BAE Systems has contracted Norwegian shipyard Umoe Mandal to deliver advanced lightweight composite mast structures for the second batch of five Type 26 Frigates.

Under the contract, Umoe Mandal will construct and deliver the mast structure, including sponsons, doors, hatches and internal outfitting, plus bulwarks and life raft platforms to each of the five frigates.

“Building on the execution of the contract for the first three composite masts for the first three Type 26 frigates; to secure this second contract for deliveries to five new vessels, is something we are immensely proud of as it is the best possible confirmation that we deliver in line with BAE Systems’ extremely high standards,” says Tom Harald Svennevig, CEO of Umoe Mandal.

photo Umoe Mandal

Umoe Mandal will construct and assemble all equipment at the company’s yard in Mandal, South Norway. Once completed, the equipment will be shipped to Glasgow, UK, where the frigates are being built. Umoe Mandal will deliver the equipment throughout the 2020s.

“We are pleased to have further strengthened our relationship with Umoe Mandal through securing the supply of a further 5 shipsets of equipment to the Type 26 programme and look forward to working closely with them to identify and develop value adding opportunities over the course of the Type 26 programme,” says Scott Robertson, Type 26 Head of Supply Chain.

The mast structures, bulwarks and life raft platforms that Umoe Mandal will supply to the five newbuild frigates will all be constructed from military-grade composite materials.

“Utilising advanced lightweight composites modules increase vessel stability as it reduces the centre of gravity and increases deadweight capacity, both of which enhance vessel performance. In addition, it reduces maintenance requirements and fuel consumption, which in turn helps to increase the vessels’ operating window,” says Are Søreng, vice president of sales & marketing at Umoe Mandal.

George Allison
George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison
Twitter

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

133 COMMENTS

    • The hunter class will have CEFAR radar which is a full AESA system instead of the type 26 which will have a type 997 Artisan 3D.

        • There is no comparison = means the specs of CEAFAR are much superior. Just being planar with several antennas means they can continuously tracking targets, also more elements/antennas makes it much more resistant to ECM and also possible to cover vertically in anti ballistic missile mission while other elements scan the horizon.

          UK T26 is an ASW destroyer where the anti air element is on the cheap.
          Australian T26 is a multi mission destroyer. Hence the issues with weight they are or were having.

        • Australian radar for sure. As will Canadian ships with SPY-6. Even the T-31 NS100 AESA radar is better than Artisan

      • Public information on the Type 997 is very limited but I’m 95% sure it’s also a AESA (or even a MESA like the Type 1045 Sampson the Artisan is based on).

        No idea how it compares to the CEAFAR2, but would at least be interesting to see how the costs of the 2 systems compare.

        • CEAFAR is about 15 years newer than Sampson. Sampson as far as the public is aware hasn’t had a front end upgrade. It has however had the rear end upgraded for its signal processing.

          CEAFAR is able to mount its AESA panel arrays higher than say SPY-6 on an Arleigh Burke. By using 6 or 8 faces instead of 4. However, the individual array’s cross sectional area is smaller than that of a SPY-6. Being smaller, means they’re also lighter, hence being able to fit on the mast. Leonardo have done similar with their Kronos radar. Which means without active cooling, they won’t be able to handle the same continuous power output as SPY-6. There were rumours that the CEAFAR arrays being on the mast, were causing issues with the ship’s designed balance. Though BAe have quashed those rumours.

          As far as I’m aware Artisan uses the back end signal processing of Sampson. But users a bespoke front end, which I thought was a PESA array.

          • It would be interesting to see a direct comparison between CEAFAR and the different versions of SPY-6. The bigger versions of SPY-6 [(V)1 and (V)4] are indeed mounted below the bridge on DDGs, but the much smaller SPY-6V(3) on the Constellation class will be mounted above the bridge.

          • Interesting to see how future radars will look.

            “And at the very cutting edge of possibilities, PhD students at one of our partner universities are researching the potential for cognitive radar. Using artificial intelligence and machine learning, we’re exploring the capability of processing radar signals in a completely different way for better results and enhanced future products. This thinking has the potential to revolutionise radar processing and our industry.
             
            It doesn’t stop there. In an ongoing programme of technology assessment, our expert team constantly evaluates and assesses current radar capabilities and methods to enhance radar performance in the future, enabling our customers to maintain operational advantage by staying ahead of the threat curve.

          • CEAFAR is good but each radar face is around 5 mil AUD. That is a lot of cash at the top of each mast. It also has a massive cooling requirement for chilled water to be pumped up the mast to stop it slagging itself.
            Artisan has had a lot of software upgrades and some hardware upgrades to its systems of late. It is not the same baseline system originally brought into RN service.

        • I’d think differently about this.

