Sea Jet
Suspicion breeds confidence
M2, the problem with SM2ER is that it is still semi-active and shares many of the same limitations as Sea Dart. How do you paint a low flying target at 40 miles? The answer is to make it active. I would say that Aster30 is arguably the best anti-air missile out there, the planned Aster 50 will give it greater range and ABM capabilities.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Naveleye,
I thought they'd tested an active variant (SM3). Theyve certainly tested an ABM capability. If they get CEC to work, it could also take third party targeting from the E-2C.
Regards,
M2
I thought they'd tested an active variant (SM3). Theyve certainly tested an ABM capability. If they get CEC to work, it could also take third party targeting from the E-2C.
Regards,
M2
Suspicion breeds confidence
I believe they have tested an active seeker on the SM2 family, but it won't be in service for some years yet for unspecified reasons - presumably integration with other systems. SM2 would not have the high speed manoueverability of Aster.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to www.Naval-Technology.com, the SM2MR has a range of 70km;
Ticonderoga
Whilst the "wimpy little" ASTER 30 mooted for the Type-45 has a range of 80km;
Type 45 Daring
OK, the data may not be 100% accurate but it does suggest that, range-wise, the two missiles are probably fairly similar.
Ticonderoga
Whilst the "wimpy little" ASTER 30 mooted for the Type-45 has a range of 80km;
Type 45 Daring
OK, the data may not be 100% accurate but it does suggest that, range-wise, the two missiles are probably fairly similar.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Lincs
Posts: 453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe the SM2MR has a range of 70km but the ER variant is somewhat more impressive I believe. However, I'm far from a naval SAM specialist so I'll now go EMCON silent!!!
Regards,
M2
Regards,
M2
Oddly enough, the page on Sea Dart on the RN website (found under Weapons, which is under the Surface Flotilla - despite including Spearfish and Tomahawk) claims that it is effective up to 80km. 
The Sea Dart will be replaced by Aster/PAAMS, as the T42 that carries it will be replaced by the T45. The main advantage of the new system over Sea Dart, apart from being up to date with brand spanking new technology, will not be that the range will be that much greater, but that it will use a vertical launch system. This will mean that there are more that two missiles ready to go at any one time. Saturation by numbers of is therefore less likely. Neither system will have the same range as a pair of fighters on CAP.
In either 1999 or 2000 the Commons Defence Select Committee warned that there would be a gap between the start of the phasing out of T42 and the introduction of the T45 (by which I mean having more than one or two of them in service).
Organic air defence aircraft remain the most effective defence against air or air launched attack. Even if the figure of 80km (arrrrrggh - too much salt) for Sea Dart range is taken as fact, it is still a lot less than the 100nm (about 180km) range of a Sea Harrier on a CAP. And 909 and Sea Dart are both much less modern than Blue Vixen and AMRAAM.
One last point - Rules of Engagement. Sandy Woodward's book mentions an incident where an airliner from Brazil was mistaken for an Argentine spyplane and was almost targeted. A Sea Harrier was sent to look and confirmed its true identity. We all know about the Vincennes incident. With these in mind, won't the ROE for ship launched weapons be a lot more restrictive than for air launched ones, where the pilot can get a visual ID?
The Sea Dart will be replaced by Aster/PAAMS, as the T42 that carries it will be replaced by the T45. The main advantage of the new system over Sea Dart, apart from being up to date with brand spanking new technology, will not be that the range will be that much greater, but that it will use a vertical launch system. This will mean that there are more that two missiles ready to go at any one time. Saturation by numbers of is therefore less likely. Neither system will have the same range as a pair of fighters on CAP.
In either 1999 or 2000 the Commons Defence Select Committee warned that there would be a gap between the start of the phasing out of T42 and the introduction of the T45 (by which I mean having more than one or two of them in service).
Organic air defence aircraft remain the most effective defence against air or air launched attack. Even if the figure of 80km (arrrrrggh - too much salt) for Sea Dart range is taken as fact, it is still a lot less than the 100nm (about 180km) range of a Sea Harrier on a CAP. And 909 and Sea Dart are both much less modern than Blue Vixen and AMRAAM.
One last point - Rules of Engagement. Sandy Woodward's book mentions an incident where an airliner from Brazil was mistaken for an Argentine spyplane and was almost targeted. A Sea Harrier was sent to look and confirmed its true identity. We all know about the Vincennes incident. With these in mind, won't the ROE for ship launched weapons be a lot more restrictive than for air launched ones, where the pilot can get a visual ID?
