will get more back. As long as you operate on a higher frequency, you will get more information back, allowing for high resolution. you can be 100 m or 1 km from a target, if you send 1000 waves out per second, you will get 1000 waves back at (assuming no lost waves) over the same period.

Rationalising all the constraints and problems away won't get you anywhere. I mention problems of maintaining stealth, you come up with 'design for stealth'. I mention problems of cost, you come up with 'find cheaper radar'. I talk about size constraints, you say 'miniaturise'. Nowhere do you come up with representative numbers or examples to back yourself up.

It's all over the place in the radar world. APG-77 vs APG-80 for example. APG-77 is larger, heavier and more costly than APG-80, but more powerful. Or what about the NIIP who shrunk Bars on su-30mki to get Bars-29 for Mig-29 series or NIIR who shrunk Zhuk-MSE to get Zhuk-ME.

VSR was incorporated for long range detection of targets. That does not displace the MFR's task of air search and missile update.

never said MFR can't search and track, but that it will be far more effective with a VSR.

Not for you, when you have no points to back yourself up.

Is your life getting better from this debate?

To quote from IDR, "Doppler processing is used for clutter rejection, and the radar (Herakles) is claimed to be capable of initiating most tracks within one second (the first rotation after detection) — or, in highly stressful cases such as an incoming sea-skimming missile, within two seconds (the second rotation after detection)."
"The Herakles is basically operated as a multibeam radar for surveillance modes and as a pencil-beam radar for target tracking — activities that are happening simultaneously as they are inter-leaved by the radar’s space-time management unit. “To cover a volume out to 250 km and up to 80,000ft; 360° around; up to an elevation of 70°, every second, there has to be a secret, and the secret is that we use the multi-beam concept,” a Thales engineer said."
The Herakles has 4 independent reception channels operating up to 4 beams concurrently.
In comparison the Fregat rotates at 12 or 6 RPM. Which can search better?

it sacrifices resolution/update frequency for range. That's what volume search is about. As for search range of Fregat, for the number you listed, the respective ones for Fregat are 300 km, 30km, 360 degrees and 55 degrees. On top of that, it does surface search. For something like Sea Eagle which does electronic scanning in both azimuth and elevation, the range should be even greater.

 

[Transient]

it's well known that for 9M317, the Orekh radar only need to provide terminal guidance.

The I hope for your sake that the missile guidance for the missile is not handled by information from the Top Plate, because it would be less than ideal, and you would have scored an own goal for the third time in a row.

do I need to give you a mathematical model. Look at some basic predator/prey simulation. You will see why 2 missiles is preferred. My literature suggest that each Orekh radar can provide guidance for 2 missiles against one target. And for 9M317, as I said already, you only need to light up the target for terminal stage.

Yes you have to. While 2 missiles increase the Pk of each target targeted, the number of targets engaged imultaneously is also a factor in the ultimate measure of concern - the Probability of raid annihilation. Note also that there is no reason why 2 or more Asters cannot be fired at each target. So in this case, whatever the result is, the Aster solution is demonstrably the better and more versatile solution as compared to the Shtil, which is limited to 2 missiles per target.

That doesn't change the fact that a much more powerful radar operating on H/I frequency has much better target descrimination and that the powerful radar is unlikely to be overpowered by opposing ECM efforts.

You've heard of the inverse square law? The Aster is MUCH closer to the target than the illumination radar. So both solutions have something going for them. If you wish to insist that the semi-active solution is better, please do provide evidence with info on the systems and the calculation to back yourself up.

It's physics, no matter how far you are from a target, if you send out more waves per second, you will get more back. As long as you operate on a higher frequency, you will get more information back, allowing for high resolution. you can be 100 m or 1 km from a target, if you send 1000 waves out per second, you will get 1000 waves back at (assuming no lost waves) over the same period.