          It is more about the fusion of SAMPSON + ARTISAN + S1850M. A CSG will have all three in numbers. Ships like the Albions also have ARTISAN so there is a lot of good sensor data being harvested by most of the fleet.

          I am pretty sure that SAMPSON + ARTISAN could be made cooperative quite easily as they are essentially the same technology, with ARTISAN the simplified form, to produce a better resolved/wider area overall radar picture.

          Whilst S1850M has a different function, mainly look up, it could also be fused to produce a better warfare picture.

          The Hunter Class is designed to be a solo warrior: which is a very different thing. Personally, I think they are over egging the pudding.

          • The Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class AA frigates were upgraded in 2019 with Thales new next generation SMART-L MM Long Range Radar for Air and Ballistic Missile Detection, fully digitally controlled AESA type of radar with the much more powerful GaN transmitter and their Dual Axis Multibeam receiver technology,

            Naval News reported last week Thales is further upgrading the Dutch AA frigates with Collaborative Engagement Capabilities, which Thales claim is the future of [AAW/BMD] naval warfare. None of those upgrades fitted or planned to be fitted to T45
             
            https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2023/01/cec-is-the-future-of-naval-warfare-for-thales/

          • To be fair we don’t know that and shouldn’t really know that.

            SAMPSON is budgeted a big upgrade that actually could be, in part, a UK version of CEC that runs on Windoz for Warship?

            Likewise T26 may have this from the off.

            We do have to get used to the blanket of secrecy being tighter given present tensions.

          • “The Hunter Class is designed to be a solo warrior”

            I thought the Hunters are getting CEC (like the Hobarts, Japanese Mayas, Canadian Surface Combatant, and the US DDGs, Constellation class frigates, cruisers, LHDs, CVNs, etc.) to slot in to larger allied air defense networks?

          • So are our ships. Yes in a major carrier led task force there would be t45 around but most of the time the frigates out on patrol solo and sometimes in high risk territories where missile risks exist, like the gulf.

          • Which has always baffled me as to why a really expensive ship like the T26, which was originally named the Global Combat Ship. That is expected to operate on its own, only has the one primary radar?

            The workload on a single radar that has to do both volume searching as well as target tracking, is immense. Far better to spread the load as per T45 with two primary radars ie Sampson and S1859M.

          • The major NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study completed in 1991 recommended the optimal radar combination was L-band for long range volume search and the much higher definition X-band for medium range high accuracy tracking of targets, as well as horizon search and missile guidance functions (a weak point of the S-band is that the radar signal bends slightly upwards at the horizon, so that low-incoming sea skimming missile targets are not immediately detected whereas X-band does the opposite and if conditions favourable extends beyond the visual horizon).
             
            Why the Dutch went with L-band and X-band for their De Zeven Provinciën class AA frigates with the SMART-L, now upgraded to the new SMART-L MM, and the APAR X-band (Active Phased Array Radar (APAR) four faced array)

          • That is what is named, not what it is. Note that the Type 26 had a very very very long gestation starting in 90’s.

          • Not sure on that, dragon fire is planned to be effectively a ciws. Longer range missiles will still be needed for the first line of defense.

  2. All sounds very impressive and good luck to this Company, but I cant but feel a little depressed that this, like so many other wider aspects too (like the armour on these ships) is a capacity that a Country like ours has either lost or never developed, yet a small Country like Norway clearly has been able to. It seems indicative of a far bigger decline in such specialist industrial services here.

    So it poses two questions for me:
    1) Is there a situation specific to a Country like Noway that has peculiarly encouraged this sort of high tech capability in this industrial process, if so what is it? Wind turbines perhaps, which if so of course would raise further questions.
    2) who builds the equivalent structures in French, Italian and German warships.

    The answers to these questions would certainly give some foundation or otherwise, to my original instinctive concerns here. So can someone offer some clarification.

    • As I understand it we do have the capability to create something like this with advanced composites. I suppose the Norwegian company won the contract on price..after all its BAE doing the procurement not HMG so they are not going to have any thing in the contract around development of Uk business and capacity..just price on delivery of the goods.

      I suspect there is nothing in the HMG contract with BAE that make them consider UK first…as it would need to have some form of rebate if the Uk product cost more and that could create difficulties in designing the contract.

      • I suggest that it’s down to their ability to manufacture to Milspec tolerances, they have effective quality assurance procedures and good quality management in production.

        BAE are good at controlling quality in the compex business of defence products, that’s why their CV90 is being sold all over Europe. They know their Scandinavian contractors can consistently meet the spec

        • Yes I suspect you may be right, especially if they have a good working relationship, this sort of thing is probably something they procure on trust. To be honest I don’t have a problem with niche stuff going to other western democracies.

      • Look at the Norwegian fast combat assault boats. Armored composite designed to be fast, light, protected and carry combat troops up and down the fjords.

