The Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation (OCCAR) has greenlighted a Mid-Life Upgrade (MLU) of the French and Italian Horizon class frigates, assigning the responsibility to Naviris and Eurosam.
The deal, valued at approximately £1.3 billion, sees these firms joining hands with key stakeholders: Fincantieri and Naval Group for the frigate, and MBDA Italia, MBDA France, and Thales for the next-gen Principal Anti-Air Missile System & Long-Range Radar (PAAMS & LRR).
Imminently, Naviris will wrap up several subcontracts, inclusive of a significant £190 million agreement with Fincantieri.
This extensive overhaul promises a complete modernisation of the Horizon frigates, endowing them with state-of-the-art enhancements and boosting their anti-warfare capabilities. Advanced weapon systems, Command and Control, and electronic warfare suites are in the offing, tailored to tackle contemporary threats. Notably, the upgraded PAAMS & LRR is poised to combat a range of challenges from hypersonic missiles and UAVs to agile aircraft, especially in saturated attack situations.
“We’re immensely proud of today’s achievement. This contract is the culmination of our joint efforts with our partner eurosam and our customers,” shared Damien Raby, Naviris’ CEO, and Enrico Bonetti, Naviris’ COO. Eva Bruxmeier, Managing Director of eurosam, emphasised the global history and deployment of the PAAMS & LRR system, underlining its synergy with Naviris on the Horizon frigates.
Constructed collaboratively by Fincantieri and Naval Group between 2000 and 2010, the Horizon class frigates have been serving the Italian and French navies. Tailored for anti-air warfare, these state-of-the-art frigates, with a displacement of 6,500 tonnes (full load: 7,300 tonnes) and stretching 153 metres, can reach speeds up to 29 knots. Crafted primarily for high-intensity operations, the frigates excel in anti-air warfare, providing airspace control, anti-air cover, and air Defence command and control.
With capabilities to ward off intense threats, especially from anti-ship missiles, Horizon frigates ensure air/sea control during military activities, offer air Defence command and control to allied forces, and can even be engaged for public service missions.
You can read more by clicking here.
It would be interesting to read a comparison between this upgrade and the Type45 upgrade.
Its a different design goal. The t45 upgrade is adding extra short range missiles though adding sea captor, basically giving it more shots but at a short range. Horizon is upgrading the long range astar missiles to enable them to counter ballistic and hypersonic missiles, so adding capability to take out additional threats. There is talk of upgrading the astar system of the t45 but as far as I am aware it’s just that.
Isn’t there a separate, parallel, program to upgrade Aster on T-45? On the order of Block 1, Block NT, etc. Reasonably certain there was a NT article explaining RN pathway at some point. 🤔
…NL…🙄
…NL article (to be specific)…🙄
…NL article (May 24, 2022)…
Here’s the link – Royal Navy to be the first European force to field maritime ballistic missile defence capability | Navy Lookout
It is not confirmed.
The SAMPSON upgrade is being done in the standard dry docking and insertion periods as it the Thales air search upgrade.
The A15 -> A30 + Sea Ceptor has a budget line and the first ship is about to start receiving that upgrade package.
The A30 upgrades are also funded.
One of the reasons that may be taking so long is to change the cells from A50 to the A70 version to take the longer missiles.
These are all necessary spiral steps to add the ABM capability to T45.
I meant not confirmed it will be the first ABM.
I even believe that current Aster already have ABM capability,, obviously not up to top performance and long range BM but i believe it is vastly better than Patriots in Gulf War.
ASTER is definitely up to taking out Scud type missiles.
Apart from anything the radars and the software are vastly better.
A shoot off between THADD, ASTER, AEGIS-SM & PATRIOT would be very interesting.
I would speculate that Sea VIPER is actually the best of the bunch in certain scenarios.
Patriot missiles aren’t even in the right ball game. How about the Arrows for your shoot-off instead? Following German selection, Arrow 3 could become the ABM missile system of choice for Northern Europe. Although as far as I know the Germans aren’t planning on anything maritime with it, I believe Israel originally tested the system from a ship, and having ported Iron Dome on to the Sa’ar corvettes, Arrow ABMs are their next logical step.
