It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sampson - The worlds most advanced radar

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
This radar is being developed by the UK, France and Italy and will be fitted to the Type-45 destroyer, providing supperior air defence.






This new radar system is encased in a large, spherical housing atop the vessel’s foremast. Inside the housing is a next-generation, multifunction radar developed by Alenia Marconi Systems Ltd. (AMS, Rome). The unit rotates at 30 rpm on a bearing setup that Timken helped develop.

Known as Sampson, this radar is used for surveillance, target identification and target tracking. This radar uses digital adaptive beam forming, which makes it virtually immune to electronic jamming and very powerful. Capable of performing many tasks simultaneously, it uses an active-array antenna made up of many individually controlled transmitter and receiver units. These reduce the energy losses that limit the performance of conventional radar systems.




[edit on 19-2-2005 by Lucretius]




posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
I'm impressed, makes a nice integrated defence suite with them aster missiles, Since the U.S. has some echolon operation going with the UK, the Brits must have given them the bluprints for sampson radar some time ago, so no doubt the u.s. army will have the same advanced tweaks on their Aegis cruisers soon.


[edit on 19-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 10:50 PM
link   
And it's about time too! US has had some truly useless radar tech for the last 2 decades or so. I like the look of the thing, and the advance in capability sounds genuine, but then again, cobra mist sounded like the bomb too...

Just have to wait and see.



posted on Feb, 19 2005 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Countermeasures
I'm impressed, makes a nice integrated defence suite with them aster missiles, Since the U.S. has some echolon operation going with the UK, the Brits must have given them the bluprints for sampson radar some time ago, so no doubt the u.s. army will have the same advanced tweaks on their Aegis cruisers soon.


[edit on 19-2-2005 by Countermeasures]





I am sorry but the MOD2 AEGIS is probably better anyway, why would the US Army need to get the blueprints for it? Come on people lets get serious.

The phased array radar on AEGIS ships is the best route to go, but also the most expensive, so not everyone could afford it, so far just Japan, Spain, and the US. If the UK wanted it they could have had it but with the budget cuts the Royal Navy has undergone in the last decade it was just not practical.

Heck even the Soviets/Russia are moving to a phased array setup, but budgets killed that also.


btw though, that is one nice looking ride!

[edit on 19-2-2005 by edsinger]


This interested me so I went looking:

Medium Range Missile:
Range: SM2-IIIB 50miles+ / Aster30 62.5miles+
Speed: SM2-IIIB Mach 3+ / Aster30 Mach 4.5
Ceiling: SM2-IIIB 65k ft+ / Aster30 65k ft+
Guidance: SM2-IIIB Inertial mid-course guidance, semi-active radar homing terminal guidance with infra-red secondary terminal guidance / Aster30 Intertial mid-course guidance, active radar homing terminal guidance.
Manoeuvrablity: SM2-IIIB Aerodynamic control (g not stated) / Aster30 Aerodynamic control and pyrotechnic control, 50+ g

Note, the SM2-IIIB is to be superceded in service by the SM2-IV, with extended range due to the fitting of a booster (range not disclosed), the SM3 (an SM2-IV + 3rd stage rocket + gps guidance + new warhead and calibrated v ballistic missiles) and the SM4 (Land Attack Standard Missile - an SM2-II/III + gps guidance for use against land targets).

Short range missiles:
Range: ESSM 30+ miles / Aster15 18.75+ miles
Speed: ESSM Mach 3.5+ / Aster15 Mach 3
Ceiling: ESSM not stated / Aster15 32.5k ft+
Guidance: ESSM semi-active radar homing / Aster 15 mid-course inertial guidance, active radar homing terminal guidance
Manoeuvrability: ESSM aerodynamic (no g stated) Aster15 aerodynamic and pyrotechnic 50+g


AEGIS/SM-2MR/ESSM vs PAAMS/Aster30/15



[edit on 19-2-2005 by edsinger]



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Looks Nice, But...

Maybe it's just my own personal bias, but I have a hard time envisioning a radar system based on a mechanically-rotating antenna outperforming a fixed 360-degree flat-panel phased-array system such as is used with Aegis and certain surveillance networks.

If you've ever played with a phased-array system, you know what I'm talking about. Some of the things they can do seem like pure magic, and upgrading them is typically more a matter of software tweaks than antenna modifications -- and that's darn convenient.

