Cruisers and Destroyers

[dy031101]

Has there ever been a destroyer design of European origin that is aesthetically-similar to the American Arleigh Burke class DDG?

[ALVAMA]

Not as I know. The closest you can get is the Spanish Alvora da Bazan class and some pre-designs.

[Hobbes]

The AB is a good deal bigger than pretty much any European warship.

[GTX]

You also have the Fridtjof Nansen class which is a derivative of the Spanish F-100 class:

[dy031101]

Say, a ship equipped with a Talos missile system was exported (let's leave the probability of this happening aside for now)- let's take an Albany class for the sake of this argument.  That ship later in the '70s or '80s is to go through a mid-life update, but for some reasons, European radars are preferred.

What would you think to be the best 3D and long-range 2D air search radar combination Europe would have to offer in the '70s and what would that combo be in the '80s?

[Hobbes]

In the 1970s, I'd go with the Signaal SPS-01 3D long-range air search radar. If only because the huge dome looks cool.

In the 1980s, the favored combination seems to be a 2D long-range radar and a 3D medium range radar (see the fit on the Heemskerck class, for instance).

[dy031101]

In the 1970s, I'd go with the Signaal SPS-01 3D long-range air search radar. If only because the huge dome looks cool.

In the 1980s, the favored combination seems to be a 2D long-range radar and a 3D medium range radar (see the fit on the Heemskerck class, for instance).

I've seen some radars using antenna from other models for a variety of reasons.

I wonder what the idea of combining the processor unit of some newer radar from, say, Signaal with the antenna of the SPS-43 would end up producing......

[Hobbes]

Coupling a new processing unit to an existing antenna means you can profit from new developments in signals processing without having to rebuild the antenna support (which is big, heavy and complex for a long-range radar). This means improved image quality (better filtering of clutter), better resistance to jamming etc.

The only drawback is that you're limited to the capabilities of the old antenna. There's no way to make the SPS-43 antenna into a 3D radar, for instance.

The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.

Radar progressed in broadly these steps:
- up to 1970: 2D radar only. This meant that the tracking radar had to find the target's height before it could lock on.
- 1970: first forays into 3D radar (discounting the billboard systems on the USS Enterprise, which weren't successful), using multiple transmitters feeding into the same  antenna to stack several radar signals on top of each other. Mostly done for short to medium range, but e.g. SPS-01 and DRBI-23 (French) were long range
- 1980: 3D search radar becomes commonplace (compare SPS-01 which was huge to the tiny SMART-S)
- 1990s: phased array radars start to replace rotating antennas.

[dy031101]

Coupling a new processing unit to an existing antenna means you can profit from new developments in signals processing without having to rebuild the antenna support (which is big, heavy and complex for a long-range radar). This means improved image quality (better filtering of clutter), better resistance to jamming etc.

The only drawback is that you're limited to the capabilities of the old antenna. There's no way to make the SPS-43 antenna into a 3D radar, for instance.

Which component is the decisive factor on how far a radar can effectively see: antenna, processing unit, or both (whether in different ways or otherwise)?

SPS-43 is said to be a "powerful" set with "a range of 300+ miles"...... would coupling a more-modern processing unit preserve that range after gaining the benefit you mentioned above?

(I am still thinking about a long-range 2D set in this scenario- maybe SPS-43 antenna with LW-08 processor or something; a 3D set will be sought separately.)

The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.

I forgot that one and was only thinking about search radars......  

Radar progressed in broadly these steps......

I was under the impression that SMART is in the '90s (was trying to avoid late '80s items, too)......

[rickshaw]

Which component is the decisive factor on how far a radar can effectively see: antenna, processing unit, or both (whether in different ways or otherwise)?

Combination of power output (how strong is the signal), Antenna design and processing power.   The higher the signal power the longer the range because of the more reflected energy which can be detected.  How much reflected energy is detected, depends upon the shape/size of the aerial.  How that reflected energy is interpreted depends upon the amount of processing power is available.   By the end of the 1980s, there is oodles of CPU available to radar systems.  The rise of cheap, powerful computers ensured that.

Addenda:  Another factor is location of the antenna.  Obviously, the higher the better on the superstructure, particularly for air and surface search sets as it increases the distance to the radar horizon.  However, there are other factors as well, such as interference from the superstructure and even the sensitivity of the radar system (it can sometimes pick up surface reflections, which is not something you want!).

[Hobbes]

You're right, SMART-S was first installed around 1995.

You can preserve the long range of the SPS-43 as Rickshaw described. The drawback of such a long range is that the antenna must rotate slowly (too fast, and it would rotate away before a radar echo from 300 miles away has returned). This is one of the reasons you want a medium-range radar to complement the SPS-43.

[rickshaw]

You're right, SMART-S was first installed around 1995.

You can preserve the long range of the SPS-43 as Rickshaw described. The drawback of such a long range is that the antenna must rotate slowly (too fast, and it would rotate away before a radar echo from 300 miles away has returned). This is one of the reasons you want a medium-range radar to complement the SPS-43.

Which is why electronically steered arrays are great.  Essentially the antenna "stares" at the same section of sky, all the time but the beam is steered electronically to scan it.

[dy031101]

All of them?  Why?  Its role had changed from, as you note, ASW - which is a helicopter intensive role to ASuW - which is not helicopter intensive.

I don't suppose the Soviets had plans for a missile of Penguin or Sea Skua's calibre?

Not really.  They tended to rely upon unguided rockets for tactical roles for a long time.  The first tactical guided missiles didn't appear until the approximately the early 1980s.

They also intended their missiles for big targets - carriers usually so they tended to build big missiles.  Too big for most helicopters to carry.

Forgot this one- although I don't know when this combo came to pass.

[Pellson]

The Talos system had some unique support equipment: the tracking radars for instance were extremely powerful (to provide beam riding at long range), I've no idea if Europe produced tracking radars that were capable of doing this.

Britain certainly did. See abaft the helo hangar on this vessel:



In more general terms, such a cruiser export as discussed here was more or less realized by modernizing a Dutch cruiser of De Zeven Provincien-class.



Also an Italian WW2 cruiser was rebuilt, this time even including provisions and tubes for nuclear ballistic missiles (center below)

[tigercat]

A couple of unusual Destroyers

Uss Hovey

http://www.navsource.org/archives/05/0520821.jpg

A us  4 stacker with twin gun mountings  in place of the normal singles

Also the French le Fier class

Planned to be completed by the Germans with all large guns on the stern.

Germans tried to complete the ships, but no one ship was finished. Under German flag characteristic of ships should change a little. Displacement was supposed about 1087/1443t, and dimensions should be 90/93.2x9.22x3.91m; armament consisted of 3x1 105mm guns at aft end, 2 single 37mm and 9 single 20mm MGs and 2 triple 533mm TT. Almost ready TA2 was sunk by American aircraft, as well as TA4. Parts of TA3 were used for completion of sister ships. TA1, TA5 and TA6 were scuttled by Germans at departure from Nantes.