Formidable class frigates
-
Modern EW can pick up signals from a radiating radar. However, new frequency agile radar lowers the risk of such detection, as well providing a quicker scan rate. The Formidable class can remain a low profile if it so chooses to.
As for the RCS, the only numbers I have doubts in is the "modern fighters" capable of scanning 300-400km... even with a modern radar like the APG-79. So far, I haven't found any publish numbers on its sea-surface search range.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Modern EW can pick up signals from a radiating radar. However, new frequency agile radar lowers the risk of such detection, as well providing a quicker scan rate. The Formidable class can remain a low profile if it so chooses to.
As for the RCS, the only numbers I have doubts in is the "modern fighters" capable of scanning 300-400km... even with a modern radar like the APG-79. So far, I haven't found any publish numbers on its sea-surface search range.
frequency agile only prevents your radar being jammed, but no help prevent being detected.
quicker scan rate is achieved by the faster spin of radar atenna of naval vessel, that's why in a highly alerted situation, the naval vessel no only need to light up slow spin main search radar, but also the fast spin fire control radar for higher update rate. this is very important to give enough early warning and information of any possilbe sea skimming anti-ship missiles.
As for 300-400kms detection range of a modern fighter towards a big surface target, look no further, guess who equips the Su30Mk which has the capability:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russia/su-30mk.htm
compared with the predecessor, the Su-30 MK avionics suite features a number of advanced components, including: integrated radar sighting system capable of detecting and tracking up to 15 air targets, while simultaneously attacking four of them; integrated optronic sighting-and-navigation system with a laser gyro navigation system; helmet-mounted displays, head-up-display, multi-function colour LCDs with image mixing capability; GPS system (GLONASS/NAVSTAR compatible).
The powerful general-purpose phased-array radar (featuring a 20-m resolution) ensures detection of large sea-surface targets at a distance of up to 400 km, and small-size ones - at a distance of up to 120 km. In preliminary long-range aiming mode, the radar locks on the target automatically, with co-ordinates transferred into the navigation system. Then the radar is switched-off and the aircraft flies toward the target in radar-silenced mode. At near-maximum range of weapon employment, aiming means are engaged to update targeting data, and weapon system is employed against the target. Short time of radar illumination ensures concealed approach of the aircraft to the target, thus contributing to the mission success.
-
Reccommended reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low_probability_of_intercept
Phased Array Radar or AESAs provides quick scan rates that its much harder for EW equipment to detect.
This is especially a problem when we try to run against S-300 sites. Chances, it will shoot us before we even pick it up on the RWR.
As for the 400km sea-surface scan, it looks like we need to look at the small-sized category when considering the Formidable class of vessels. With that, the detection range is reduced to 120km. With the 13% detection range reduction you said, thats reduced to 104km before the ship appears as a fishing boat (Heh, don't quote these numbers, just the idea). Depending on weather and sea-state, detection ranges maybe further reduced.
I think 120km is not bad for a ship like the Formidable. Considering that at that range, it might still appear to be an insignificant fishing boat.
Btw, 120km for small vessels for the Su-30MK isn't pretty impressive. I think the Viper can do that with the current APG-68 v5/v7
-
As for the 400km sea-surface scan, it looks like we need to look at the small-sized category when considering the Formidable class of vessels. With that, the detection range is reduced to 120km. With the 13% detection range reduction you said, thats reduced to 104km before the ship appears as a fishing boat (Heh, don't quote these numbers, just the idea). Depending on weather and sea-state, detection ranges maybe further reduced.
I think you are adding one more layer to it.
Formidable APPEARS to radar as a small ship, that was already it's bonus. You should not figure in the 13% range reduction.
Of course, this is the optimistic lionnoisy assumption that Formidable only has 1/10 RCS of what is expected of it's 3200 ton displacement, but other more conservative estimates place it an estimate that it appears much larger then that, which I actually end to believe more.
In any case it does help to hide our frigate, but it does not make it below notice. This RCS reduction means that our Formidable appears on radar more like our 500 ton PVs or 600 ton Corvettes, which helps somewhat but it probably aids in making the enemy underestimate the ship then actually hide it.
-
just cannot understand the constant ranting over the weight of the formidable vis-a-vis its RCS.
our formidable is made of steel... which greatly increase its weight to 3200ton...
ships of similar size (similar dimensions) would weigh just above 2000ton if made of aluminium.
if by someone's definition... a 3200 ton appears as 500 to 600 ton PVs... how about a 2000+ ton frigate with RCS reduction technology? 200 ton?