Sampson boasts a 30 rpm sweep rate. Compare that to a phased array which can basically sweep as fast as physics allows -- and do a lot of other cool things I won't be talking about here.

Hard to beat that, and while that may seem like a minor nag, knowing where the target is right now is a lot nicer than knowing where it was two seconds ago.

Also, you don't have to worry about those gimbal bearings freezing up on you at a bad time -- which is when they usually do it.

So "world's most advanced?" Maybe, but I'm skeptical.

After all, the developers of this system are unlikely to want to say "almost most advanced".



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Instead of addressing arguments individually I will simply quote some more information.


the UK PAAMS has the BAE Systems Sampson multi-function, dual-face active array radar operating at E/F bands. Each face of the array carries 2,500 gallium arsenide transmit and receive modules, with an output of 25kW. BAE Systems has reconfigured Sampson to produce a near spherical design which retains the two arrays internally. Modes of operation include long and medium range search, surface search, high-speed horizon search and high angle search and track. Sampson uses digital adaptive beamforming which makes it highly resistant to electronic countermeasures. The first Sampson radar has been installed on a representative Type 45 foremast in preparation for PAAMS integration in 2005.


The problem with Aegis is that it struggles with sea-skimming targets... which in future will constitute most of the weaponry used against the fleet.



posted on Feb, 20 2005 @ 09:56 AM
link   
While I am a fan of making anything mechanical obsolete, I believe the old rotating radar has one advantage, that is it's easier to create a stronger (albeit smaller) focussed beam than with a phase array, wich tends to genrate a wide (360) beam and hence less beamdensity (read: detectionrange) for the same width, that is what I heard anyway, not a real radar expert....,

Ideally you want to combine both systems, both systems have their specific advantages. The phased array is much more of a digitizer built-in, making it easier to wright good software and missile guidance for (and no need to calculate the phase shifting from rotatiing radar)



[edit on 20-2-2005 by Countermeasures]



posted on Feb, 21 2005 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Sampson Rotates because putting 4 fixed panels at the top of the mast would tip the boat over. Placing the two rotating panals at the top of the mast allows a longer range and earlier detection. It is not a difficult job to take 4 of the Sampson Panals and place them on the sides of the ships hull if thats what was deemed nessecary.

[edit on 21-2-2005 by paperplane_uk]



posted on Aug, 20 2013 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Countermeasures
 


BS..Aegis system is far more advanced than Type45..
Arleigh Burke class has 96 missiles with longer range , twice the number of missiles Type45 has.
Type 45 cant fire Tomahawks, has practically no anti-sub capability. Arleigh Burke radars provide 360 degree uninterrupted situational awareness without any gap..Sampson has 1 second gap in every rotation.
No contest here.. Burke wins hands down.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 04:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucretius
Instead of addressing arguments individually I will simply quote some more information.


the UK PAAMS has the BAE Systems Sampson multi-function, dual-face active array radar operating at E/F bands. Each face of the array carries 2,500 gallium arsenide transmit and receive modules, with an output of 25kW. BAE Systems has reconfigured Sampson to produce a near spherical design which retains the two arrays internally. Modes of operation include long and medium range search, surface search, high-speed horizon search and high angle search and track. Sampson uses digital adaptive beamforming which makes it highly resistant to electronic countermeasures. The first Sampson radar has been installed on a representative Type 45 foremast in preparation for PAAMS integration in 2005.


The problem with Aegis is that it struggles with sea-skimming targets... which in future will constitute most of the weaponry used against the fleet.


As I've noted elsewhere, I don't have access to classified information, but my understanding (based on non-classified data) is that the problems that Aegis has with sea-skimming targets aren't due to it being a phased array system, but are the same problems that any radar system has with such targets. Given the Aegis' capability to continuously illuminate a target, I would expect it to be better at picking out surface-skimming targets than a mechanically scanning system.

As for 'which one is better', that's never a simple question to answer. The phased-array AN/SPY system is probably more versatile and more sensitive than the Sampson system...but that doesn't mean it's a 'better' system. The phased-array system hogs a *lot* of superstructure 'real estate', costs a hair-raising amount of money, and requires a large amount of 'infrastructure' (power supplies, waveguides, and fairly hefty data processing systems). Those considerations could easily make Sampson a better fit for a variety of platforms (smaller ships, ships that are more cost-limited, and ships that have air-defense as a secondary mission all come to mind). Sometimes the better numbers aren't enough better to justify the trade-offs.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by renegate326
 


So, essentially to make you puff your chest out, you've taken the specs of the ship and used that to justify why one radar system is better than the other? Hmmm, barking up the wrong tree there.

