Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Naval weaponry

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
    Yes that is possible but the reason for the X-band is that this is much better for small fast targets. An X-band radar give a shorter range but it gives a much higher resolution meaning items like missiles or small boats are easier to identify.
    A couple of points, the 76mm and its associated long range ammunition and combat management system needs to start acquiring and engaging targets at long range including ones NOT for you. The CIWS is a point defence system, picks a target and hoses it off the radar.
    Our ships had both X-band and S-band radars. X-band is sensitive and picks up objects as small as rain droplets. This gives many scatter echoes in rain and white out on the screen in rough weather out to 3nm on the 12nm range. we relied more on S-band in bad weather for near water targets. X-band was used for heli-control but with a spring loaded switch to allow the controller to view the helicopter mounted transponder only as a kind of secondary radar. It was important to have raw sweeps to ensure the helo was actually flying as secondary only would pick up the transponder in the sea. In ships the X-Band radar is put at a height to minimise clutter, while the S-Band can be put at a greater height.

    Comment


    • I also was wrong. TRS-4D is C Band, NS100 is E/F band

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
        I also was wrong. TRS-4D is C Band, NS100 is E/F band
        Not quite, NATO has an old and newer letter code system.
        The TRS-4D is old C-band (3900-6200 MHz), new G-band (4000-6000 MHz). This puts it between the old S-band (1550-3900 MHz) and the old X-band (6200-10500 MHz).

        As for the NS100 this is S-band in the old system. The newer E-band is (2000-3000 MHz) while the new F-band is (3000-4000 MHz).

        It can be confusing which is why both manufacturers give both coding systems.

        More important is to note that both radars are AESA radars.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
          Not quite, NATO has an old and newer letter code system.
          The TRS-4D is old C-band (3900-6200 MHz), new G-band (4000-6000 MHz). This puts it between the old S-band (1550-3900 MHz) and the old X-band (6200-10500 MHz).

          As for the NS100 this is S-band in the old system. The newer E-band is (2000-3000 MHz) while the new F-band is (3000-4000 MHz).

          It can be confusing which is why both manufacturers give both coding systems.

          More important is to note that both radars are AESA radars.
          The radar you describe AESA and variants, solid state non scanning arrays ,are used in the avionics fields. The maritime Defence sector for medium sized ships are fitted with anti-jamming radars which replaces the single frequency magnetron with a Travelling Wave Tube ( TWT) that scans simultaneously over a number of frequencies so that if a frequency is jammed , the unjammed frequencies are still processing information.THALES are manufacturers of Tubes from S-Band to Ka Band for Surface and FC radars.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
            The radar you describe AESA and variants, solid state non scanning arrays ,are used in the avionics fields. The maritime Defence sector for medium sized ships are fitted with anti-jamming radars which replaces the single frequency magnetron with a Travelling Wave Tube ( TWT) that scans simultaneously over a number of frequencies so that if a frequency is jammed , the unjammed frequencies are still processing information.THALES are manufacturers of Tubes from S-Band to Ka Band for Surface and FC radars.
            All radars mentioned most certainly are GaAs AESA radars.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Graylion View Post
              All radars mentioned most certainly are GaAs AESA radars.
              It would be helpful if we left AEW Phased Array radars to aircraft , missiles and satellites. All-in-all the surface ship needs a Combat management system with a tracking and target management system that will handle weather and EW inputs. The technical market is aggressive and ever changing with generational changes happening at a faster rate. We need a system that will fit the bill and maybe be updated every 10 years that would be three times within the life of a ship.

              Comment


              • There has been major advances is radar technology availability over the past 30 years. This has come in form of hardware (AESA) and software (signal processing).

                Many moons ago the only thing that could be done to counter weather clutter was to change the Gain on the radar to try and eliminate the unwanted signals, but there was always the risk of missing real targets. This is no longer the case as the massive power of modern signal processing allows a radar system to sift out many of those unwanted returns and present a much clearer picture. Thus on a day with heavy rain if the display of an old X-band radar is compared to that of something like the Hensoldt (Kelvin Hughes) SharpEye it is like night and day. Gone for a large part is the white screen that was familiar with the older systems all thanks to the improved processing.

                Modern radars now use solid sate digital transmitter and receiver units, this allows for a better signal and easier processing. The introduction of AESA radars has allowed beam steering and for a single radar to transmit on a number of frequencies thus improving still the radar image.