        There are UK companies with composite experience. There are UK companies with military standard construction experience. I doubt there’s much overlap within the UK, so it would require bringing a company up to speed with related costs and delays.

        Meanwhile there are companies already there with the requisite skills and capabilities ready to go.

        • There is a lot of military composite production and processing in the UK but a lot (most?) of that is in aerospace so smaller (well, apart from Airbus wing spars) components to tighter tolerances. I’d guess there’s not much of a UK composites base for big structural parts whereas, exactly as you say, “there are companies already there with the requisite skills and capabilities ready to go”.

    • Don’t get 2 depressed the U.K. went in different directions such as light weight composites for aircraft and cars. And we have our own strengths which we export all over the world. Just think where F1 is mainly built and how many navy’s buy our Marine engines. And if you want a really good Nuclear Sub it is either the US or UK.

      1. In the west 2 countries have really nailed building, lightweight, very strong, stealthy composite ship structures and are way ahead of anyone else.
      Norway and Sweden and yes it is due to a specific peculiarity that is not entirely unique but they went to town on it.
      Both developed small, stealthy, fast and heavily armed vessels to operate in their own environments be that the fjords or the Baltic.
      Take a look at the Skjold and Visby class corvettes and you’ll see what I mean. Which is why if you are good friends with them and trade equipment then they are the go to suppliers (reference Singapores technically brilliant LCS vessels).
      The U.K has excellent relations with both and we do a hell of a lot of mutually advantageous defence partnerships with them. There is non of this yes you can buy our products but if you want to shoot it, or let someone else do so. We need to give you permission (see German and Swiss for details).
      BAe owns SAAB/Bofers, NLAW is a joint U.K/Swedish project, the Norwegian NSM is only being fitted by RN so quickly because Norway jet propelled their end of the project. They are both great partners to work with, even the Yanks say so.
      2 No idea and I don’t care because I doubt they will be better than the Scandinavians.

      Hope that helps.

        • Certainly not, but you need to know that RR is into all sorts of Marine Engines. RR took over MTU in Germany so the Diesels are built there and licence built in other parts of the world. Also some places where they aren’t licensed but backward engineered 😡

          The Marine Gas Turbines such as the old Olympus, Tyne’s, Speys and MT30 are nearly all Bristol built but mainly based on Derby designed civil engines these days. I think Kawasaki are licence building for their new frigates.
          The MT30 really is a great flag waving export success story. RN, Japan, Korea, Italy, Canada, Australia and the USN are all customers.

          And then we come to the Big Stuff, and it is all U.K built by
          Rolls Royce Marine Power (Derby) who have built the Nuclear Power plants for every RN Nuclear Submarine bar the 1st.

          So nope absolutely no Germans here, though the wife is worrying me as she is partial to an Erdinger 🤨

    • Norway has almost inexhaustible energy supplies from hydro, gas and oil and a well educated, well paid workforce with strong protections. Weirdly that makes people very productive but I’m sure our method of squeezing until fear of homelessness and famine will come through any day now.

    • The high cost of living in the UK makes us less competitive in many industries, if a structure like this can be made cheaper and to the same high standards elsewhere it makes sense sub-contract the work out.

      • If you want to see a pained face you should ask anyone who’s been to Norway about the cost of living there. It’s specialisation there are niche suppliers of specialised projects the world over. It’s the positive side of globalisation.

        • And your point is ? …..

          If we are going to cherry-pick examples then…

          A resident of Oslo will spend ~28% of their disposable income on rent whereas a London resident would spend nearer 44%.

          Swings and roundabouts…

          • Indeed, London rent vs anything is cherrypicked. London housing is a mess, and will remain so until we undistort the market by putting CGT on unearned gains from main dwelling price increases, and other things.

            Overall, cost of living in the UK is a long way below that in Norway, and some way below France, Germany, USA, Japan.

            Here’s an index with the diverse supporting data (below), where you can even select cities.
            https://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living/compare_countries_result.jsp?country1=Norway&country2=United+Kingdom

            EU numbers have shown UK food prices well below EU average for years (partly down to No VAT etc), with some tightening since Brexit.

    • Things like F1 composite chassis are made in the UK all the time and these are far higher tech that these masts.

      This is more akin to high standard vacuum form moulding of yacht hulls.

      Again we do this in the UK.

      So there is no reason why we don’t have the skills or knowledge but it may just be cheaper to buy it in from a friendly country.

      Whilst I’d love everything to be UK made the reality is that with the tiny number of warships that get ordered the costs would be eye watering.

    • I share your pain, but at least it was Norway so yes good luck to them.