Arrow is a very long range very heavy ABM plus the radar. I don’t think it will fir in one of Israeli corvettes.
“Patriot missiles aren’t even in the right ball game”
Keep in mind that the Patriot, although designed for short and medium range missiles as a key requirement, the pac2 missile actually has a longer advertised maximum range than the aster30. I state this while acknowledging that maximum range is not the only or best gauge of capability.
ASTER is a 360 system and the PK is likely higher as the ASTER darts are likely more agile.
I guess it depends of what missile specifically you are comparing as the patriot has several different missiles. pac2, pac2 gem-t, pac3, pac3-mse, the latter of which is the most modern and uses a htk interceptor. All we’re doing is speculating at this point since all the performance data is highly classified.
The whole upgrade program seems stupidly planned. We only have 6 and so best case realistically 3 available if needed. We have then made that number lower by engine upgrade, followed by Camm, followed by astar. Guessing budget restrictions means that can’t afford to combine these but it does result in significant gaps for long periods of times
Hi,
Did not know the A50s would be upgraded for A70. I thought that A50 was good for the ASTER 30, block 0, 1 and 1NT only block 2 ABM ASTER 30 needs the bigger cell.
I don’t *know* it.
But it is a likely upgrade pathway.
Thanks, still haven’t mastered technique for posting links. 😊👍
We can post links😱😂😂😂
Congratulations.
There is a significant programme to upgrade the T45 radar that includes all the threat sets described in the article.
Do you know how Sampson is being upgraded?
There were rumours a few years back of an extra array and even 2 extra arrays but I haven’t heard anything recently.
Hi look up the sea viper evolutionary capacity 1 (SV-E 1) program. Which is the upgrade of the radar and Aster to block 1 standard as well as bringing in CAMM. This will support optimising for ballistic missile interception.
Also there will then . Be SV-E 2 which is the upgrade the Aster block 1NT.
Cheers 👍
at short range, the horizon IT has three cannons with strales system projectiles, instead the horizon FR only has two 76/62 cannons, not strales
Not just talk. T45 will get the ASTER Block 1 upgrade in the short term and tgen the ASTER block 1NT and possibly the Block 2. T45 will also get 24 Sea Ceptor which is a short to medium range system. ASTER 15 will be replaced with ASTER 30. The radars will also be upgraded to better cope with agile and ABM work. The ships will also get NSM ASM. The upgrade is Sea Viper evolution.
Sea Ceptor is medium to short range. It will replace ASTER 15 thus making T45 an all ASTER 30 ship. This will increase the number of long range missiles to 48. The ASTER 30s will get the block 1 upgrade giving them ABM capability. ASTER will eventually get the 1NT upgrade too. So if anything the T45 upgrade is a better solution then Horizon.
I think their Aster silo layout is horizontally across too, a bit like the T26? Still, seems a lot of potential space in front of their silos to add something like CAMM/CAMM-ER otherwise they will still have 6*8=48. Wonder if Dragonfire will ever get onto the RN’s T45s sometime soon?
It sounds like it is progressing well, so hopefully the first will be installed in the next few years.
“The results have been impressive, with pinpoint accuracy maintained at long ranges. The next step will be maturing this technology and developing it into a battlefield-ready suite of capabilities.”
LINK
Thanks for the update Nigel!
Perhaps they could mount one on tge hanger roof….
Indeed. One for Gunbuster to answer but a welcome addition none the less for added protection.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C1Zvel3XEAAhfQC.jpg
T45 has active phased array radar at the top of the mast, Horizon does not, EMPAR is passive phased array and less capable than Sampson. The radar upgrade is to make it active as it is on the latest Italian FREMMs. I think the long-range rotating 1850M aft is also getting overhauled. Not sure if it’s going to get the latest Dutch radar upgrades which give it a huge ABM detection range but I wouldn’t be surprised. The missile upgrades to Aster 30 are the same upgrades that the UK is getting as that is all of one consortium doing… Read more »
I read somewhere that the RN Aster 15s were being modified up to Aster 30 and modernised alongside those. It would make sense as it is basically the same Missile with a booster on.