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 8th Oct 2004 at 08:50.
Suspicion breeds confidence
You will find that the 100nm CAP station for the Shar is an under estimation of its potential and the reverse applies for the Sea Dart figures you quote. I just worked out how high a target would have to be for a Sea Dart to hit it at 80km - assuming that it could.
Has anyone else noticed this?
The range for missile systems are given in km. Since kilometres are smaller than nautical (or land miles) the numbers are larger. Is this a deliberate ploy?
I would hope most people reading this are able to convert SI units to imperial, and vice versa. But in case they can't, I have given the following for comparison:
Sea Dart (range normally given): 35nm (63km)
Sea Dart (range qouted): 43nm (80km)
Sea Harrier (CAP range quoted): 100nm (185km)
Quoted means qouted on the RN website. Even if Sea Dart is as capable as this page says, its range is still less than 50% of a CAPing Sea Harrier. And of course AMRAAM extends that range by another 30(+)nm. So therefore a Sea Harrier, can engage a target 130nm from the CVS. A Type 42 would need to be placed 90nm up threat to engage things at the same range, totally defeating the object of layered defence as a task group.
The range for missile systems are given in km. Since kilometres are smaller than nautical (or land miles) the numbers are larger. Is this a deliberate ploy?
I would hope most people reading this are able to convert SI units to imperial, and vice versa. But in case they can't, I have given the following for comparison:
Sea Dart (range normally given): 35nm (63km)
Sea Dart (range qouted): 43nm (80km)
Sea Harrier (CAP range quoted): 100nm (185km)
Quoted means qouted on the RN website. Even if Sea Dart is as capable as this page says, its range is still less than 50% of a CAPing Sea Harrier. And of course AMRAAM extends that range by another 30(+)nm. So therefore a Sea Harrier, can engage a target 130nm from the CVS. A Type 42 would need to be placed 90nm up threat to engage things at the same range, totally defeating the object of layered defence as a task group.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But the Sea Dart can be ready for firing all day everyday, it doesn't need feeding, sleeping, refuelling or reasonable weather to get active, your extended range from an aircraft comes at a price.
I'm sure Navaleye will take issue with that! Since Sea Dart works by semi active homing, severe attenuation of the 909 radar transmissions and/or the reflections from the target due to bad weather will not help, the range will probably be reduced - particularly at the limits of the envelope.
Sea Dart needs a Type 42 Destroyer to support it, which needs refuelling from time to time. It takes a lot more people to run a T42 than it does a Sea Harrier sqaudron.
Sea Dart needs a Type 42 Destroyer to support it, which needs refuelling from time to time. It takes a lot more people to run a T42 than it does a Sea Harrier sqaudron.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Looking at brochure figures for weapons systems is a pointless exercise. Who says a Shar cap should be at 100nm? They can and do operate considerably further than that.
rivetjoint, I think you jest. Ever tried launching a Sea Dart with 30ft waves breaking over your bows in a T42? The closest answer gets a Mars Bar. At least a VLS system allows you to keep your missiles dry. This is why every other nation recognises the need for layered air defence when things go wrong and they often do with 30yr old kit.
Remember why the Shar came into being in the first place - hack the shad. You can't take out long range maritime patrol aircraft with land based fighters or SAMs. Yes, the GR9a/ASaC combination offers some of this, but nowhere near enough IMHO.
rivetjoint, I think you jest. Ever tried launching a Sea Dart with 30ft waves breaking over your bows in a T42? The closest answer gets a Mars Bar. At least a VLS system allows you to keep your missiles dry. This is why every other nation recognises the need for layered air defence when things go wrong and they often do with 30yr old kit.
Remember why the Shar came into being in the first place - hack the shad. You can't take out long range maritime patrol aircraft with land based fighters or SAMs. Yes, the GR9a/ASaC combination offers some of this, but nowhere near enough IMHO.
Last edited by Navaleye; 11th Oct 2004 at 13:31.
Is Sea Dart affected more or less by high sea states than the Sea Harrier? I know they've flown them (the SHar - that is) in very iffy weather....
Meanwhile, whilst the Sea Dart page on the RN website claims a range of 80km, this page on the T42 says:
The ships main weapon system is the Sea Dart Missile. This is a medium range anti-air missile with an approximate range of 20 nm up to 60,000’.
