Re: [FT] Should all Beams fire at fighters/ordinance?

From: "Derk Groeneveld" <derk@cistron.nl>

> "A ship-launched surface-to-air missile, RIM-7H, is a variant of
AIM-7E
> and it's called Sea Sparrow."
>
> Also, the STIR and APAR radar systems we build over here incorporate
> continuous wave target illumination for both Sea Sparrow and Evolved
Sea
> Sparrow (ESSM). I can't imagine a good many navies ordering
illumination
> capability for a missile that's optically guided ;) Are you SURE that
was
> Sea Sparrow you were talking about?

Yes. The AIM/RIM-7 series is a semi-active homing weapon. That is,
it requires illumination of the target via a Continuous-wave emitter.
One way of doing this is to "floodlight" an area - but this is good only
to a very short range. A better way is to have a searchlight-type beam,
that must be pointed at the target at all times.
The original BPMDS had an optical tracker that steered the CW beam onto
the target, then the missile would follow the glint.

Oh yes, NSSMS these days is not the old RIM-7H but the RIM-7M which
uses a monopulse receiver in the head.

> According to Janes the maximum range is 15 to 20,000m, depending on
> illuminator radar range.

Janes is usually in the right ballpark.

>  And I can't comment on the range of our
> illuminator radar's, but I wouldn't worry about them. The range isn't
as
> much as I thought it was; been working with the numbers of SM-2 and
ESSM
> too much, lately, I guess ;)

STIR's not a bad tracker. I did the Anti-Missile system for the Turkish
Navy's
Yavuz-2 class, which has 2 TMK (Ka-Band) trackers, a TMX (X-band) and a
STIR,
both the latter equipped with CWI for NSSMS missile guidance.

> The ESSM should have both higher range and speed than Sea Sparrow.

Yes.

> > So would I. GK's good for about 5 engagements if memory serves.
>
> Mmm. Can't comment.

It's in an HSA	sales brochure :-)

> Nice. Oh, GK also has an optional rapid reload drum that reloads the
> entire ammo supply in very short time.

That's something new to me. Considering the sheer weight of those 30mm
shells, how many tonnes does it weigh?

> > BUT unlike GK and VP requires
> >  a separate FC radar.
>
> Which is a bitch if your command and control or your radar system
fails

Oh yes.
<humour mode on>
So of course you should buy something decent in the way of C2 systems,
that won''t fail even if badly damaged, like COSYS. Rather than some
piece of Frenchified Dutch stuff from HSA...
<humour mode off>

But seriously... it was scandalous what happened with the Yavuz class.
The HSA combat system they were fitted with couldn't handle Naval
Gunfire
Support, so they stuck in a single-console STN-Atlas system , the
"Surface Engagement Console" or SEC to do that, and the surface warfare
stuff as well. Then they added Harpoon missiles - which the SEC, after a
bit
of work, could also handle ( I did the design of some of the software,
it
was
already set up internally to do this ). Then they wanted automated
anti-air
defence - which again was added to the SEC. So now a single console from
STN-Atlas has taken over all of the roles the HSA multi-console system
was
bought to do, but was unable to do, at about 1/10 of the cost.
Of course by buying the HSA system, the Turks got given a whole heap of
ex-Royal Dutch Air Force F-5 fighters. Sometimes being the best
technical
solution, and the cheapest, isn't enough to get the contract.

> I'm not entirely sure, but I thought Phalanx still required search
radar
> from the ship? Goalkeeper is entirely self contained (but CAN take
search
> info from the ship as well)

Same with Phalanx. And both GK and VP suffer from only being able to
have 1 mount able to fire on a single bearing, as they all use similar
frequencies. Or at least, this was the case up to 1996, when I last had
cause
to look at them.
So if you have 2 GKs on board a ship, one will fire forward, the other
aft.
And if you have 4 VPs, then they each have a mutually-exclusive 90
degree
sector of responsibility.
"Remember it's a Goalkeeper, not the whole team" as was pointed out to
me.

> > bolted on to a deck, it just needs power supplied. GK mounts weigh
the
> > same as a 76mm OTO mount - 15 tonnes - and require a deck
penetration.
> > ie you can easily add a VP to a ship, but adding a GK requires major
> > re-construction.
>
> Actually, look up HMS Zuiderkruis - A dutch auxiliary ship sent to the
> gulf, with a containerized GK system on board.

Weighing what, 25 tonnes (including self-contained power supply)? Unless
the ship was designed to take such, or was big enough with enough deck
space
to handle the additional topweight, you still have a problem.

I can remember seeing a parade of GK mounts being tested, while based in
the Radar Tor at Hengelo. I spent 10 months in the Netherlands, some
really
nice people there - some of my friends houses were damaged when the
fireworks factory at Enschede blew up. I used to park my car next to it
when
going
to Enschede markets...