The Italians want the SMART-L MM AESA radar to replace the S1850M. They have pushed and from what I’ve heard the French have agreed for their’s to also get the upgrade. The EMPAR is being replaced by Leonardo’s Kronos. This is a scalable AESA and can be used to make a multiple panel array, for quad sector coverage. But for the Horizons, they are putting a single mechanically rotating panel on top of the mast as per EMPAR. However, unlike Sampson’s 1 revolution per 2 seconds. They are using 1 revolution per second. By rotating it so quickly they will… Read more »
Presumably 2 panels back to back would involve weight issues and height issues for the ships.
Exactly.
SAMPSON is very heavy and the mast has to be engineered specifically for it.
Though, EMPAR and Sampson are at similar heights above sea level. It is probably too expensive to look at a main mast strengthening redesign. Which means that at range, the Kronos system will have more disadvantages compared to Sampson.
Having the two 76mm’s at the higher level won’t help with the overall meta centric weights either.
I suspect they are a bit stuck with spiral options limited.
3 76mm for Italians. But they aren’t that heavy.
The thing with ships is that: it all adds up. There will be a topweight margin that leads to the metacentric roll / yaw curves. So if you are OK on those curves and you start changing things then you can rapidly get to a stage, by making quite minor changes higher up, that things are getting quite marginal. For instance SAMPSON is very heavy but for it to be effective the roll /yaw rates cannot exceed certain figures in certain sea states. So whilst the ship won’t invert due to the changes it will make it a less fightable… Read more »
It does, but to be fair: the OTO Malera 76mm weighs 7.5t while the BAe Mk 45 5in gun weighs about 21t. So they’ve got almost the same weight of gun.
76 are bit higher 1 in hangar and the bow ones a bit elevated, still i don’t think that is the issue and it is one of those so detailed issues we can’t know what would be done and the reasoning.
Yes they should remove the main gun from T45 and replace it with the 57 off the T31. Also remove Phalanx and replace them with 40s like T31. This would give commonality and better anti-air capability.
Maybe Italy can be tempted into using our Sea Ceptor upgrade 🤔.
Space may be an issue.
Not on the Horizons – they don’t have the 4.5 mount forward ,you could probably fit another 48 VLS there if you wanted.
If they go for 32-48…then we’ll have to do the same on the T45s! So far it’s 24 CAMM to us, 0 to them. Lol 😂
Wouldn’t they use the longer range CAMM-ER/Albatros NG instead of Sea Ceptor?
If they will get CAMM it will be CAMM-ER since it is longer range and they manufatcuire the engine and modifications but i don’t think they will get it
Indeed – CAAM-ER is being developed by MBDA Italy so logically that system will be what is used.
Maybe not.
CAMM-ER has a longer engagement range than CAMM.
The point about CAMM is, as it is cold launched, it is useful against small local targets as well.
CAMM also works as an effective part of the layered CIWS / decoy / EW operation too. Don’t underestimate how powerful it is to be able to quickly pop out a missile that good.
CAMM-ER is also cold launched.
The French frigates may include Mica mussiles. But this is stil under discussion. The idea is to upgrade the sylver launcher. The laucher could have 4 mica missiles in short range instead of 1 Aster 15.
Missiles have same price. Though mica is better since ground or sea based missiles are recycled Air to Air missiles plus booster, so very cheap to acquire if quantity is not under tension.
Long Range, Aster 30 bloc 1 NT will be strong against hypersonic and balistique threat. At least we hope so! 😄
Mica in this instance will not be a point defence weapon if launched from the VLS. It will hot launched, so as per ESSM it will have a fairly long minimum engagement range. If it was soft launched and used tail reaction jets, then just like CAMM it would have a very short minimum engagement range. However, that would then mean a massive alteration of its design and MBDA would be manufacturing two products that do the same job. Regardless of national requirements, the company would try to steer away from such a route.
Interesting, I will dig into it, thanks!
One thing horizon has over the T45 is a slightly better ASW set up. A Thales Bluemaster, the same hull set mounted to the ASW FREMM ( the horizons do not have the CAPTAS-4 tails of the FREMMs).
Type 45 just has a crew member holding a glass to his ear on the side of the hull😂
Yes and a hammer to break the enemy submarine periscope since they removed the torpedos 😀
Sadly not far from the truth.
We got rid of him to save money. At least we can re-use the glasses on T31.