      Norway has at least put some strategic thought into its economy and based it around going for ‘better quality of life’ for its people. Crucially it used its North Sea oil revenue to set up and grow a Strategic Wealth Fund which is now worth $Trillions and is used to help fund their 1st class health service, and invest in high-tech industry. What does the UK do? It just continues to ignore the concept of a SWF and keeps everything completely open to the ‘free market’ letting energy companies make vast profits from depleting our strategic reserves and charging hyper-inflation prices for energy to UK consumers. BP for example should be setting up the UK battery factory for cars etc. etc. RANT OVER.

      • T31 would be more up their street with a full load out.

        I don’t see how T26 would fit into their navy and I don’t think they have the budgets to buy or run anything that big and complicated.

        T26 and T45 are very, very serious bits of kit that very few countries could design / build or run.

        • I disagree about the T-26 for Norway. Their existing frigates were bought to focus on ASW, but have been improved with better AAW and NSM fit (sounds a bit like T-23). They were bought for $489m each from Navantia in 2000, if you add in defence inflation over 23 years, the price must be much nearer T26 than T31. Their frigates came into service between 2006 and 2011. So the oldest is 17 years old. Seems to me they might start thinking about replacements in the near term, especially as they had to scrap one a few years back after it was in collision with a cargo ship and sank.

          • TBH what they bought was actually quite expensive for what it was as it is closer to T31 than T26 spec. If you ignore the weapons loads out.

            OK, Norway are quite a rich country that can do what needs to be done for defence. I would still see them as more of a T31 customer.

            I don’t think they have any indigenous warship capability any more so they actually might buy the UK built hull? The cost of hull fabrication in Norway would be excruciating given labour and social costs there.

          • Weapons load out isn’t the expensive bit which makes the Norwegians comparatively expensive. They are equipped with a Aegis Management system and the dinkiest SPY radar system going. That costs $$$$$
            Nothing else like them anywhere else.

        • Morning SB, I will agree on the T31/A140 but that Norway may want to upgrade to have more T26 type capabilities. Could be good for interoperability with UK, Canada T26s especially in covering the GIUK gap. We both have P-8s, like a few more, and Canada likely to choose the same and have F-35s. I think the Norwegians would be capable enough to operate these and have the dollars or is it krona?The T45 might be unnecessary, but the Canadian/Australian spec T26s might be more suited. Just speculation though.

          • Why not favour interoperability with RN?

            UK is a lot closer than CAN or AUS?

            Also the other versions are ££££ more expensive.

            Just because flat plate radar is a thing doesn’t mean it is **the** thing? There are downsides too!!

          • Yes,with the RN first up, as part of NATO, which goes on anyway. Patrolling the North Atlantic would link in with Canada, US and even Denmark and other European navies,.
            It would be great if a Norwegian T26 would be more like the UK fit out but that’s their choice,
            Not a big fan of plate type radar myself…

        • Yes that’s definitely possible but they could also be looking for something more capable and building on different partnerships.

          • The F110 Class are the natural evolution to the Fridtjof Nansen Frigates they operate now – much more capable and using established partnerships,i can’t see them choosing something else.

          • Thing is Norwegian companies are already part of the T-26 supply chain. Thing is it depends if they are totally happy with their existing ships. I have no information that says they aren’t. However there were plenty of accusations made around the collision and we are not party what went on behind closed doors. I think the T26 might be in with more of a chance than you think.

        • I’m not so sure. In the report on the sinking of the frigate Helge Ingstad, there was criticism of Navantia. The use of hollow shafts to facilitate controllable pitch propellers compromised the vessel’s watertight integrity – though this wasn’t the cause of the loss.

    • No brainer really,only down to political bean counters that all our capabilities are just enough to meet barebone requirement.

    • That was really big saving compared to the loss of capability – plonkers, still the aircraft will be in production for some years to come thanks to the USAF going for them and we could jump on their orders but in the end will still cost much more than if we had gone for all 5 to start with! Still say 5 is short and 6+ would be a better fleet number (The RAAF can do it and over all they look like being a much more capable outfit in the near future than the RAF).

      • The Defensenews articl does say that was the original price for 5 but not that Boeing then put the price up, trying to milk their defence work to make up for the 737 Max issues and the impact of Covid on commercial aviation. So not such MOD”plonkers”

    • Fantastic news if it comes to fruition.

      I’d also read the CAS has revealed the number of extra A400 to be acquired later in the decade is 6, if they fund it.

    • Agree with everyone, 3 is simply not enough for the UK’s NATO commitments, let alone deployed on Ops and Exercises. Even 5 is on the light side.

      Wigston was also grilled over the recruiting positive discrimination scandal. Though he’s still in his job!

  5. Oh look! It is grey and floats! UKDJ and it’s “navy-centric” obsession. I feel obligated to point out this never ending avalanche is soldier-phobic 😂

  6. Air Marshall at Defence Committee yesterday, having to defend a lot of spending decisions like the size of the fast jet fleet, not enough trainers, only getting 3 out of 5 Wedgetails even though it ended up costing pretty much the same (Says aspiration is still to increase it to 5). One of the things he did commit to was they were going to acquire another 6 A400M by 2030 (despite the NAO objections on afforadability). Also said 2nd F-35 squadron was being stood up by the end of the year making 9 Typhoon combat squadrons, 1 Typhoon conversion squadron, 1 Typhoon R&D squadron and 2 F-35.