-
Originally posted by tripwire:
just cannot understand the constant ranting over the weight of the formidable vis-a-vis its RCS.
our formidable is made of steel... which greatly increase its weight to 3200ton...
ships of similar size (similar dimensions) would weigh just above 2000ton if made of aluminium.
if by someone's definition... a 3200 ton appears as 500 to 600 ton PVs... how about a 2000+ ton frigate with RCS reduction technology? 200 ton?
Seems like splitting hairs I am drawing up a rough picture here in the end.
But I think you are somewhat mistaken. I am not drawing up a direct relation between displacement and RCS, but pointing out that at such sizes, you start to get an expected RCSes for their displacement and hence it is often used as a description of RCS reduction. RCS as always, is dependent on too many other things and differ from class to class as well as design.
If you are above 2000-400tons for a monohull ship, steel, aluminum or composite you will be a ship over a hundred meters, but almost certainly under 150 meters in length. This of course is affected predicitability lends a VERY rough guides.
You are giving too much credit to the use of materials drastically changing the displacement of the ship. Ultimately displacement is also affected by how thick you cut the materials, as well as the internal design of the ship. Materials of the superstructure is just one thing.
For example, the Type 21 frigate is made out of aluminium, and measures in at 109m, but it still displaces 2860 tons. But you can go all nuts like the Russians and make a (very optimistic sounding) 2000 ton ship by really going all mad on the weight cutting for their frigates, but they still used steel and the like.
The length and size of the La Fayette (125m, 3200 t) and the Formidable (114m, 3200 t) is not that much different. You are just talking a mere 11 meter reduction in length for an over 100 meter ship for the same displacement despite the La Fayette making use of a lot of weight-saving materials to give more size-for-displacement. Not enough to really throw off any drastic displacement measurements.
Hence if you want to be more precise, you can use length and size, but at "frigate" size as we are talking about the reduction indeed will still be pretty expected.
Anyway I can't understand what the whoo-ha over our "stealth" is, it was orginally advertised as "signature-reduced" as opposed to actual idea of stealth as we would like it. Maybe more "stealthy" then the La Fayette by virtue of it's marginally smaller size and enclosed sensor mast. But at the end of the day it's an optimization of design and not a new one.
The difference between our "stealth" and true "stealth" could be said to be the difference between the B-1B Lancer and the B-2 Spirit. One is "signature-reduced" while the other is truly using stealth as a signficant part of it's game plan. I am not sure how optimistic about our "stealth" we ought to be.
-
But the point remains is that the Formidable is a ship of conventional structural layout, displacement and size of it's expected class, so barring some really secret and advanced technology it's not going to vanish from enemy radar or be picked up only when it's within 10 nm or something like that. It's signature reduction is helpful, no doubt, bout as I said not something to lionnoisy over.
-
its not the weight... its not the length... nor isit the steel composition that determines the RCS of our ship.
the B-2 bomber at max T-O weighs more then the B-1.
the B-2 has a wing area more then twice the B-1.
yet... its recognized or at least accepted that the B-2 has a RCS much much smaller then B-1.
clearly... wat determines "stealth" is the design and the technology involved... rather then size and weight.
the lafayette is at best a distant substitute marker when compared to the formidable... as it neither uses the same system, electronic, weapon, radar and others... nor are the top structures anyway near identical.
but i dont profess to be an expert in this stealth features... but looking from a layman's POV, it appears to the mundane eyes of mine that the DSTA and DSO together with our navy and the french really took alot of effort into designing this ship for watever purpose it was suppose to serve. -
Originally posted by tripwire:
its not the weight... its not the length... nor isit the steel composition that determines the RCS of our ship.
the B-2 bomber at max T-O weighs more then the B-1.
the B-2 has a wing area more then twice the B-1.
yet... its recognized or at least accepted that the B-2 has a RCS much much smaller then B-1.
clearly... wat determines "stealth" is the design and the technology involved... rather then size and weight.
the lafayette is at best a distant substitute marker when compared to the formidable... as it neither uses the same system, electronic, weapon, radar and others... nor are the top structures anyway near identical.
but i dont profess to be an expert in this stealth features... but looking from a layman's POV, it appears to the mundane eyes of mine that the DSTA and DSO together with our navy and the french really took alot of effort into designing this ship for watever purpose it was suppose to serve.Exactly the B-2 is an example of stealth-directed design while the B-1 is a signature-reduced design. We can see the difference here.
The B-2 went to the extreme and departed with as many conventional notions of what would make an aircraft as much as possible while the B-1 was still a more traditional approach to the bomber. My point is, as far as conventional surface combatant designs go our Formidable is closer to a B-1 then a B-2.
The point is, our Formidable is NOT a stealth-directed design (ie. the main point of Formidable is to stay hidden), it is a signature-reduced design akin to the B-1. It can still be detected at rather practical ranges.