These upgrades are interesting as they could potentially factor into Type 45 or be considered for the proposed type 83.
UK is already in on the Aster 30 upgrades.
Sampson upgrade is going to happen.
Aster 15 replacement will be a individual nation thing with the UK going for Ceptor.
Long Range radar 1850/SMART L will the interesting one. The Dutch upgrades give it a huge ABM capability. It will be interesting to see if all 3 nations, UK, France and Italy go for it as well.
The SAMPSON upgrades are already being done during planned insertion periods?
Will the Sampson upgrade add any additional arrays?
A bit more info.
The type 45 design seems a much more balanced destroyer hull form compared to the Horizon class ships- with a main gun, ciwsx2, aster 30 vls, soon to be fitted with NSM and sea ceptor as well as Aster 30NT. If the MOD had just gone for the Mk41vls system instead of sea ceptor silos though. I think that is a wasted opportunity. There is no reason why quad packed sea ceptor could not have been fitted as well as LRASM/ Tomahawk, VLS NSM etc- would have been much more adaptable. I guess no funding available to really optimise the… Read more »
Considering the British Type 45 Destroyer was mostly built around the lessons of the Falklands War where the British lost 2 Guided Missile Destroyers and Guided Missile Frigates to air attack
Technically if you want to, the British Empire technically did FFBNW back in the 1920s with the County Class Heavy Cruiser and its armour
Technically the old Counties were FFBNA. The A being Allowed due to the Washington treaty weight restrictions.
Same reason the KGV had a flat rather than slanted armour belt. Easier to upgrade post treaties.
While the outer hull thick armour was removable – for repairs from torpedo hits- it was never considered to be upgradeable and which didnt happen for later ships of the class which were completed when the Treatys lapsed on outbreak of war. Protection against aircraft became more important as dive bombers were especially accurate
If anything the KGV were over armoured along the sides compared to contemporaries which were more suitable for the type of warfare of WW2 with hits on side armour plates almost unheard-of. Remember Hood was hit on its deck
1920s County class had minimal hull armour, it was barely shrapnel proof.
They were divided into sub classes with major differences while looking the same.
Kent sub class had 1 3/8 in deck protection and heavier internally for magazines
London sub class had 1 in belt 1 3/8 in deck
There was no FFBNW as far as armour plate goes, but variation in build weight allowed some to have turntable catapult added in 30s
Latter additions meant some items or structure was removed
Surprisingly the Counties had little opportunity to test their lack of vertical armour except with the Australian HMAS Canberra which put up a good fight. HMS Norfolk lost her X turret in the Scharnhorst battle which was only splinter proof and offered no resistance against an 11″ shell. Exeter only armoured against 6″ shells Comprehensibly armouring ships under 10,000t may have been verging on unrealistic.
HMS Berwick seems to have been a round magnet. Destroyed turret with Italian cruisers, damaged too against Admiral Hipper.
If they have 8 x NSM as well what is the issue?
As I have pointed out a few times T45 can use its better radars to task missiles fired from T31 or T26 which ticks those boxes as well.
I’m not seeing how adding Mk41 to T45 (as well as NSM and Sea Ceptor) would make it massively better.
The only real advantage air defence wise is if the UK acquired SM6 and possibly SM3. Even with the upgrade to Aster 1NT, the SM6 has nearly double the engagement height capability. Plus SM3 just speaks for itself. Though I doubt we have the funds available for SM3.
Is engagement height the be all and end all?
Against ballistic missiles it might be more important but against swooping hypersonics it might well not be so important?
The SM3 hasn’t been faultless and is, as you say, crazy expensive.
So I can see the sense in getting tracking and NT working as these are affordable steps on the way.