So all of a sudden you jump from power discussions to frequency. You're getting more incoherent the more you try to squirm your way out of this one. But never mind. All I'm going to ask is this. Do you have evidence that the aster's seeker operates at a lower frequency than the Orekh? Because if you don't, congrats, you have officially shot yourself in the foot for the third time! nfloorl: The aster's seeker operates in the J band, while the Orekh operates in the I band! So the Aster has a higher resolution than the Orekh illuminated Shtil.

It's all over the place in the radar world. APG-77 vs APG-80 for example. APG-77 is larger, heavier and more costly than APG-80, but more powerful. Or what about the NIIP who shrunk Bars on su-30mki to get Bars-29 for Mig-29 series or NIIR who shrunk Zhuk-MSE to get Zhuk-ME.

I have asked time and again for a representative system of what you advocated that can provide the same performance of the herakles at the same size, weight, cost, power requirements and manning requirements. Time and again all you can come up with are faulty examples, upon which after I have pointed them out for being faulty, you result to pathetic rationalisations such as 'stealthify them' or 'miniaturise them' to squirm your way out. Your latest example seems to be no different. I guess all I can do is accept that your 'ideal' system simply exists only as a fanboy fantasy concocted up without the restrictions imposed by practical considerations.

never said MFR can't search and track, but that it will be far more effective with a VSR.

That in no way proves the MFR is not ideal in its tasks.

Is your life getting better from this debate?

I'm just a vindictive SOB with a Schadenfreude syndrome. :vamp

it sacrifices resolution/update frequency for range. That's what volume search is about. As for search range of Fregat, for the number you listed, the respective ones for Fregat are 300 km, 30km, 360 degrees and 55 degrees. On top of that, it does surface search.

So all of a sudden track initiation time doesn't figure anymore, after all your gripes about how the Herakles wasn't ideal because it detected sea skimming targets later? The Herakles does surface search, by the way. Splash spotting for gun support even. That's because it has a dedicated surface channel for such purposes.

For something like Sea Eagle which does electronic scanning in both azimuth and elevation, the range should be even greater.

I would like to see a source indicating so. The tilted face the Fregat was because it used a Frescan mode of operation and the beams are scanned diagonally across the sky in order to gain better dwell time on targets. Which would beg the question of why such a solution is needed for the Sea Eagle if it is electronically scanned in both azimuth and elevation.

 

[tphuang]

The I hope for your sake that the missile guidance for the missile is not handled by information from the Top Plate, because it would be less than ideal, and you would have scored an own goal for the third time in a row.

well, top plate needs to update at higher rate before it can provide that functionality.

Yes you have to. While 2 missiles increase the Pk of each target targeted, the number of targets engaged imultaneously is also a factor in the ultimate measure of concern - the Probability of raid annihilation. Note also that there is no reason why 2 or more Asters cannot be fired at each target. So in this case, whatever the result is, the Aster solution is demonstrably the better and more versatile solution as compared to the Shtil, which is limited to 2 missiles per target.

if you are arguing that aster is a superior missile, that I would agree with. But my point is that with 9M317, you no longer have an issue where only 4 targets can be engaged, due to the terminal guidance change.

You've heard of the inverse square law? The Aster is MUCH closer to the target than the illumination radar. So both solutions have something going for them. If you wish to insist that the semi-active solution is better, please do provide evidence with info on the systems and the calculation to back yourself up.

there are many laws based on inverse square relationships. Closer distance does allows a much weaker signal get an equivalent strength signal back compared to a signal emitted further away but with much stronger power. And then there is also the factor of opposing ECM, which would have a far easier time jamming the seeker and "fooling" the tiny seeker of ARH missile than that of an illuminator. Neither you nor I have the data on at what distance, what is the strength of the signal, so it's a matter of faith.

