Difference between Canadian and UK Type 26s?

All About The British Royal Navy: Past, Present And Future
CliffS
Joined: 21 Feb 2007, 19:29

07 Dec 2017, 10:17 #21

MattReloaded wrote:
CliffS wrote: Type 26 is big on every tick-box except one.
Claiming the T26 to be big when the planar array shown on the models remains unspecified is largely premature.

BAE are obviously hedging their bets and keeping options open for each customer, e.g: CEAFAR for RAN, Artisan for whoever else, etc. 

Cheers,
Cliff
Reply

MattReloaded
Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 07:40

07 Dec 2017, 15:38 #22

CliffS wrote: BAE are obviously hedging their bets and keeping options open for each customer, e.g: CEAFAR for RAN, Artisan for whoever else, etc.
Marketing fairy dust aside, neither BAE Systems nor Lockheed Martin have anything in their respective radar portfolio that looks even remotely similar to the 4-face planar array depicted in the renderings.

Using a third-party radar is not a piece of take : it has technical, commercial and political ramifications. Obviously BAE carefully avoided the subject in their *dream team* press release.
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Reply

HK
Joined: 14 Dec 2008, 22:35

07 Dec 2017, 17:36 #23

I hope the Dutch LCF proposal wins this. Not a fan of T26 - immature design pushed by wasteful contractors who love to suck on the taxpayer’s teet.

Too bad Fincantieri/DCNS threw this away as usually they are export competitive and had a good all round design. Either they knew they had no chance and the competition really is biased to favor T26, or they showed a very Latin  misunderstanding of « Anglo » culture and the importance of following rules. Either option would not surprise me.
Reply

Bledlow
Joined: 15 Dec 2007, 22:31

08 Dec 2017, 14:23 #24

MattReloaded wrote:
CliffS wrote: BAE are obviously hedging their bets and keeping options open for each customer, e.g: CEAFAR for RAN, Artisan for whoever else, etc.
Marketing fairy dust aside, neither BAE Systems nor Lockheed Martin have anything in their respective radar portfolio that looks even remotely similar to the 4-face planar array depicted in the renderings.

Using a third-party radar is not a piece of take : it has technical, commercial and political ramifications. Obviously BAE carefully avoided the subject in their *dream team* press release.
Hensoldt (ex-Airbus), Thales & Leonardo all have 4-face AESA naval radars.
Reply

Nauticus27
Joined: 22 Jun 2008, 20:08

08 Dec 2017, 14:51 #25

HK wrote:  Not a fan of T26 - immature design...
The design has been matured to death over the last few years. If you mean immature in the sense that the first example is only just past the steel cutting stage then fair enough. 
Reply

MattReloaded
Joined: 29 Nov 2004, 07:40

08 Dec 2017, 16:33 #26

Bledlow wrote:
MattReloaded wrote:
CliffS wrote: BAE are obviously hedging their bets and keeping options open for each customer, e.g: CEAFAR for RAN, Artisan for whoever else, etc.
Marketing fairy dust aside, neither BAE Systems nor Lockheed Martin have anything in their respective radar portfolio that looks even remotely similar to the 4-face planar array depicted in the renderings.

Using a third-party radar is not a piece of take : it has technical, commercial and political ramifications. Obviously BAE carefully avoided the subject in their *dream team* press release.
Hensoldt (ex-Airbus), Thales & Leonardo all have 4-face AESA naval radars.
So do IAI Elta and Mitsubishi Electric Corporation (Melco).

Question is : who's willing to cooperate with Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems ?
"We need to get closer to that Dane mentality" - Rear Admiral Bryant Fuller, NAVSEA Chief Engineer, March 2015 ASNE Day.
Reply

wowu5
Joined: 19 Nov 2016, 13:30

08 Dec 2017, 16:47 #27

Technically LM does in the form of SPY-4, which could be said to be an in-service radar to some degree, although I'm not sure if it could act properly as a MFR when it's previously used as VSR only, also the original design is 3 faces not 4.
As for BAE, it would not be technically infeasible to make a fixed faces version of Sampson (or at least a scaled down one), afterall its precursor the MESAR 2 was supposed to operate with 4 or even 5 faces, although it would certainly added some risk factors to the whole project. 
Reply

BBMW
Joined: 16 Mar 2017, 20:22

08 Dec 2017, 18:17 #28

You would think Raytheon would jump in with the EASR (or other AMDR derivitive.)
Reply

bager1968
Joined: 01 Mar 2005, 15:53

09 Dec 2017, 05:28 #29

Is Northrop Grumman involved with any of the entrants?
That would bring CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT into play.
There it is... the District of Columbia! You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
Reply

wowu5
Joined: 19 Nov 2016, 13:30

09 Dec 2017, 09:42 #30

bager1968 wrote:Is Northrop Grumman involved with any of the entrants?
That would bring CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT into play.
I believe that CEA has already formed partnership with Navantia and thus won’t be a viable option for BAE’s bidding.


從我的iPhone使用Tapatalk 發送
Reply