    • Is basically admitting they only got two years notice of the withdrawal of Hercules, in 2016 decision was taken to keep it until 2030 then in 2020 the Defence Secretary decided to scrap it rather than pay for reconditioning airframes. Capability of Atlas was accelerated, originally low level parachute capability on A400M was only supposed to be qualified in 2028 but its been qualified this year.

      • So basically the extra A400 are back on the wish list. I would put sorting out training as the top priority and getting it back to an acceptable timescale. Not having enough pilots will become a major problem. There’s not much spare capacity in the pipeline before the issues and it’s no doubt creating a backlog that will need clearing. Training needs to get back to 3 years. 7-10 years is such a waste of talent.
        For me medium helicopter could do with a boost in numbers, more training ability, getting the 2nd F35 squadron up and running. Proceed with tempest to meet timescales.
        There are a lot of items the RAF could do with.
        F35b is a priority as carriers need them. Getting E7 into service and finding out when its cheapest to get more. Pilot training

    • 9 Typhoon? What have I missed?!

      There are 7 frontline Typhoon Squadrons, including IX (Bomber) and 12 Sqn.
      We are, sadly, at the same level as before ( 5 Typhoon, 3 Tornado ) with 8 frontline Squadrons, as the RAF did their little trick cutting the Tornado force and forming 2 extra Typhoon units, with the same size fleet, and 617 stood up, to get the 8 as before.

      It would be amazing if they could even get back to the 12 Squadrons left when Labour left office in 2010, but I cannot see it happening unless they try and pull another fast one creating Squadrons with the same size or smaller fleet of aircraft.

      The 6 extra Atlas is excellent, if they ever arrive. They will at least go some way to compensate the loss of Hercules. They will probably do their usual slight of hand trick cutting something else a year down the line and justifying it by getting the Atlas, they’ve done that before.

      • Possibly?

        Upgrade and retention of Tranche 1 Eurofighters ‘technically feasible’, BAE Systems tells UK Parliament
        03 FEBRUARY 2023
        by Gareth Jennings

        “There is no technical reason why the UK Royal Air Force (RAF) could not upgrade and retain its fleet of Tranche 1 Eurofighter Typhoon combat aircraft, BAE Systems told the country’s parliamentary Defence Select Committee in January.

        In a written response to the committee submitted on 23 January, the lead UK contractor in the Eurofighter consortium said that it would be “technically feasible” to bring the RAF’s remaining 30 Tranche 1 jets up to a standard where they could be retained in service rather than retired in 2025, as currently planned.

        “It is technically feasible to bring a Tranche 1 aircraft to the standard of a Tranche 2 or Tranche 3 aircraft. BAE Systems has previously provided data to the Ministry of Defence (MoD) that outlines the scope of structural and avionic modifications that would be required,” BAE Systems said, noting that it has not been asked to provide an assessment of the non-recurring design effort, or associated costs, to implement such an upgrade.”

        • Well yes anything is technically possible. What the cost and timescale would be to get the tranche 1 aircraft up to tranche 3 needs to be known.
          For me either leave as they are changing parts that need to be done to run the tranche 1 until 2035 or replace them with new aircraft.
          Again it comes down to cost and time.
          Another consideration is are there enough pilots to fly these aircraft?
          Does making more typhoons in the uk between now and 2030 help in anyway with moving production to tempest? Cost, skills retention etc.
          There is so much stuff on the wish list just now.

          • I think this answers some of the questions you put forward.

            Not due to retire currently until 2025 so pilots must still be available?

    • I think it is some form of RAM coating to stop RN radars getting blinded by its own reflection. Not sure but it was introduced with the Type 12 and Leanders and has been done ever since. Possibly Gunbuster could clear it up.

    • I think it is just painted in black, because the RN frigate’s fore-mast contains exhaust of the fore electric generators. See T23 case.

  8. Hi

    Is it possible for anyone to say what the diamond shaped objects are on it? Are they structural or something else?

    Thanks

    🙂

  9. Slightly off topic, but I am in shock of bolts being superglued on our SSBNs and that the second shaft of HMS Prince of Wales also needs repair work carried out.

    So possibly getting parts of the T26s built overseas might mean that those bits work.

  10. Anyone know if there’s a system that augments the RADAR picture seen by different assets …. Carrier, RADAR pickets, Frigates, Crowsnest etc? I’d imagine it would be a complex, processor hungry beast but imagine would be a game-changer with bags of resilience as far as situational awareness is concerned. Same question for sub-surface?