So all of a sudden you jump from power discussions to frequency. You're getting more incoherent the more you try to squirm your way out of this one. But never mind. All I'm going to ask is this. Do you have evidence that the aster's seeker operates at a lower frequency than the Orekh? Because if you don't, congrats, you have officially shot yourself in the foot for the third time! nfloorl: The aster's seeker operates in the J band, while the Orekh operates in the I band! So the Aster has a higher resolution than the Orekh illuminated Shtil.

well, resolution is dependent on both the strength of return signal and the frequency. I previously thought Orekh would have higher frequency than Aster, looks like I'm wrong here.

I have asked time and again for a representative system of what you advocated that can provide the same performance of the herakles at the same size, weight, cost, power requirements and manning requirements. Time and again all you can come up with are faulty examples, upon which after I have pointed them out for being faulty, you result to pathetic rationalisations such as 'stealthify them' or 'miniaturise them' to squirm your way out. Your latest example seems to be no different. I guess all I can do is accept that your 'ideal' system simply exists only as a fanboy fantasy concocted up without the restrictions imposed by practical considerations.

You obviously have a problem understanding things.
my preferred system is quite prevalent in the form of Sampson + S1850 or APAR + S1850. I stated this many times. If you want to put that on a 4000 tonne platform instead of 7000 tonne platform, you simply use smaller versions of those. I still prefer a VSR + a 3D targetting radar. So, then you asked me can provide same performance of herakles. And I replied that the 3D targetting radar would be smaller and less capable than Herakles, but the VSR would allow targets to be detected after longer range. It's pretty obvious what I meant all along.

That in no way proves the MFR is not ideal in its tasks.

Well, if MFR is ideal, then why does type 45 or Horizon even bother with S1850. Why don't they just get a really large and powerful MFR? They obviously think for an AAW destroyer, it's better to have both the MFR and VSR.

I'm just a vindictive SOB with a Schadenfreude syndrome. :vamp

good that you know.

So all of a sudden track initiation time doesn't figure anymore, after all your gripes about how the Herakles wasn't ideal because it detected sea skimming targets later? The Herakles does surface search, by the way. Splash spotting for gun support even. That's because it has a dedicated surface channel for such purposes.

good to know Herakles does some surface search.
fregat is placed much higher than Herakles, I think you know what that means vs sea skimming targets. Again, Fregat is a search radar, not a fire control radar, it searches. According to the brochure, its detection range vs fighters is 230 km and vs missile is 50 km.

I would like to see a source indicating so. The tilted face the Fregat was because it used a Frescan mode of operation and the beams are scanned diagonally across the sky in order to gain better dwell time on targets. Which would beg the question of why such a solution is needed for the Sea Eagle if it is electronically scanned in both azimuth and elevation.

all I can say to that is that all of the new 2D, 3D search radars produced by China in the recent years are electronically scanned. If you compare sea Eagle, Sea Eagle already has an advantage in which it's operating on two bands instead of just E like on top plate.

 

[Transient]

well, top plate needs to update at higher rate before it can provide that functionality.

Then that raises some very hard questions for you. If the Top Plate is not able to provide the update rate required, then what is providing the required update rate for the missiles? The Orekh? If that is so, then that would explain the 2 missile per Orekh information - that the Orekh not only provides terminal illumination, but target information update rate is also dependent on the Orekh. And the height of the Orekh is lower than the Top Plate in most instances, which turns your earlier point about radar height right back at you.

if you are arguing that aster is a superior missile, that I would agree with. But my point is that with 9M317, you no longer have an issue where only 4 targets can be engaged, due to the terminal guidance change.

As said earlier, it seems that number of missiles able to be updated in flight is dependent on the number of Orekhs available. Either that, or your example all of a sudden became less than 'ideal'.

there are many laws based on inverse square relationships. Closer distance does allows a much weaker signal get an equivalent strength signal back compared to a signal emitted further away but with much stronger power. And then there is also the factor of opposing ECM, which would have a far easier time jamming the seeker and "fooling" the tiny seeker of ARH missile than that of an illuminator. Neither you nor I have the data on at what distance, what is the strength of the signal, so it's a matter of faith.