Each system has it's pro's and cons - hard to say which is better without having access to all the classified mumbo jumbo - I'm sure both are excellent systems in their own right, perfect for the job they are designed to do.

As for the ships themselves, there are going to be upgraded missiles added to the Type 45. As for a lack of Tomahawk, well, the ship isn't designed for strike missions, it is purely an air defence Destroyer and a damned good one at that. It's like saying the Burke is crap because it doesn't carry any aircraft (the older one's anyway), but that was never it's mission. We have the Astute's or our air force for cruise missile strikes, not to mention we'll have the first Fleet carrier in 30 years operational from next year.

edit on 24/8/13 by stumason because: Spelling



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by renegate326
 


It is also worth pointing out that the range of Burke's AN/SPY1 radar's is significantly less (100Km) than that of the SAMPSON (400Km) and uses significantly more power.

And just because I'm in the mood as you want to slam the whole Type 45 so heavily, I would also point out that in conjunction with the SAMPSON, it also has a phased array system in place as well...

And, because I'm nice, I will also point out the Arleigh Burke has a fair amount of British tech on it itself...
edit on 24/8/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 28 2013 @ 10:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by renegate326
 


It is also worth pointing out that the range of Burke's AN/SPY1 radar's is significantly less (100Km) than that of the SAMPSON (400Km) and uses significantly more power.

And just because I'm in the mood as you want to slam the whole Type 45 so heavily, I would also point out that in conjunction with the SAMPSON, it also has a phased array system in place as well...

And, because I'm nice, I will also point out the Arleigh Burke has a fair amount of British tech on it itself...
edit on 24/8/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)


Dude, Burke's latest Standard Missile-3 outrange,outperform and outclass the Aster missiles on board the Type45 in all flight regimes and AN/SPY1 has a confirmed range of +100 miles and not Km more than enough to intercept anything . Sampson can also track more targets than AN/SPY1, 800 or so but what's the use if you have only 48 missiles to engage !!
Arleigh Burke has no British technology whatsoever , on the contrary, the Type 45 has considerable American technology ,I only think of all the transistors, FPGA chips and microprocessors INTEL or MOTOROLA inside in each and every computer ,Raytheon radars and also a fair amout of French technology as well , the S1850M 3-D air surveillance radar for example.
The Type 45 is an extremely expensive platform vis-a-vis her capabilities and therefore no other navy other than the RN was interested in her and that includes the Royal Australian Navy. My critique of Type45 is her extremely and dangerously limited firepower .Magazines of 48 missiles or so are not going to permit a protracted or saturation defense .The most advanced tracking system in the world means squat when you run out of missiles. TYPE 45 is merely a product of BEA Systems immense marketing propaganda machine trying to make this outrageously expensive system palatable to gullible British taxpayers. (The other one is the ASTUTE class subs )
Anyway, the ZUMWALT will make the both look like toys and her AN/SPY-3 will operates in both the X-band and S-band ..



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by renegate326
Dude, Burke's latest Standard Missile-3 outrange,outperform and outclass the Aster missiles on board the Type45 in all flight regimes and AN/SPY1 has a confirmed range of +100 miles and not Km more than enough to intercept anything .


It is generally accepted by most, if not all, defence analysts that the Sea Viper system is more advanced than the AEGIS, but both have similar capabilities. That said, you are correct about the general performance characteristics of the missile, but MBDA are actually working on some rather funky new ones themselves, if you care to look?


Originally posted by renegate326
Sampson can also track more targets than AN/SPY1, 800 or so but what's the use if you have only 48 missiles to engage !!


The T-45 can, if so needed, be retrofitted with up to 72 cells, not far short of the Arleigh Burke's. Neither can be reloaded at sea' and really, in what situation is there going to be a need to fire that many missiles except for a major conflict, which means the ships would have been recalled and refitted anyway (I hope!). Also, the system on board the T-45 can be used to either guide other ships own air defences (such as the new Frigates being designed) or guide in the fighters from the carrier (when we get some.....)