Hi SB, sadly it gets pretty complicated quickly. For a ballistic threat, the missile’s engagement envelop will depend on the location of the launcher and the ground distance away from the launcher on which the ballistic target is going to hit. Clearly you would want this distance to be as close as possible. The reason for this is due the missile’s performance envelop. The further ground distance it is away from the launcher. The more the missile has to fly through denser air, which then degrades its performance. Whereas if the missile is falling directly upon the launch then there’s… Read more »
I agree it gets complicated. But SM3/6 havn’t been that amazing and come across as 1st Gen ABM’s. I am guessing that the plan is to let the research mature a bit more and for a slightly more mature missile to be developed. If the ASTER 2-NT version becomes a thing then it is likely to be a competitor for the ABM SM’s and probably at a more digestible price point and sharing the architecture of the ASTER family of missiles so keeping maintenance a bit simpler. I can’t really see RN buying a very small number of SM3 or… Read more »
Of the two I would say SM6 has performed better in tests than SM3. However, only THAAAD has been successfully combat tested. There is another player in town which is Israel’s David’s Sling/Arrow, which although land based has shown good results in tests. Both Germany and Finland are looking at the system as an off the shelf purchase. The EU has been funding the Twister program, which is part of a larger project for a European based system for countering ballistic missile and hypersonic threats. As I said below, MBDA have signed a contract with the EU for the Hydis… Read more »
The fact that T45 isn’t getting Mk41 tells us that the development curve is heading in another direction.
That said, there have been a lot of hints in press releases about control of missiles being handed off, between platforms, in testing.
So I do think it is, more than theoretically, possible for a T45 to tell a T26/31 where to fire it’s missile and then take control of the missile once in flight before the onboard terminal radar takes over.
“So I do think it is, more than theoretically, possible for a T45 to tell a T26/31 where to fire it’s missile and then take control of the missile once in flight before the onboard terminal radar takes over.” I think this is already likely to a limited degree through Link 16, which is in very widespread use. Cooperative Engagement Capability in conjunction with Link 16 would be better though, it’s just a more capable solution. Here is a video of the Maya class using CEC and Link 16: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twRjyZSfBvU CEC is widespread in the USN, Duncan has it (not… Read more »
I think you might be confusing missiles here. The SM3 testing record has actually been pretty impressive, with the last test in 2020 taking out a simulated ICBM for the first time in history. I can only find about 2 test failures over the past decade of publicized test. What’s most fascinating to me and is well known but somehow not spoken about often is its ability as an anti satellite weapon. Every AB roaming around the oceans armed with SM3 are capable of killing satellites if a war ever gets to that level. Scary stuff. The SM6, well it… Read more »
Warning and apologies, “Wikipedia Warrior” incoming – I’d be grateful if you could inject some reality re Aster evolution and likely performance beyond what I see in Wikipedia. Wikipedia mentions Aster 30 Block 2 BMD as currently being developed for use against “3,000km-range manoeuvrings missiles” vs how it characterises A30-1NT as being “against a range-class of 1,500km”. Is Aster 30 Block 2 still ongoing and likely to become reality any time within T45 timescales? And if yes, given that the range class metric that the Wikipedia article is using puts Aster B2 at twice the range-class capability of Aster 1NT… Read more »
I am not sure on the actual progress of Aster Block 2 BMD as its own entity. As it has been very quiet on that front for at least 5 years. However, all is not lost. The EU has just signed a contract with MBDA to develop the Hydis concept for a very high altitude anti-missile missile. There is some confusion over its actual altitude capability, as they describe the missile’s as endoatmospheric (which is within the atmosphere), but show imagery of exoatmospheric interceptions (which is outside the atmosphere). This is all part of the overall Twister program which is… Read more »
“From what I have heard is that the Aster Block 2 BMD has evolved into an expanded role to take on the hypersonic threat as part of the Aquila project. I believe it will have a similar capability to the evolved SM6/THAAD.” It would seem that the Aster Block 2 BMD will have to be completely redesigned with a new booster stack to get dramatically more rage, do you agree? How much would the missile have to grow to max out the space available in the Sylver A50 Cells that these ships carry? For instance, the main missile bodies of… Read more »
Yes, to get more range, the quickest and perhaps cheapest option, would be for Aster to get a bigger 1st stage or an additional stage. Recent talk has been of an additional stage. A ramjet/scramjet has been mentioned for the 2nd stage, following a solid rocket 1st stage booster. Which means it can go further and faster. As the fuel doesn’t need to contain an oxidiser, so more volume can be used for fuel. The dart final stage would remain using a solid rocket and keep the mid-body reaction jets. Which will help for very high altitude interceptions. However, the… Read more »
I think you nailed it there.
It is the uncertainty of the dimensions of the missile.