      • They do, but I suspect RN has gone in a different direction: as it has rotating radars none of them hanging off software that AEGIS or CEC are interfaced to?

    • With the exception of Nav radars Its very rare to see a radar picture in the raw. Very simply…
      The radars ping out and receive the returns. The returns are fed into signal processing/track extractors that remove the return ping data and put it into the combat system via data highways. It is displayed on the consoles in the ops room as a synthetic contact with a track number. The signal processing/track extractors derive range, bearing, altitude, speed etc from the radar returns.The combat system fuses data from lots of other sources to provide additional info on the track.
      Other systems connected to the data highways put info into and also take info off the highways for their own use.
      With the RN now using only active homing missile systems the engagement of targets is a lot easier. No need to illuminate targets with separate tracking radars. Now its a maths trig problem . Launch a missile. tell it to fly to a future intercept point by data link where it then goes active and homes its self.
      Future intercept points are derived from trig and speed calculations derived from ships radar info on the target and the missile. You need to get it into the basket after that the missile will do its own thing.

      • Thanks Gunbuster that was a really interesting reply. I worked at Nats for a number of years so appreciate the principles of primary and secondary RADAR, data processing and how, like nowadays, we get the likes of ADS-B Tracker and Flight Radar 24 etc but hadn’t fully appreciated the methods missiles use to hit targets nowadays. If our missiles are active homing I guess this means they are emitting at their final phase so effectively give their presence away. I’d also read from one article a while back (not sure it was current reality or not) but some missiles know the typical profile of their target so can discriminate it from decoys and/or ships, is that right? On one of your other replies, so what do the RN use as an AEGIS and CEC equivalent and are these only present on the T45?

        • You are correct to an extent. A missile is quite dumb in reality. We could give them a near AI based algorithm for signal processing and making the interception decision, but that would push up the cost massively, due to the higher performing signal processing and memory required.

          So instead, the majority of processing is done by the parent aircraft/ship. However, to get round the issue of discriminating a target from a decoy. We now use the parent to do the processing, then relay corrective interception information to the missile via data link.

          A missile such as CAMM or Aster does have an active radar. Usually operating somewhere between. The upper X-band and Ku-band. These are normally a mechanically scanned pulse-Doppler radar, that uses a flat planar array antenna. This gives it a decent high off boresight capability, is relatively cheap, but is fairly capable. These radars are quite low powered so have a short range, which I won’t disclose.

          As GB says above. They are given an initial intercept point. Which is worked out by the combat management system (CMS) that uses prediction to “guess” where the inbound threat will meet the surface to air missile (SAM) at its maximum effective range, using good old trigonometry. Depending on the speed of the target. The SAM may fly a direct path to the intercept point or it will fly a ballistic path, which increases its range and imparts kinetic energy as it “falls” on to the target from above.

          As the missile leaves the launcher. It will communicate with the CMS via the radio data-link. The CMS will be constantly updated with data from the ship’s radar. It uses this to continually update the predicted intercept point. The missile is given course corrections to meet the intercept point. This can also be done in stages depending on the threat’s speed and range. As constantly updating the missile’s flight, will bleed off energy and reduce its range. As after the missile has burnt out its rocket motor, it is effectively a glider.

          This is one of the reasons that anti-ship missiles in particular start to jink as they approach the ship. One is to try and confuse the radar/CMS. The other is to try and make the SAM bleed off more energy.

          So now the SAM is about a km or two from the threat. The CMS will tell the missile to activate its radar and take over the engagement. The missile will have a rough idea where the target is. Its radar will do a search, reporting back to the CMS what it has acquired. The CMS will confirm the target. Whereby the missile will then ignore other possible targets and concentrate on the one the CMS has selected.

          The missile’s radar will then track the threat and it’s processing unit will give steering commands to make the interception.

          Because the missile is really close to the target. Its reception is really good. So if the target releases decoys. It can use a moving target indication (MTI) Doppler algorithm to discriminate between the target’s velocity rate and the decoys. The processing unit is clever enough to tell the difference.

          Although both CAMM and Aster are fire and forget missiles. In reality they’re not. As the CMS monitors their track and targeting. It will give corrective information if it believes the missile is going for the wrong target.

          So yes, these missiles will alert the threat if it has suitable radar warning equipment. But because the distance between radar activation and interception is rather short. The target has very little time to react. In effect the CMS could command the missile to only activate when it’s very close to the target. Which is a matter only the Navy, CMS and the missile manufacture know.

          As I alluded to earlier, that missiles are quite dumb. This is beginning to change. As the economics of processing and memory gets cheaper. But a missile like CAMM won’t be transmitting its radar from the get go, as its range is short. So it has to rely on guidance from a CMS.