Originally posted by renegate326
Arleigh Burke has no British technology whatsoever


You sure about that? You just might want to check just how much of a grip BAe has over various defence industries in the US - and the flow goes both ways, we have wound up Congress over the past decade or so with some rather speedy "advances" in some of our own programmes despite the rather laizze faire attitude to you "borrowing" our stuff



Originally posted by renegate326
on the contrary, the Type 45 has considerable American technology ,I only think of all the transistors, FPGA chips and microprocessors INTEL or MOTOROLA inside in each and every computer ,Raytheon radars and also a fair amout of French technology as well , the S1850M 3-D air surveillance radar for example.


Indeed, I never said it didn't! I was merely trying to deflate your "USA! Number1!" ultra-ego a bit. Like it or not, but you do "borrow" significant amounts of allied tech for your defence industry, be it French, UK or German. Just look at the Abrams, British Armour, German gun and lots of other little bits. The only thing on it that is truly American is the engine.!


Originally posted by renegate326
The Type 45 is an extremely expensive platform vis-a-vis her capabilities and therefore no other navy other than the RN was interested in her and that includes the Royal Australian Navy. My critique of Type45 is her extremely and dangerously limited firepower .Magazines of 48 missiles or so are not going to permit a protracted or saturation defense .


When their primary role is going to be as an escort to the carriers, alongside other warships and aircraft, unless WW3 breaks out I really do not see the amount of missiles being much of an issue. From the UK's perspective, our only "likely" conflict in the near future would be over the Falklands - the Argentine's entire Air force doesn't have that many attack aircraft!

Aside from that, it will be supporting expeditionary forces in conjunction with allied vessels (our entire military is geared towards fighting with allies, not alone) where the main threat will most likely come from shore batteries or long range anti-ship missiles - how many times do you think a, let's say Iranian, shore battery can let loose any missiles before having a tomahawk dropped on it?

I know you Yanks think more is better, us Brits have been doing perfectly fine for quite some time with limited resources. And, as I said, it can always be fitted with more cells.


Originally posted by renegate326
The other one is the ASTUTE class subs


And what's your beef with the Astute? Better than anything you guys have at the moment - the Sea Wolf class was nice but it's a shame you stopped building them. Instead, you build the cheaper Virginia with "off the shelf" components. It has the same drive system as the class of Sub that was replaced by the UK's Trafalgar class, which itself is being replaced by the Astute, something which your own Navy is "taken aback" by during simulated engagements with the Virginia's.


Originally posted by renegate326
Anyway, the ZUMWALT will make the both look like toys and her AN/SPY-3 will operates in both the X-band and S-band ..


It is a different class of ship for a different role, so you can't really compare - that said, I wish we had some! Enjoy the British built engines though

edit on 29/8/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)

edit on 29/8/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Mate, I have to correct you again on several points. Its true that BAE Systems is a significant player in the US defence market but the BAE Systems in America has little to do with the mother company in the UK.. These are former American companies acquired by BAE Systems over a long period of time
I compiled this from several sources.

In April 2000 BAE purchased Lockheed Martin Control Systems (LMCS), a manufacturer of electronic controls for aircraft, space vehicles and the transportation industry for $510 million USD. LMCS was renamed BAE Systems Platform Solutions.
In November 2000 BAE Systems purchased Lockheed Martin Aerospace Electronic Systems, a defence systems company which encompassed Sanders, Fairchild Systems and Lockheed Martin Space Electronics & Communications. Following an internal reorganisation the division became BAE Systems Electronics & Integrated Solutions (E&IS).
December 2002 BAE Systems completed its acquisition of Condor Pacific, Inc. for $58.5 million. Condor Pacific was a manufacturer of sensors and guidance systems for the aerospace industry

In 2003 BAE Systems acquired Advanced Power Technologies, Inc (APTI), a data exploitation company and provider of communications and networking solutions, for $27 million. APTI was merged into E&IS.

In March 2003 BAE Systems acquired MEVATEC, a provider of "professional technical services", which was renamed BAE Systems Analytical & Ordnance Solutions.

In 2004 BAE Systems purchased STI Government Systems,a provider of "photonics, information technologies, system integrationOn 7 March 2005 BAE announced the acquisition of United Defense Industries a major manufacturer of combat vehicles, artillery and naval gun . United Defense was merged into the newly created BAE Systems Land and Armaments operating group.