You don't seem to understand that the strength of any ECM is irrelevant. All that matters is the power of the return signal the missile receives from the ASM, and the processing power and algorithms available on the missile. In the latter it is likely that the Aster is more capable than the 9M317, while in the earlier part there are factors in favor for either of them.

Since you are not able to substantiate your unambiguous claim, and you are now admitting that it was only a claim based on nothing more than faith, why did you insist that the 9M317 is better in terms of ECCM with "yes, the weak radar on Aster vs a more powerful radar with far better resolution. Which one do you think will be able to counter soft kill measures better"?

You obviously have a problem understanding things.
my preferred system is quite prevalent in the form of Sampson + S1850 or APAR + S1850. I stated this many times. If you want to put that on a 4000 tonne platform instead of 7000 tonne platform, you simply use smaller versions of those. I still prefer a VSR + a 3D targetting radar. So, then you asked me can provide same performance of herakles. And I replied that the 3D targetting radar would be smaller and less capable than Herakles, but the VSR would allow targets to be detected after longer range. It's pretty obvious what I meant all along. Well, if MFR is ideal, then why does type 45 or Horizon even bother with S1850. Why don't they just get a really large and powerful MFR? They obviously think for an AAW destroyer, it's better to have both the MFR and VSR.

Because the MFR doesn't do volume search. That doesn't mean the MFR is not ideal in what it does.

good to know Herakles does some surface search.
fregat is placed much higher than Herakles, I think you know what that means vs sea skimming targets.

That doesn't mean much without taking into account other factors like track acquisition time etc.

Again, Fregat is a search radar, not a fire control radar, it searches. According to the brochure, its detection range vs fighters is 230 km and vs missile is 50 km.

Then according to your info the Fregat is a less ideal search radar than the Herakles even though it is a dedicated search radar.

all I can say to that is that all of the new 2D, 3D search radars produced by China in the recent years are electronically scanned. If you compare sea Eagle, Sea Eagle already has an advantage in which it's operating on two bands instead of just E like on top plate.

Just because the radars are electronically scanned doesn't mean they are scanned in both azimuth and elevation. If the Sea Eagle is a Frescan radar as is likely, than it is likely not able to scan in azimuth.

 

[tphuang]

Then that raises some very hard questions for you. If the Top Plate is not able to provide the update rate required, then what is providing the required update rate for the missiles? The Orekh? If that is so, then that would explain the 2 missile per Orekh information - that the Orekh not only provides terminal illumination, but target information update rate is also dependent on the Orekh. And the height of the Orekh is lower than the Top Plate in most instances, which turns your earlier point about radar height right back at you.

they have other data links on these ships that can send guidance information.

As said earlier, it seems that number of missiles able to be updated in flight is dependent on the number of Orekhs available. Either that, or your example all of a sudden became less than 'ideal'.

well, if your ship can track more than the number of orekh radar available, then you can send missiles against multiple targets. Each orekh radar would only be illuminating the most immediate targets and then switches to a new target after the present target is engaged.

You don't seem to understand that the strength of any ECM is irrelevant. All that matters is the power of the return signal the missile receives from the ASM, and the processing power and algorithms available on the missile. In the latter it is likely that the Aster is more capable than the 9M317, while in the earlier part there are factors in favor for either of them.

so, you are basically comparing 9M317 to Aster. I already said Aster is a better missile, but let's just say for argument sake that you have a TVM or SARH missile with comparable processing power, seeker technlogy to a ARH missile.

Since you are not able to substantiate your unambiguous claim, and you are now admitting that it was only a claim based on nothing more than faith, why did you insist that the 9M317 is better in terms of ECCM with "yes, the weak radar on Aster vs a more powerful radar with far better resolution. Which one do you think will be able to counter soft kill measures better"?