So rather than fit Mk41 and rip it out they have fitted the cheaper Sea Ceptor system used across the rest of the fleet.
The space can still be reclaimed for ASTER 2-NT (or whatever it is called this week).
ASTER30 Block 2 was set to have a much bigger boaster requiringthe strike length A70 VLS.
That’s the best explanation I’ve read , always wondered why you can’t just take ballistic missiles out on the way down (surely even a kill at 30000ft will have little risk of debris).
So Aster 30 as is should be able to take out Ballistic missiles fired at the ship it’s hosted on but defending a carrier a mile/miles away is a whole different ball game ?
Like I said earlier, with the umbrella explanation. the umbrella shape is the missile’s performance envelop. However, the radius of the envelop is not fixed, as the threat also has a vote. If the threat missile is extremely fast, i.e. faster than the Aster’s terminal speed, Aster will have to be fired a lot earlier to reach the intercept point. Plus there is a difference in how range is affected by a head-on, a passing or tail chasing engagement. Therefore, the Aster’s effective range will vary, as it depends on the target’s speed and path direction. In reality there are… Read more »
I’m really enjoying your replies, great stuff. “Therefore it has a pretty high apogee, before the missile can turn and dive onto the target.” I’m not arguing CAMM’s better point defense capability than ESSM, but the apogee of ESSM, or at least the ESSM block 2 in the attached video clip doesn’t seem to be that high? It seems to turn over not far above masthead height of the ex-Spruance class missile test ship at about 1:35 in. It’s a cool clip anyway, it shows the very flamey hot-launch (that CAMM avoids), how the ESSM quad-pack works, and cool hits… Read more »
Hi Paul, I was always led to believe that ESSM couldn’t do tight turns just after launch. Well every day’s a learning day, cheers! I did look for some other videos to confirm it could do tight turns and found the following link. It clearly shows the missile doing a skid turn (due to the tail fins moving) just after launch. (332) The Navy’s Evolved SeaSparrow Missile Keeps Getting Better – YouTube As it can do a reasonably tight turn after launch, it should be capable of point defence. You have to wonder why a ship also needs RAM. Though… Read more »
It’s interesting that the Burkes that are (or have previously been) based in Rota, Spain on BMD duty have a phalanx in the forward CIWS spot and a SeaRAM in the rear spot, I think it was an artifact of the pre-Baseline 9 days, but they kept up the practice. DDG 117 is pretty new with all the bells and whistles and was posted there sporting a SeaRAM. 8 Burkes now have a SeaRAM, but it won’t be class-wide. Those 8 ships have defensive capabilities starting out at exoatmospheric range with SM-3, then moving in to SM-6, then SM-2, then… Read more »
Oops. I was just checking my spam folder & saw that my GMail spam filter had been intercepting UKDJ reply notifications. (I find that GMail spam filtering sometimes has a brainstorm for a week or so and starts filtering out all sorts of completely valid stuff.)
Anyway, I just wanted to say many thanks Davey for the really comprehensive reply. Comments such as your one really add so much to this site. Sorry it took me a while to spot your reply and say thanks.
ASTER 30 block 2 ABM is in development and will be similar to SM6.
Mk41 gives it FC/ASW capability as well as TLAM. Would also provide it with the potential to use SM3 for ADM.
But a 50% increase in AA missiles is not to be sniffed at, especially when that upgrade is for something as effective as Sea Ceptor.