BAE Systems announced the purchase of Armor Holdings, a Florida-based manufacturer of military, law enforcement and personnel safety equipment on 7 May 2007.

BAE has received large contracts as a result of the UDI and Armor Holdings acquisitions; for example $1.1bn worth of refurbishment and upgrading work, an order in January 2008 for medium mine-protected vehicles (MMPVs) which could earn up to $2.3bn, and a $2.24bn contract for mine-resistant ambush-protected (MRAP) vehicles in December 2007
On 12 December 2007, BAE announced the acquisition of Dayton, Ohio-based MTC Technologies. The purchase was finalised in June 2008.

As a result of these acquisitions, BAE Systems employs 30.000 people in the US. The French defence giant Thales also wanted to acquire some of these companies but the US Congress said NO

Regarding Abrams tanks, the current M1's and those being updated incorporate depleted uranium mesh into the formula which has little to do with the original armor, the British Chobham was two generations ago. Maybe you are not aware of the fact that Challanger 2 borrows considerably more from other Nato allies than Abrams There is not a single electronics,radar or computer inside a Challenger 2 tank that's made in the UK, all designed and developed by French and American companies and Canadian subsidiary of General Dynamics and last but not least ,even the British Army has decided to replace the current L30A1 with the 120 mm German Rheinmetall smoothbore gun.

Concerning the SeaWolf class you are correct, she was and still is the quantum leap in nuclear sub technology, Virginia is merely a simplified version ,not in the same league . But one Seawolf cost as much as Virginia+Astute

>> the Astute, something which your own Navy is "taken aback" by during simulated engagements with the Virginia's. >>

Don't believe everything you read dude that's exactly what I have have been trying to explain in my previous post with regard to BAE Systems marketing propaganda .. Oh btw , I am not American !!
The crew of USS New Mexico must have found this very amusing when they said ' We had the Astute class in our crosshair all the time ' and the BAE Systems claim ' Astute has a sonar so sensitive it can hear other vessels 3,000 miles away ' is a bedtime story for 5 years old. Theoretically its possible in a water with no life or any activity whatsoever but in an ocean with millions of interferences, its simply a baseless claim and most important of all , if you have such a capable sonar ,a world beater, you don't go and tell it to everyone , as this would be a highly classified information, a big surprise for your enemies, don't you think so?

>>It is a different class of ship for a different role, so you can't really compare - that said, I wish we had some! Enjoy the British built engines though >>

It was a good decision of R-R to develop a marine version of their Trent 800 which GE has failed to counter good for R-R which makes excellent gas turbines for marine propulsion .



posted on Aug, 29 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
>> It is generally accepted by most, if not all, defence analysts that the Sea Viper system is more advanced than the AEGIS, but both have similar capabilities>>



I don't have all the details on the Sea Viper test failures in 2010 but tests had been extremely disappointing with 50% failure and I don't have the latest results.



Sampson radar is probably the most capable rotating radar in the world but it doesn't change the fact that Type 45 is pretty much a single mission destroyer and therefore not in the same league to Burke , a multi role fighting platform which was designed like her bigger sister, the Ticonderoga to engage targets with dozens of missiles in a coordinated strike and the Aegis system was designed to counter just such a threat.

The design criteria for Aegis was that a pair of these could defeat everything a Russian task force commander could toss at a carrier task group . That's why a Ticonderoga flight 1 had 120 missiles and a rate of fire of one per second. If you can exhaust 120 SM-2 missiles in two minutes, how long until Type 45's 48 missile magazines are empty?

In a nutshell, the Type 45 still has to show her capabilities, while the Burke owns an already well proven and reliable system..

So if Aegis was that much better, then why would UK spend so much money on designing it all over again, why they could have bought Aegis rather cheaply from US, like Spain, Norway, Japan,Australia and South Korea did?
The answer to the question is very simple really the choice not to buy Aegis was a Pro-EU political decision, not one made from the spec sheet.. Similar decision has been made when Brits decided to join the MBDA 's Meteor A2A missile project and accept French leadership in design and development although the American Raytheon offered a much better and lucrative deal to BAE Systems to develop an advanced version of A-120 AMRAAM for Eurofighter Typhoon..



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join