I insist that having an illuminator is better, because against modern ECM and stealthy targets, having an illuminator that's linked with the rest of the fire control system would have a better chance of locking onto the target even at a far greater distance than the much smaller seeker on a missile.

Because the MFR doesn't do volume search. That doesn't mean the MFR is not ideal in what it does.

so, I guess it comes down to doctrine, whether you believe that volume search is needed for your ship or not. I believe for a ship operating without a lot of organic aerial assets, you need something like SMART-L that can detect stealth target at a respectable range.

That doesn't mean much without taking into account other factors like track acquisition time etc.

that's a strike against the age of top plate rather than against my ideology.

Then according to your info the Fregat is a less ideal search radar than the Herakles even though it is a dedicated search radar.

there is a difference between search range and detection range.
originally we quoted search range, the latest range given are for detecting the targets. This needs verification, but I got these figures for Herakles.
"Ranges are 200 km vs fighter, 60 km on low RCS missile."
again, need the RCS and flight profile used for both Herakles and fregat before being able to make a good assessment.

Just because the radars are electronically scanned doesn't mean they are scanned in both azimuth and elevation. If the Sea Eagle is a Frescan radar as is likely, than it is likely not able to scan in azimuth.

Those 3D ones should be able to scan electronically in both azimuth and elevation. According to people in China, Sea Eagle does scan both azimuth and elevation electronically. After already doing so on the 052C radars, why go backward?

 

[Transient]

they have other data links on these ships that can send guidance information.

Maybe, but the missiles will still be hamstrung by the low target track update rate of the ideal radar you're talking about.

I insist that having an illuminator is better, because against modern ECM and stealthy targets, having an illuminator that's linked with the rest of the fire control system would have a better chance of locking onto the target even at a far greater distance than the much smaller seeker on a missile.

You do realise that, because the active missile's transmitter is co-located with the missile as opposed to the shipboard FCR solution, assuming the missile is 5km fro the target and the target is 100km from the shipboard FCR, the FCR will have to be 400 times as powerful as the active missile's seeker assuming everything else is equal? At 1 km from the target, the shipboard FCR will have to be 10,000 times more powerful?

so, I guess it comes down to doctrine, whether you believe that volume search is needed for your ship or not. I believe for a ship operating without a lot of organic aerial assets, you need something like SMART-L that can detect stealth target at a respectable range.

precisely. Now you see the folly of tagging an MFR as not ideal simply because it didn't do a task it wasn't designed to do.

that's a strike against the age of top plate rather than against my ideology.

If so why did you hold up the Top Plate as an ideal solution before until I disproved your claims?

there is a difference between search range and detection range.
originally we quoted search range, the latest range given are for detecting the targets. This needs verification, but I got these figures for Herakles.
"Ranges are 200 km vs fighter, 60 km on low RCS missile."
again, need the RCS and flight profile used for both Herakles and fregat before being able to make a good assessment.

The brochure states a range of 250km.

Those 3D ones should be able to scan electronically in both azimuth and elevation. According to people in China, Sea Eagle does scan both azimuth and elevation electronically. After already doing so on the 052C radars, why go backward?

Cost may be just one of other reasons. Why is the Sea Eagle S/C tilted if it is not Frescan?

 

[crobato]

You do realise that, because the active missile's transmitter is co-located with the missile as opposed to the shipboard FCR solution, assuming the missile is 5km fro the target and the target is 100km from the shipboard FCR, the FCR will have to be 400 times as powerful as the active missile's seeker assuming everything else is equal? At 1 km from the target, the shipboard FCR will have to be 10,000 times more powerful?

But a shipboard illuminator can afford to be that powerful. On a missile it has to be powered by batteries. On a ship, it can be powered by the ship's generators and use far larger transformers. On a missile the klystron size can only be so limited. On a ship, it can be far larger, or used in multiples. The problem of seperating target reflections from surface clutter reflections become more acute the closer the target is to the surface.