I don’t see it “balanced”. It is more important the ASW capablities of Horizon. 3 76mm with guided rounds 2 able to fire to each side are a much better propsition than 2 short range Phalanx and legacy 114mm, it would have been better a 57mm than a 114mm in T45. Things might change with added CAMM that is a very quality upgrade for T45. Of note also due to ship quantity differences 2 for MN and MM and 6 for RN the balance advantage which at moment is not meaningful is much more important for RN than the other… Read more »
Horizon MLU will include the replacement of the their legacy radars, the L band S1850M VSR, based on the BAE (Marconi) Martello and SMART L and the shorter range MFR C band EMPAR (European Multifunction Phased Array Radar) developed with Marconi input and acts as the Horizon FCR for Aster. The S1850M (also fitted to the Type 45s) will be replaced with the new gen SMART L MM/N with its AESA tech and the more powerful GalliumNitride (GaN) T/R modules, under testing at the Thales Nedeland factory at Hengelo it detected the ballistic missile target fired during the Formidable Shield exercise Oct 2017 at a range of 1,500 km north of Scotland as soon… Read more »
I agree that a radar’s operating frequency/wavelength is a major factor on the radar’s performance. However one of the biggest factors today, is the power of the radar’s signal processing. With increasing processing power, radars that had major issues discriminating targets from clutter have become more useful due to significantly better signal processing. A very good example would be the E2D Hawkeye’s APY-9 UHF AESA radar. For an airborne radar this has fantastic range and is supposed to be able to detect a fighter sized target at over 550km. However such a radar has historically been useless at detecting low… Read more »
This!
A radar is a radar is a radar. (And you could include active sonars here as well for the subsea realm)
Wigglies go out, hit something, and are reflected back and received by the radar.
Then its where the real stuff begins with signal processing and track extractors. Modern computer electronics and algorithms happening in cabinets sat in a radar/sonar office humming away are where the real work happens.
The lower frequency the bigger the antenna need to be – valid for radars and sonars.
Remember when you were at school and asking yourself why do I need to learn algebra, trigonometry, integration etc? I’ll never use in in later life. How could it be useful in any job? Little did I realise that after going through my degree and doing the learn and dump method, to have some spare thinking capacity. That my current job requires it – duh!!! Bloody rotational matrices……
OMFG. I did those as well. Never ever ever used em again. However stuffs from Tiffs course and a good set of Zeus tables I use at least 3-4 times a week…
Yes, that make me feel my life choices weren’t that bad after all….
Just for fun here are some 2020 prices for US ammo per single item. All prices in USD. For the UK to buy US ammo it will be more due to FMS adding on a profit fudge factor. UK produced ammo costs are not readily available and exist in the open only as a best guess. I no longer have access to Armament Warrants or the latest Naval Stores Digital Catalogue that gave you the individual items price so I cannot give those. 57mm Shell 1.2K (4.5 Mk8 brick is around the same in GBP) Stinger 120K RAM 900K Tomahawk… Read more »
That Ttomhawk price seems rather low. It is an heavy missile.
Tomahawk is definitely a bargain weapon these days, especially when comparing the Maritime Strike Tomahawk’s capabilities to the (admittedly much newer) NSM on Gunbuster’s price list.
The Australians already use many of these missiles/systems on the list (SM-2, LRASM, ESSM etc.) and are getting SM-6 soon. It’s all about priorities and what threat one is likely to face.
And how deep your pockets are and the number of units you need to fit em on.
Do you know the cost for RUM-139C Vertical Launch ASROC? I’m guessing its well over 1 Million USD.
Didn’t see it for the years I managed to get the info for. I will do a deep dive and see what I can find.
An ASROC is around 800-900K. What isnt clear is if this includes the torpedo payload. I am guessing it doesnt because the torpedo thats used on it, the Mk54 cost around 1.5 mil USD! You can also add to that the cost of the latest MOD kits to replace the Mk54s ,1960 era Mk46 torpedo warhead and backend propulsion system. They are going for a similar system to the UK Sting Ray, a seawater battery and shrouded propulsor. Those mod kits are around 500k each. So in total around 3 mil a pop min. And if it goes the same… Read more »
Its something Type 26 should have, but at that price plus the cost of integrating it into the combat system MoD might well decide it is unaffordable. Wikipedia quotes a 12nm range, which is barely an advance on the fifty year old IKARA. At least the payload should be better than the Mk46.
Like current RN units neither Horizon nor FREMM have a stand-off ASW capability other than the helicopter.
RN should look to fit 8x MBDA MILAS ASCROC Launchers – used on FREMM with MU90 and MBDA would be more than happy to integrate stingray on it.
Slightly OT, Naval News is reporting India requiring new destroyers, frigate /corvettes, MCM and subs. Hope the UK industry can offer missile systems, T26, T31/A140 and even some newer MCM/T83 involvement? Not sure if they’d want SSNRs but India is a strategic partner with the West. Lots of opportunities here to further strengthen the Anglo-Indian relationship.