                But some general rules still apply, the lower the frequency normally the longer range the application. This is the reason why on Air Defence vessels there is a L-band radar while a more GP vessel gets a shorter range S-band. The X & Ku bands then being used for close-in work. Taking the Phalanx system; it has both a Ku search radar and tracking radar. The Dutch Goalkeeper uses a X-band search radar and a Ku tracking radar. They use these higher frequency radar as it allows for a sharper steering of the radar beam. The Goalkeeper for example not only uses its Ku to track the target but also the out-going rounds to adjust for atmospheric conditions. But it is not limited to CIWS such as those mentioned above, the vast majority of tracking FC radars use the Ku-band.

                With the exception of the DA-05, the radars used by the NS are basically surface search radars with some additional software features to allow for tracking etc. The X-band SharpEye can do helicopter approach as the target is relatively low and slow. They are however far from what would be needed to support a CIWS that did not have its own radar systems like on the Phalanx & Goalkeeper.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by ancientmariner View Post
                  The radar you describe AESA and variants, solid state non scanning arrays ,are used in the avionics fields. The maritime Defence sector for medium sized ships are fitted with anti-jamming radars which replaces the single frequency magnetron with a Travelling Wave Tube ( TWT) that scans simultaneously over a number of frequencies so that if a frequency is jammed , the unjammed frequencies are still processing information.THALES are manufacturers of Tubes from S-Band to Ka Band for Surface and FC radars.
                  All the AESA radars mentioned are marine radars.
                  https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/ns100...eillance-radar
                  https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...4d-fixed-panel
                  https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...trs-4d-rotator
                  https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/de...er_400-v01.pdf

                  Thales are even offering an upgrade kit for the DA-05 to go to a solid state transmitter.

                  Comment


                  • Worth noting that the P60s are all fitted for, but not with Air search radar. The space and position is there for them on top of the strengthened mast.
                    For now, everything hangs on implementation of the CoDF report.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by na grohmiti View Post
                      Worth noting that the P60s are all fitted for, but not with Air search radar. The space and position is there for them on top of the strengthened mast.
                      Do you know what system was considered in the design? Saab ABM/Thales Smart-S?

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                        All the AESA radars mentioned are marine radars.
                        https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/ns100...eillance-radar
                        https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...4d-fixed-panel
                        https://www.hensoldt.net/products/ra...trs-4d-rotator
                        https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/de...er_400-v01.pdf

                        Thales are even offering an upgrade kit for the DA-05 to go to a solid state transmitter.
                        It would be interesting to know if our DA05 and IFF still function. The solid state 3 and 4D, some fixed panel, radars require a major ship under them with above deck weights in tons. We might be happy with a good CMS that is both Radar and optically based and able to handle 30mm and 76mm guns against aircraft and airborne threats, surface swarm or single attacks, and not require a major mast rebuild. Any system for us should include linking and a simulation capability for training. Maybe clutter is a thing of the past but eliminating unclassified targets by electronic means can also mean missing targets designed to be ignored.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          There has been major advances is radar technology availability over the past 30 years. This has come in form of hardware (AESA) and software (signal processing).

                          Many moons ago the only thing that could be done to counter weather clutter was to change the Gain on the radar to try and eliminate the unwanted signals, but there was always the risk of missing real targets. This is no longer the case as the massive power of modern signal processing allows a radar system to sift out many of those unwanted returns and present a much clearer picture. Thus on a day with heavy rain if the display of an old X-band radar is compared to that of something like the Hensoldt (Kelvin Hughes) SharpEye it is like night and day. Gone for a large part is the white screen that was familiar with the older systems all thanks to the improved processing.

                          Modern radars now use solid sate digital transmitter and receiver units, this allows for a better signal and easier processing. The introduction of AESA radars has allowed beam steering and for a single radar to transmit on a number of frequencies thus improving still the radar image.

                          But some general rules still apply, the lower the frequency normally the longer range the application. This is the reason why on Air Defence vessels there is a L-band radar while a more GP vessel gets a shorter range S-band. The X & Ku bands then being used for close-in work. Taking the Phalanx system; it has both a Ku search radar and tracking radar. The Dutch Goalkeeper uses a X-band search radar and a Ku tracking radar. They use these higher frequency radar as it allows for a sharper steering of the radar beam. The Goalkeeper for example not only uses its Ku to track the target but also the out-going rounds to adjust for atmospheric conditions. But it is not limited to CIWS such as those mentioned above, the vast majority of tracking FC radars use the Ku-band.