Well, as I said we can only work we what we know, anything else is just hand-waving and speculation- not that ALL speculation is bad but there is a difference between an intelligent guess and wishful thinking.
I believe the shape of the ship plays prehaps the largest role in RCS, followed by materials and the like.
AFAIK, the laws of physics cannot be broken, that means that things like size and surface area will matter when it comes to figuring out RCS. What this means is that barring some Star-Trek cloaking field a 3,200 ton ship will certainly have a lot more area to bounce back radar then a smaller ship. The design of the ship attempts to get around this rule, but at the end of the day it's more of working with what you have to bend the rules then actually breaking them.
So barring some really radical shape changes and hull designs (ala. Sea Shadow), we can more or less make a ballpark guess that this ship isn't going to totally vanish of radar of be only picked up very close.
And of course there are other things to consider as well, such as it's own EM emissions (LPI or not) to factor in.
But if anything that's prehaps a good limitiation of technology, especially in our case- it would be money. DSTA and the DSO are not the top of their field in this region, though they did do a more-then-competent job for the Formidable. But it is in my opinion that we shouldn't go all Iranian on it- that is imagine fantastic abilities for each and every new stuff we come up with. And AFAIK this isn't exactly on the scale of technology and complexity as the Yank next gen destroyer project. And I don't think the RSN's specs called for a frigate that would totally drop all radar.
Ultimately it's true. We don't know enough and I am quite sure the RSN isn't going to advertise the actual RCS of its ship. But it is my humble opinion that the stealth is more of a useful feature then a fight-winner in this case. Prehaps blend in with littorial traffic? Get a Harpoon off at max range while the enemy is still having trouble figuring out who you are? Maybe. But total B-2 styled surprise is best done by our subs.
-
Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:
I think you are adding one more layer to it.
Formidable APPEARS to radar as a small ship, that was already it's bonus. You should not figure in the 13% range reduction.
Of course, this is the optimistic lionnoisy assumption that Formidable only has 1/10 RCS of what is expected of it's 3200 ton displacement, but other more conservative estimates place it an estimate that it appears much larger then that, which I actually end to believe more.
In any case it does help to hide our frigate, but it does not make it below notice. This RCS reduction means that our Formidable appears on radar more like our 500 ton PVs or 600 ton Corvettes, which helps somewhat but it probably aids in making the enemy underestimate the ship then actually hide it.
Oh no, I didn't come up with the 13% reduction. That number was what 38[] gave in his previous post. I'm just not challenging it cos I'm not an expert in stealth nor am I confident of my mathematics.
SGtrex, I guess when you say "signature-reduced", the B2 can also be considered in that category. Going that direction would only leave us with the tough option of quantifying "stealth." IE, How much signature reduction would be considered "Stealth."
IMO, Stealth is a "profile" given to a particular platform to conduct operations in a manner which cannot be easily detected. Hence, given a reduced signature profile, the Formidable class frigate CAN carryout operations in a "Stealthy" manner. Soon enough, "stealth" will become a requirement for most combat platforms, as people realise the need to reduce radar signature.
Can our frigate hide completely from view? Yes, given sufficient distance from the radar reciever. Eg, (again, numbers are just an example) if the Formidable appears as a small fishing boat at 80nmi, it might not be detected at all, at 100nmi. If I recall my concepts of stealth correctly, the closer it gets, the stronger the return signal is, and the larger the formidable will appear. However, that does not mean that the radar will return an image of the formidable as its full physical size. Even at 40nmi, 20nmi, it will STILL appear smaller than it is, depending on how well designed its "Stealth" features are.
-
SGtrex, I guess when you say "signature-reduced", the B2 can also be considered in that category. Going that direction would only leave us with the tough option of quantifying "stealth." IE, How much signature reduction would be considered "Stealth."
Actually there is a distinction, mainly in how stealth affects your mission profile, and it is quite relevant as to how our frigate will be used.
For example, wearing normal no.4 camo and camoing up your face would be considered signature-reduction- ie. I do all these things to reduce the enemy's chance of spotting me but I am expected to be in a direct firefight with him if the stuff really hits the fan.
Stealth would be like a sniper going into full ghillie, the main idea of his mission is to remain totally hidden and strike out of the unknown. Barring really unusual circumstances he is not supposed to engage the enemy as an infantryman would.
But I am not too for the idea of being all lionnoisy just because the word "stealth" was used to describe our frigates, ultimately if we are skeptical about modern radars being able to be useful up to 400km we ought to be careful when we throw around estimates for our own "stealth".
-
Well the common misunderstanding is that "stealth" is just the technology itself. Although that seems to be the direction developments are heading.