Here is another thing too. If the target happens to be below the missile, the missile is forced to differentiate the target from ground/water clutter, because the emissions have a downward direction and both surface and target reflections are going up. But if the target is illuminated from the surface, you won't have a surface return of the signals, and the target is much better differentiated. If the target is skimming off the surface, the radar reflections to the surface will only be headed away from the ship, and not towards it.

 

[Transient]

But a shipboard illuminator can afford to be that powerful. On a missile it has to be powered by batteries. On a ship, it can be powered by the ship's generators and use far larger transformers. On a missile the klystron size can only be so limited. On a ship, it can be far larger, or used in multiples.

Theoretically speaking, yes. But one can only make an illuminator so powerful before practical consdierations take over. A shipboard illuminator may seem much more powerful, but when one takes into account range effects that i have demonstrated above, and weather attenuation as a result of the energy having to travel such a long distance, one sees as many disadvantages as there are for semi-active radar guidance. Thus one cannot insist that "having an illuminator is better".

 

[crobato]

Theoretically speaking, yes. But one can only make an illuminator so powerful before practical consdierations take over. A shipboard illuminator may seem much more powerful, but when one takes into account range effects that i have demonstrated above, and weather attenuation as a result of the energy having to travel such a long distance, one sees as many disadvantages as there are for semi-active radar guidance. Thus one cannot insist that "having an illuminator is better".

If you are engaging in long distance. Missile against missile interceptions are likely to be in distances under 40 km. That's because sea skimmers won't be seen in the radar horizon until it comes to that range. Consider that an HHQ-16 or Shtil-1 will have a slant range of 50km against aircraft, and half of that against missiles. Once its in range, SARH has advantages over ARH, one of that is the radiant energy projected in thin pencil beams are far stronger than any seeker located emitter. That means your lock ons would be faster, more positive, burn through the ECM, differentiate against clutter and decoy.

If you are referring to targeting beyond the radar horizon, which is basically missile vs. plane interceptions, as against missile vs. missile interceptions, then you see the advantage of ARH. But for frigates, where SAMs have a more point defense quality, I'm not exactly seeing the advantage of using ARH.

Another quality of SARH is that in theory, its better against low RCS or VLO targets. That's because SARH is bistatic in principle, whereas ARH is monostatic. VLO techniques focus in preventing radar from reflecting back to the same location as the emitter (monostatic principle). SARH works because the receiver is not the same as the emitter. This works simultaneously with the much stronger emissions, and the fact that the emissions are coming out from the surface, not projecting downward against the target, and that means the emissions won't be reflecting off the surface to create clutter.

 

[tphuang]

Maybe, but the missiles will still be hamstrung by the low target track update rate of the ideal radar you're talking about.

I'm not even sure which sensor is doing the uplink, not sure what it's update rate would be.

You do realise that, because the active missile's transmitter is co-located with the missile as opposed to the shipboard FCR solution, assuming the missile is 5km fro the target and the target is 100km from the shipboard FCR, the FCR will have to be 400 times as powerful as the active missile's seeker assuming everything else is equal? At 1 km from the target, the shipboard FCR will have to be 10,000 times more powerful?

not necessarily, you also have a much more powerful processor on the ship compared to what the seeker has. So, it will not need to be 10,000 times more powerful to discriminate the same target.

precisely. Now you see the folly of tagging an MFR as not ideal simply because it didn't do a task it wasn't designed to do.

agreed.

If so why did you hold up the Top Plate as an ideal solution before until I disproved your claims?

I'm saying that something with similar layout to top plate is more ideal. Suppose they are the same generation of sensors, then what layout would you rather have?

The brochure states a range of 250km.

when did search range become detection range? You can search for planes at 250 km, but you probably won't detect low flying super hornets.

Cost may be just one of other reasons. Why is the Sea Eagle S/C tilted if it is not Frescan?

ask the developer.