                          With the exception of the DA-05, the radars used by the NS are basically surface search radars with some additional software features to allow for tracking etc. The X-band SharpEye can do helicopter approach as the target is relatively low and slow. They are however far from what would be needed to support a CIWS that did not have its own radar systems like on the Phalanx & Goalkeeper.
                          Interestingly enough APAR is X-band

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                            There has been major advances is radar technology availability over the past 30 years. This has come in form of hardware (AESA) and software (signal processing).

                            Many moons ago the only thing that could be done to counter weather clutter was to change the Gain on the radar to try and eliminate the unwanted signals, but there was always the risk of missing real targets. This is no longer the case as the massive power of modern signal processing allows a radar system to sift out many of those unwanted returns and present a much clearer picture. Thus on a day with heavy rain if the display of an old X-band radar is compared to that of something like the Hensoldt (Kelvin Hughes) SharpEye it is like night and day. Gone for a large part is the white screen that was familiar with the older systems all thanks to the improved processing.

                            Modern radars now use solid sate digital transmitter and receiver units, this allows for a better signal and easier processing. The introduction of AESA radars has allowed beam steering and for a single radar to transmit on a number of frequencies thus improving still the radar image.

                            But some general rules still apply, the lower the frequency normally the longer range the application. This is the reason why on Air Defence vessels there is a L-band radar while a more GP vessel gets a shorter range S-band. The X & Ku bands then being used for close-in work. Taking the Phalanx system; it has both a Ku search radar and tracking radar. The Dutch Goalkeeper uses a X-band search radar and a Ku tracking radar. They use these higher frequency radar as it allows for a sharper steering of the radar beam. The Goalkeeper for example not only uses its Ku to track the target but also the out-going rounds to adjust for atmospheric conditions. But it is not limited to CIWS such as those mentioned above, the vast majority of tracking FC radars use the Ku-band.

                            With the exception of the DA-05, the radars used by the NS are basically surface search radars with some additional software features to allow for tracking etc. The X-band SharpEye can do helicopter approach as the target is relatively low and slow. They are however far from what would be needed to support a CIWS that did not have its own radar systems like on the Phalanx & Goalkeeper.
                            As you say Radar is evolving form using X-Band in clear calm conditions and using S-Band to overcome the MET drawbacks. Later Automated Gain Control was adapted and was OK while well offshore. Most cleaning of target returns cleared out weak returns like small vessels, buoys. Approaching land the AGC would be turned off. Multi-frequency for naval radar was to offset the jamming of a particular frequency so that the other frequencies would still see the target. Those that fly don't like using suppressed radars for their control and guidance as they feel the item been seen is their transponder. They prefer RAW data and guidance.

                            Comment


                            • While a lot of naval RWS seem to be going with one of the Bushmaster series as their gun system this does has limitations as a CIWS due to their low rate of fire. So as it is unlikely that the DoD would agreed to a couple of Phalanx systems the newest offering from Rheinmetall could be an option for the replacement of the Rh202s.

                              They have developed from their original MLG-27 system now a family of lighter weight RWS system from 20mm to 30mm. IMHO the Sea Snake 30 would make a good replacement as it has a high rate of fire for a 30mm system.

                              https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...nake_30_LR.pdf

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                                While a lot of naval RWS seem to be going with one of the Bushmaster series as their gun system this does has limitations as a CIWS due to their low rate of fire. So as it is unlikely that the DoD would agreed to a couple of Phalanx systems the newest offering from Rheinmetall could be an option for the replacement of the Rh202s.

                                They have developed from their original MLG-27 system now a family of lighter weight RWS system from 20mm to 30mm. IMHO the Sea Snake 30 would make a good replacement as it has a high rate of fire for a 30mm system.

                                https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...nake_30_LR.pdf
                                I could see such a system as a benefit particularly if our vessels are to be deployed on anti-piracy patrol as envisioned by the new MOD. I would like to see more about the "steerable platform" if that is a substitution for a stabilised gun system, you wouldn't want it to bottom out on a steep rolling turn. The other question, is the maximum elevation at +60 degrees OK in AA roles.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X