          The engagement scenario I have given above can be over in seconds. The SeaCeptor system in particular can handle a swarm of targets and counter them with multiple CAMM. Giving interception directions to each CAMM near simultaneously.

          • My understanding high definition modern long range X-band radars needed to give the necessary discrimination to distinguish between the real targets and decoys are expensive, the US MDA BMD THAAD missile uses the Raytheon TPY-2 radar with its 25,000+ T/R GaN modules costing ~ $250 million each.
             
            Lockheed with their new SPY-7 radar, S-band normally with its much lower cost and discrimination, but by using dual-polarisation, transmitting in both in the horizontal and vertical plains, enables it to build up a 2D computer image to give the necessary discrimination at a much lower cost, first exploited by weather radars to monitor the size of rain drops, hail, snow etc. and presume the Thales next-generation 4D AESA radars, software-defined, dual-axis multi-beam, scalable used with their NS50, NS100/200, SMART-L MM, Sea Fire are using similar tech.
             
            Also active missile seekers only turned on only ~5 seconds from impact as seeker so small and short range, until then the missile controlled by the CMS/fire control radar, the Army Sky Sabre system using the Israeli Rafael’s BMC4I Iron Dome System, claimed “is capable of hitting a tennis ball-sized object travelling at the speed of sound [and] it can control the flight of 24 missiles simultaneously whilst in flight, guiding them to intercept 24 separate targets” with its SAAB Giraffe radar.

          • Hi Nick, a lot of what you say is true. Though the distance at which a missile activates its radar, especially CAMM, Aster and Meteor is Secret. Something I wouldn’t want to share!

            What you are talking about combining the vertical (V) and horizontal (H) fields within a radar wave is called polarmetric polarisation. The concept has been around and used for a while. Depending on the antenna configuration you can transmit a vertical wave and receive a horizontal one for example. There are basically four combination methods. But by simultaneously transmitting a horizontal and vertical wave that are separated by 90 degrees, you cam create circular polarisation. To really cook your noodle, if you combine all four elements you create what is called quadrature polarization. By measuring the differences in the phase return of the received wave, you can establish polarimetric information extraction. Which basically means you can get a better resolution of the target.

            With the advent of AESA radars linked to high bandwidth digital processing. It has really taken off. But like you say its not cheap as it requires processors that can handle floating point mathematics. Which happily coincides with high end PC graphics cards, which are very good at doing this calculations. By using a blade farm made up with these “graphics cards”, you can munch through the massive amounts of raw data using parallel processing. But it does mean that you can create relatively good definition images from the data of low frequency radars.

            The E2D Hawkeye uses the AN/APY-9 UHF band AESA radar made by Lockheed. Normally a UHF band radar with its long wavelength (100cm to 30cm) would have a wide beam. Which means it would struggle detecting small objects. But also struggle to give a true range, bearing and velocity of the target. But although Lockheed have not said it in so many words, the AN/APY-9 definitely uses digital polarization, to not only boost its sensitivity but also the fidelity of the target. Normally radar with such a long wavelength would also struggle with surface clutter especially from waves. But Lockheed and the US Navy have said they are happy with its performance.

            With the TPY-2 Raytheon went down a different route for its THAAD radar, brute force! This radar is an absolute beast. It is an X-band radar. Which means it uses a wavelength between 3.75 to 2cm, which is 8 to 12GHz. Radars that operate in this band and higher suffer from atmospheric attenuation. Basically the air acts like a giant resistor. The higher the frequency the higher the absorption. In general X band radar have a ranges governed by the effective radiated power. As to make them transmit further you need to raise the effective radiated power by a factor of 4.

            So when Raytheon say their radar can track a basketball target over 1000 miles away. It must be kicking out at a stupendous amount of power probably up from 100kW. To put this into context. the Sampson radar that operates in the S band, has a supposed detection range of 400 miles, yet is said to have a mean power output of 25kW. To make such high power, the power amp stage of the TPY-2 must be liquid cooled, whereas Sampson uses air cooling. Similarly the Typhoon’s Captor-M radar is said to have a peak output near 10kW, with a mean output around 2kW. Which gives it a published detection range of around 230 miles.

            As someone, who has more of a passing interest in this field. I am disappointed with Sky Sabre’s choice of radar. As good a the Saab Giraffe is, it is a dated system and we could have done better. But then as we only had Rapier previously. It was probably a wise move, as there would have been less development time. Luckily Sky Sabre is radar agnostic, so in time hopefully it will get replaced.

          • Hi Davey, really appreciate your expert and informed reply.
             