However, a stealthy profile often involves more than that. Just like a camouflaged soldier is easily seen standing in the middle of the road, a stealth profile will also affect perimeters such as ingress and egress for fighters. Eg, when the F-117 had to fly outside its stealth profile, it was picked up and consequently shot down in Serbia.
Everything we can discuss about stealth and its associated technologies such as signature reduction is mostly theory. Its pretty hard to throw up numbers since there are simply too many factors that most of us really have know knowledge of. Hence, its pretty much concept talk.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
Well the common misunderstanding is that "stealth" is just the technology itself. Although that seems to be the direction developments are heading.
However, a stealthy profile often involves more than that. Just like a camouflaged soldier is easily seen standing in the middle of the road, a stealth profile will also affect perimeters such as ingress and egress for fighters. Eg, when the F-117 had to fly outside its stealth profile, it was picked up and consequently shot down in Serbia.
Everything we can discuss about stealth and its associated technologies such as signature reduction is mostly theory. Its pretty hard to throw up numbers since there are simply too many factors that most of us really have know knowledge of. Hence, its pretty much concept talk.
More or less, mission profile matters as well. If a B-2 pilot banked his plane so that it presented a huge surface area for enemy radars to track and flew very near a radar emmiter he'll be pretty much toast.But of course if you ask me what our Formidable stealth is more for, it's my opinion it's to decieve and not hide.
-
I think if our MPA need 2 get within 30KM 2 detect e light reflection from our frigate rotating radar it is steath enough
-
above:radar is rotating!
It looks like EX with US.
http://bbs.news.sina.com.cn/tableforum/App/view.php?bbsid=4&subid=3&fid=82710&tbid=2097
-
As to the comment about why we call them "Stealth" frigates rather than "Low Observable" or "Signature reduced", I guess that stealth sounds alot sexier and may help in recruiting enough people to actually crew the frigates-- sometimes being media savvy is more important than being accurate.
-
The rotating radar is the navigation radar.
-
Originally posted by Shotgun:
The rotating radar is the navigation radar.
It's not.That's the Multi-Function Radar used to compile pictures for the CIC.
The nav radars are located on top of the hangar (for helicopter), on the mast (main), and on the bridge-top below the rotating MFR.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
It's not.That's the Multi-Function Radar used to compile pictures for the CIC.
The nav radars are located on top of the hangar (for helicopter), on the mast (main), and on the bridge-top below the rotating MFR.
from a still photo, it would be rather hard to judge if a radar is rotating or not. for what you know, both of you could be correct. the navigation and search radar are rotating... heheh -
usually u can see the radar in this position.
u hardly see in this position
-
Originally posted by YI:
from a still photo, it would be rather hard to judge if a radar is rotating or not. for what you know, both of you could be correct. the navigation and search radar are rotating... heheh
By search radar you mean the surf-search? -
Originally posted by Shotgun:
By search radar you mean the surf-search?
yes. i am referring to the surface search and navigation radar. i am of the opinion that safety is paramount when manoeuvring in such a tight formation. -
I think Shotgun was just being cheeky.
If you have seen a video footage of the exercise, it was the Herakle radar that spinned like crazy.
-
I am suppose some of you here are either from the marine industry or you read up a lot regarding weapons. I will be amazed if anyone out here have gone into the RSS Formidable and even if you have done so you would not have say the specliaites of this stealth unit.
Just explaining in layman terms
Though i am not in the crew but regarding the consturcting of this ship I still have some knowledge. This ship is designed in a funny shape that under the radar, it will be seen as a small fishing boat. Its material to construct the ship can actually absorb radar wave and reflect at the same time. Thats why at the side the ship is flat.
During naval warfare, when you see Singapore's Formaidable Class in your radar. It either you get your men to abandon ship or just fire everything you have but you will end up in the water also. Before the RSS formaidable goes near you, the submarine is already within effective firing range.
Just side tracking, what you seen on the news and internet is what the RSN can show you. But there are more towards its capabilities. More of this class of stealth figates are on the way. It will soon replace the current figates that singapore has. Together with the new seahawk attack helicopter, you can enjoy the firepower the first line of naval defense the navy of singapore has. There are other weapons in this figates too.
That is how much I can tell you. If I tell you more I have to kill you. :)
-
Uhh.. there is no need for melodramatics, Analog. The DCNS La-Fayette class frigates have been around for quite a long time, much of the data about it is known, and there is nothing special about it. What you are describing is already known by most, if not all, of the other posters in this thread.
Your statement about the replacement frigates may well come true-- in another 20-30 years. We have just received the present frigates, why would we replace them so soon?