Shipbucket

Don't be such a sanctimonious git. Just because something works doesn't mean it automatically gets built, nor is the inverse true. There are plenty of dodgy vessels afloat that in hindsight perhaps ought to have not been built.

The more likely reason for there not being any is that although a feasible design, it is just too small to be worth building by any navy capable of affording to field Aegis vessels in any numbers. It may well lack the growth potential of something like a Nansen or F100 but that is not to say that it's an unworkable design to be rejected out of hand.

As for Aegis and SPY-1 on the LCS, cost. Pure and simple.

_________________
AU Projects: | Federal Monarchy of Tír Glas| Other Ivernic Nations | Artemis Group |
Blood and Fire

Not being sanctimonious. I actually supplied a dodgy vessel where AN/SPY 1K might actually have helped sell it to a flock of ignorant politicians to fund it.
Incorrect. If one had looked at the AFCON advertisement carefully, one would have seen why LCS does not carry the 1K. The weight of the stack and the volume used prohibit its use. LCS in either iteration (especially LockMART) would have to be stretched 10 meters to incorporate it. More power would have to be found somewhere, and the useable missile load-outs do not justify it. MONEY is actually not an issue with LCS at this point; since the program is 200% over original budget per unit build and the USN still wants some of them.

My navy does stupid things, but even they are not so daft as to commit the kind of mistake of installing a useless radar into a hull unless the missile match and mission profile justifies it. And for now, LCS is too small and carries the wrong missiles.

That's 4000 RW tonnes in a real world littoral combatant from the same fellas who designed AFCON. If they could have, they would have tried for smaller. They did not. Again one asks why?

http://www.defensenews.com/story/defens ... /24085347/

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/d ... Bifold.pdf

It is advertising. Lockheed LCS based for the Saudi RFI and is just as ridiculous as AFCON is.

That would be 3600 tonnes claimed. See how low the proposed radar array also actually sits? It is lower than the art on the NS 100 Lafayette shows. That is the AN/SPY 1F, which, itself, does not fully exploit ESSM.

Lets cool down little bit in here shall we?

Instead of derailing into petty namecalling , Lets just all take a refressing insight wether it is:

1) purposefull to necromance 2 year old threads without the content from OP?
2) turn them into a pedantic egocentered arguments over superfluos details?
3) Is the purpose of SB forum and its threads really about said technical details or about SB style drawings and their presentations?

Now, you can continue this discussion between yourselves, and if you feel able to do it in mature and polite fashion, use the Offtopic section, but If you insist on going into the "who's biggest in the internet"- path, Then I strongly suggest other platforms like PMs or otherwise Private ones where the rest of us don't have to share the humiliating embarrasment of such conduct.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"

Here in Norway on the Fridtjof Nansen class with it's AN/SPY-1F(V). Carrying ESSM (or as other calls it, Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile) we have found the system to work better than it was claimed and are now looking into upgrading the system to handle Standard missiles. The difference between "F" and "K" and the big ones is it Anti ballistic capability TBMD (but that is limited trough software and hardware modifications), but then ESSM aren't designed for that. ESSM are designed for any ships with any type of radar, from small light weight radar to the more heavy one, even radar from the 60's can be used, it's one of the capability of the Sea Sparrow family.

As any SPY-1 radar carrying ship, Fridtjof Nansen use illuminator, to paint the target for ther missiles and guns. SPY-1's task is to detect and track. if you want it to also illuminate targets, there are other radars that can do that, like APAR. SPY-1 main task is to be able to detect as many target as possible, and send that information to the weapon consoles.

SPY-1K. The LCS program have it's charm, but also it's errors. Just like Nansen class have (being to light armed... at the moment).

SPY-1K is mainly for small patrol boats and small to medium corvettes.



But then Potato VS potato. It's designed for a role, and if it didn't work as good as it does, then they would use something else. there are Many radar types in USA alone... So what is the problem.

actually, there was an proposal for LCS-1 using SPY-1K for Israel, IIRC.

as for ships not actually build, if we ignore the 2 most important factors (money and politics) we find a lot of designs that are workable, but not always perfect for the job they should do.

_________________
Drawings are credited with J.Scholtens
I ask of you to prove me wrong. Not say I am wrong, but prove it, because then I will have learned something new.
Shipbucket Wiki admin

I believe that was also the original impetus for AFCON.

Not to stray from the SB topic, my original objection was to the high mounting of the AN/SPY1 (it looked like an F to me, due of scale) because I know that that is not American practice for their billboard radars. Weight is a huge concern.

As for the not full exploitation of ESSM, in the F's and K's, that is due to a rough rule of thumb that the detection and acquisition should be equal to at least twice the flyout no-escape potential in the SAM employed. Ideally it should be three times the flyout. Current ESSM needs an illuminator and that additional detection time to cue steer the missile fore to aft in a lead predict to a solved track as opposed to lag pursuit logic for an indeterminant track (ASTER for example). The missile, itself, has to be matched to the radar/illuminator suites employed, whether AN./SPY and illuminators or APAR and illuminators.^1 In all cases the ESSM Block 1 remains SARH which means depending on altitude, the flyout varies of to-the-horizon to almost 65,000 meters slant NEZ. The target detection for the cue up and signal capture at launch should be from at a minimum to the horizon out to 130,000 meters.

Block II will use an AMRAAM type ARH onboard sensor, so dropping the missile into the basket^2 will be sufficient, without a signal chase illumination from the off board propagator to steer the missile into the target.

ARH could double Block II ESSMs effective NEZ flyout.

^1 Everyone seems to have his or her type of tracker/illuminators. Four (4) different types in the current US Navy are used. Each type has to be matched to the missile signal chaser sensor in a SARH missile depending on frequency and throughput logics used to foil enemy countermeasures.

^2 That egg shaped patch of sky the missile has, to reach and point at, for reflected signal acquisition off the intended target. ARH missiles, once they fly into the basket, turn on their onboard radars and chase the target reflected signal directly (much like a heat-seeker chases heat) until impact. That is lag-chase. Semi-Active-Radar-Homing missiles use a ship, plane, or ground mounted illuminator coded to receivers on the missile (fore and aft). In that case the missile fore receiver receives the separate illuminator radar's reflected signal in its receiver and uses a drift error lead predict logic to show where to point in the future to keep the signal in its sensor F.o.V. . The tracker portion back at the ship, plane, ground radar site sends out a separate coded telemetry update to the aft receiver on the missile to also update the missile as to where it was, where the target was and provides a "past" comparator so the predict lead has a scalar referent to update its vector solution. That is why the old missileer saying is "the missile has to be told where it was and where it was supposed to go. From that it figures out what it needs to do to get where it wants to go in the future.

Admin: Tells people to stop arguing
People: *continue arguing*

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939

Just how we do it, when we spot something we really have to arguing...

Yeah come on, give it a rest.

Discussion is fine... heated arguments with personal attacks going back and forth, not so much. See the forum rules if you have any questions, conveniently posted at the top of every subforum as an announcement. I would point to Rule #1.

_________________
USN components, camouflage colors, & reference links (World War II only)

Indeed.

Well this is what we get. The thread is now split here. Like I just said in the discord, Don't try to deliberatly test wheter we would enforce something or not after you've been clearly warned not to do.
Tobias is given an offical warning.
So would Heuhen and Acelancelot, but the court decided not to enforce these.

_________________
Shipbucket mainsite, aka "The Archive"
New AU project "Aravala"