            Dual Polarization/ polarmetric polarisation,
            A possible future Hawkeye radar the US Navair has been funding on a small scale is the North Star High-Gain UESA radar for a decade or so with its unique dual-band antenna, UHF/S-band with dual polarization, AESA, to give 360 degree coverage for possible next gen Hawkeye. The 400 -1 GHz UHF-band supported by a 2D filtering technique called space-time adaptive processing to provide early warning detection of even low-flying, stealthy aircraft against dense background clutter over land and sea has demonstrated its latest radar that shows 3-dB improvement compared to first-generation ultra-high-frequency tested 20 years ago. Targets detected by the UHF-band element could then cue the shorter-wavelength S-band 2.3-3.7 GHz  antenna to provide precise targeting at long range.
            https://aviationweek.com/defense-space/sensors-electronic-warfare/uesa-revival-offers-dual-band-radar-future-early-warning
             
            Another radar understand using dual polarization technique is the new USAF Three-Dimensional Expeditionary Long-Range Radar, AN/TPY-4, claimed as the the world’s first truly software-defined radar, being mobile necessitated limitations in its size, weight, range and power which in turn impacted the number of generator sets, air cooled not liquid, so it can be transported by a C-130. Lockheed chose the low 1215 to 1400 Mhz L-band saying the higher frequency radars require more radiating elements and that drives up both procurement cost and life-cycle costs, TPY-4 only has 1,000 T/R L-band GaN modules vs 25,000+ of X-band in the TPY-2, not strictly an apples to apples comparison as the TPY-2 a more powerful longer range radar, Lockheed claiming L-band is better in pulling targets out of land and rain clutter, the necessary angle accuracy for discrimination is met by dual polarization.
             
            On to your point on high bandwidth digital processing Leonardo saying on its new Tempest MRFS radar ” will collect and process 10,000 times more data than existing systems, or “equivalent to the internet traffic of a large city every second ” to enable much longer range, discrimination of targets and decoys with a strong active EW capability to counter AA radar lock-on.

  11. Some very welcome and positive news.

    Harland & Wolff signs subcontract with Navantia UK for FSS03 FEBRUARY 2023

    Belfast-based shipbuilder Harland & Wolff has signed a manufacturing subcontract with Navantia UK for work to be delivered under the UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Fleet Solid Support Ship (FSS) programme.

    The manufacturing subcontract, announced by Harland & Wolff on 1 February, is worth an estimated GBP700–800 million (USD862–985 million) through the life of the programme, amounting to around half the value of the total FSS contract.

  12. Some very welcome and positive news. My link is now going straight to the moderator but you can guess where I found it! JDF

    Harland & Wolff signs subcontract with Navantia UK for FSS03 FEBRUARY 2023

    “Belfast-based shipbuilder Harland & Wolff has signed a manufacturing subcontract with Navantia UK for work to be delivered under the UK Royal Navy’s (RN’s) Fleet Solid Support Ship (FSS) programme.

    The manufacturing subcontract, announced by Harland & Wolff on 1 February, is worth an estimated GBP700–800 million (USD862–985 million) through the life of the programme, amounting to around half the value of the total FSS contract.”

    The Team Resolute consortium – led by prime contractor Navantia UK, a subsidiary of Spanish state-owned shipbuilder Navantia, and including Harland & Wolff and BMT – was awarded a GBP1.6 billion contract to deliver the three-ship FSS programme on 18 January 2023 after being selected as the preferred bidder in November 2022.
    Construction on the new ships is planned to begin in 2025, and all three ships are expected to be operational by 2032.”

  14. Not only the PoW having issues, USS Ford continuing to have issues with its EMAL catapults and arrestor gear with reliability having ‘regressed’ though the Navy are claiming a 98% availability rate (as they use the metric of how long the system as a whole is available for use not downtime of the four individual runways i.e. catapults or arrestor wires were only all out of action at the same time 2% of the time). However thats not the only issue, during August its commissioning work had to be cancelled after all four thrust deflectors failed due to fastener corrosion in the actuators, it had to return to port for repairs and return to continue the trials a month later omitting the thrust deflectors from use during takeoff when completing its trials.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2023/02/03/navy-replaces-troubled-part-on-ford-carrier-after-test-cancelation/

    • They should have stuck to Steam for that one and really tested EMAL / AAG onshore for a few years. I wouldn’t be surprised if they find the Chinese ones aren’t more reliable.
      They build mock-ups of flight decks / radars etc etc on land and test, test and test again. It also lets their ground crews practice to cut work up time.
      The USN initially planned to space the introduction of new developments over a 3 carrier cycle. New hull / flight deck layout, New Power plant, Completely different Electrical distribution system, New Ammunition distribution / lift system, huge increase in inter connective information system, EMALS, AAG and next generation radars over 3 hulls.
      Nope rolled the lot into 1 the USS unaFordable. Which is why they are backtracking on few bits such as the Radar for the next one.
      Last time they did anything remotely like this was the USS Forrestal which was a super big conventionally powered hull based on Midway and the abortive USS America but with Steam Catapults, mirror landing and an Angled deck. Which we in U.K had already developed ready for use.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here