Do they also send GPS data back to China?The endurance is very attractive, but we have a long-endurance USV industry of our own thank you very much
Both ACUA Pioneer and Oceanus 17 have more payload and are faster than the Bluebottle but not quite so much endurance.
What do you mean?
Yes, they manage their defence industrial policy well - unlike the UK. Here it's been atrociously mismanaged.
This
Yes, Japan has done an incredible job managing their Defense-Industrial policy.
Well articulated article, and it agrees with many of my own thoughts on the programme.
Agreed, with the caveat that any extra investment in Carrier Strike has an outsize effect due to us already having a carrier. An extra submarine is just an extra submarine, but either an extra air defence ship or a more capable one may allow us to use a CSG where previously we couldn't and so unlock a whole extra portion of capability.
The author didn't have a clue about BAE developing a new radar module so I'd take his opinion on radar purchases with a handful of salt.
Sorry, I phrased that poorly. I don't think they should cut numbers, more so that I'd trade an air defence cruiser for an air defence frigate, if the savings contributed to an expanded submarine fleet.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Dropping spending below the top tier of air defence by downgrading the ships causes an outsize decrease in the deterrence output because it means the enemy just has to use a better missile, whereas the most capable air defence ships today just about keep pace with the state of the art of anti-ship missiles and so provide an actual safety bubble. Generalising hugely, of course.
At least Mark Felton would be happy...
I don't think that's necessarily true. There are ways around reducing the overall size of a air defender (and therefore also its radar), and any large warship can cart around the requisite missile.
His point in referencing how long Sampson went from development to deployment shows he understands exactly how far behind BAE is. While they might be ready to test a demonstrator next year, it's years away from deployment. CEAFAR is ready now.
Not really what's been discussed here. The author is talking about CCV and the drones being a ruse to pivot from a Type 83 unreality to a "Type 46" reality.
Stuff costs money. Ships are now packed with more technology than ever and drones require them to be armed to the teeth. Settling for less is not a great plan.
This is the most likely outcome of the processes ongoing.
The exact quote was
That simply isn't true due to the BAE development, which the author seems not to be aware of.
Hey may be unaware of the regeneration at Cowes, but its certainly true that lack of interest lead to the waning.
Lol. Horizon shenanigans had nothing to do with Sampson development. In fact it's kind of the reason the UK left the alliance, because they had a better radar. But the prototypes weren't operational until the early to mid noughties. Sampson can trace it's roots back to 1989... And a bit beyond.
BAE won't have anything ready by then. They're technologies their working on now are considered (by them) to be post 2035 technology. Some of the technology milestones they're aiming for, CEA has already achieved.
It's assessment of AAW USV survivability is completely unrealistic. The point of a USV is to decentralize not just the missile launch capability, but anything else you can, and to do it proportionately with the size of the drone platform. That may not mean USVs toting SPY-4, Samson or equivalent sensors, but the next step down isn't a Nav radar. One of the roles you want a USV to be able to do is to act as a picket further up the threat axis, that requires it to have the sensors to do that. No one doubts that ASW USVs will be trailing towed arrays, so why does this article assume an AAW USV will be electronically blind? And of course the same argument goes for the EW and countermeasures suites, and point defence.
BAE has a bunch of stuff over various timescales, some of it could be available by 2030 and some is well past 2040 at best.
The problem is that adding all that drives your costs way way up.
Likely very.
No, it doesn't.
Using SPY6 for an example, the cost per "radar set" is basically the same whether it's four USVs with 3x9RMAs each or one ship with 4x24RMAs. In either case you'd have about 100RMAs at sea.
It's actually totally realistic. More realistic than many drone The assumption is that the Type 94 radar picket will be providing the picture of the battlespace which is then relayed to the CCV and Type 91 missile barge. Let's assume that it has a decent radar for sea skimmers/missiles and that it can automatically engage without the CCV giving the go ahead; the radar, the power systems, cooling systems, VLS... These are all complex systems that need technicians and engineers to look after them and fix them when there's a problem. With no one there, the USV can be disabled until an engineering crew can be helo'd or boated across. If it's an electrical fire... There's little time before that can get out of hand and then your expensive USV has exploded and in its way to the bottom. And there's always a problem. Especially in the Royal Navy.
NGTRM might be ready by late 2027, early 2028— Might! The demonstrator might be ready by 2030. It's highly unlikely you're getting a production ready version for the ship before 2035. Choices for CCV need to be locked in soon.
IIRC the status of a commissioned vessel is largely tied to the absolute responsibility of its captain for its actions. Remove the crew and there is no longer a captain holding a comission from the crown/state.
Transmit is difficult, but BAE think they can do it with some collaboration with academia. Not entirely behind CEA, eh?
Right... But that's technology thats way way away. CEA blends 3 bands together into the same picture, which kind of does that job already. It will be a better bridge to that technology.
3 bands on different panels producing a single air picture is not the same as one massive wideband doing everything in between, it's been a feature of air defence for decades. A bridge to Hyperion would be more like SPY-6s dual band capacity.Right... But that's technology thats way way away. CEA blends 3 bands together into the same picture, which kind of does that job already. It will be a better bridge to that technology.
Now... I see you might be getting your information from chatgpt young man. JORN is built on many many many antennas distributed over a vast land called Australia, it just seems like one site compared to the UK, it's bloody huge and we have the empty space to do it. We actually have three of them covering different approaches. You're still bound by atmospheric conditions no matter how big your array is. Of course you can play with frequency ranges and refine signal processing with better ane faster equipment.
Run this through chatgpt and then let me know what it says.
I like it.
I doubt that the UK would use the Q-for-UAV, as not even the US uses Q for anything but unmanned planes.
I've always assumed another purpose of the unmanned ships and air vehicles, was to push them into 'contested' space, and see what shoots at them, so you can zap another layer of the enemies onion. This would of course make them semi-disposable, which so far doesn't really fit with UK budget etc.
Going back to predators, they are remotely operated- there is a human crew, just not sitting in the aircraft. Are these ships going to be the same? Hence there would be a 'captain', maybe even 3 captains. Accident reports will be fun....
No, always only one Captain, but there may be 3+ Officers of the Deck (the person in charge of the ship at the moment and holding legal responsibility for everything that happens to it)
It hasn't. Because they've normally all been seperate systems which are then combined after signal processing. CEAFAR fuses then all together at the element level and it's tri-band. Also SPY-6 isn't dual band... It's S band only. Deary me
What are you talking about? Do you know how OTHR radars work? Why are you even comparing the radio wavelengths to microwave?
CEAFAR isn't multi band in the way Hyperion is supposed to be. Unless I'm reading all the wrong sources it has separate panels for X, S and L-band. So do Kronos Dual Band and the SPY-3 based DBR, which is what I was trying to reference. Sorry.
JORN, like any other fixed array, consists of antennae where the phase difference between signals can be used to determine direction, yes? That's how an ordinary phased array works. In JORN's case at the Western Australia receiving site you have two perpendicular 3.1km long double lines of vertical pole antennae spaced about 3.5m deep and 6.5m between each pair. In most cases the spacing is an integer fraction of the wavelength, but unless there's weird stuff going on with Google Earth it appears not in this case.
What's the meantime between failure on a marine diesel? What's the meantime between failure on an AESA radar? What's the meantime between failure on a CAMM round in the VLS? (Remember when answering that CAMM has a zero-maintenance encapsulated service life of 20 years....) These things may happen, but, like all military and aerospace equipment their use is predicated on known serviceability rates, failure analysis and adequate redundancy (which for USVs may be provided by another vessel).