Sea Dart is still being fired in tests, see Engage with Sea Dart, but do these tests have any great realism? Do they simulate the effects of bad weather, several months away from the UK base, tired and stressed out people etc?
Meanwhile, whilst the Sea Dart page on the RN website claims a range of 80km, this page on the T42 says:
The ships main weapon system is the Sea Dart Missile. This is a medium range anti-air missile with an approximate range of 20 nm up to 60,000’.
Sea Dart is still being fired in tests, see Engage with Sea Dart, but do these tests have any great realism? Do they simulate the effects of bad weather, several months away from the UK base, tired and stressed out people etc?
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Lincs
Posts: 267
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm....test firing a v. expensive missile using tired and stressed out personnel? We get to fire few enough live shots as it is.....I don't see what you would gain from 'simulating' conditions in the way you suggest.
SBG
SBG
Last edited by Spotting Bad Guys; 12th Oct 2004 at 06:59.
Suspicion breeds confidence
Thursday's war would take place in all weathers and could be quite stressful, the only difference was that no weapons were fired. I'm not sure how realistic a Hawk pretending to be an Exocet is anymore.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Stoke
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to JANES the JSF is still overweight AND is now running into political problems with the so called partner nations.
Another damn good reason not to retire the SHar for the moment.
BTW, is it true that a clean Hawk has an extremely small radar cross section? Read that somewhere in the dim and distant past along with an explaination that hanging external stores off it brought the RCS up a great deal to the relief of air traffic controlers throughout britain.
Another damn good reason not to retire the SHar for the moment.
BTW, is it true that a clean Hawk has an extremely small radar cross section? Read that somewhere in the dim and distant past along with an explaination that hanging external stores off it brought the RCS up a great deal to the relief of air traffic controlers throughout britain.
Last edited by Pureteenlard; 13th Oct 2004 at 21:53.
I thought the weight issue had been dealt with? It had according to this thread.
By the way there has been a lot of activity involving 899 NAS in air to air stuff over the South West and the Bristol Channel in the last few days. It seems such a pity that all this expertise will be lost.....
By the way there has been a lot of activity involving 899 NAS in air to air stuff over the South West and the Bristol Channel in the last few days. It seems such a pity that all this expertise will be lost.....
Last edited by WE Branch Fanatic; 14th Oct 2004 at 22:16.
My reading of the Jane's piece is that the weight issue has been solved - but at a cost. The STOVL variant has had its weapons bays redesigned so that it can only accommodate 1,000lb weapons rather than 2,000-pounders (the ability to carry 2 x AIM-120 remains unchanged).
I've hared it said that 2,000-lb weapons are an uncessary item in the current environment given concerns over collateral damage, but I'm not sure that I buy that. It does seem that, whatever your point of view on that one, the JSF STOVL will be less capable than once intended. Since the UK commitment to the STOVL JSF seems less certain than it was, I wonder if we'll soon hear that the CV variant is in fact going to be the one chosen (bigger warload, longer range...)
The biggest issues appears to be that of workshare; how capable non-US JSF will be and the fact that it's going to be late. The full article suggests:
Which is a bit of a worry. Time to go CTOL and buy Rafale or the F/A-18-E/F? Also, I suppose that the first real nagging doubts about CV(F) might just start to be heard (very expensive, aircraft for it very expensive and late....)
I've hared it said that 2,000-lb weapons are an uncessary item in the current environment given concerns over collateral damage, but I'm not sure that I buy that. It does seem that, whatever your point of view on that one, the JSF STOVL will be less capable than once intended. Since the UK commitment to the STOVL JSF seems less certain than it was, I wonder if we'll soon hear that the CV variant is in fact going to be the one chosen (bigger warload, longer range...)
The biggest issues appears to be that of workshare; how capable non-US JSF will be and the fact that it's going to be late. The full article suggests:
the UK will not have an operationally effective JCA force until 2015, at best.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Devon, England
Posts: 816
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Hawks of 100Sqn and maybe RNFSF are fitted with radar signature enhancement pods to allow Tornado F3s radar to lock onto them better in an engagement. The Hawks own radar signature is apparently (or so i read) too small for the Blue fox to get a good lock on...??? Perhaps im talking b/****
Razor
Razor
Suspicion breeds confidence
Blue Fox? Foxhunter or Blue Vixen? Blue Fox is no longer in service in the UK and why the obsession with foxes?
Last edited by Navaleye; 15th Oct 2004 at 15:10.