I'd like to think we can do better in designing capable naval radars, even sets small enough yet still capable of tracking dozens of targets, that can be installed in vessels far less in dimensions and weight than a Burke.

Perhaps even a multi-band phased array system?

I'm curious as to whether the common combat room philosophy was driven by the sub community and expanded across the warfighting portion of the fleet - or whether it originated with the skimmers.  From my reading of events, it appears to be something driven by the subs in a quest to cut down costs and to stem "peripheral" logistics and through life cost blowouts etc.....

The problem with airborne radars on ship is that they all work in X-band (or I/J band in NATO designation). When operated at 28000 ft, they can have maximum range of 200km in detecting B-52 size stuff (in RCS, of course). However, when operated at sea level, the range drops dramatically. Radar range attenuation is a function of wavelength, water vapor and air density. Nobody's gonna tell you the exact number, because it's classified, but things work like just that. X-band also refract less than S-band or L-band. Greater refraction gives you some edge of some OTH capability. S-band can probably gives you 5-10km. That's important when enganging sea-skimming targets.

Airborne radars have been modified for ground use, but naval system requirements are different. Though these radars may still be quite useful on corvettes.

...does this then suggest that,

if an F-35 attack decides to come in fairly low across the surface (100-200 ft ASL or so),

doesn't that then mean that its radar performance (target acquisition at distance) is severely diminshed in the surface attack role as compared to operating from 20K?

 

I do understand that getting lower to sea level means reducing your radar range due to the horizon in relation to your position (Earth curvature and all that),

but seeing as both the USMC and USN are anticipated to operate F-35s fron USN carriers (and LPH/LPDs?),

have they fully taken into consideration that the F-35s,

by your above suggestion pertaining to the performances of various radar bands in maritime environments,

doesn't that suggest the F-35s will be considerably hampered in their ability in lower altitude missions?

 

Is the Super Hornet also susceptible to this capability reduction?

 

I'm just trying to figure out some way of packing phased array systems into ships smaller than 5000+ ton vessels.

As we task them with missions into the littorals and closer to an adversary's coastal territory,

they'll need more than radar, IR, and acoustic signature reduction to survive: if they get caught in the daylight hours, they'll need the ability either to run behind the cover of heavier-equipped vessel farther out to sea,

or they'll need the teeth to stand their ground and fight.

So sending in an LCS with a minimal air defense ability, even a handful of them hopefully complementing each other's capability shortcomings,

well,

to me it just seems idiotic thinking.

If you can't guarantee you can defend a vessel from the most likely threats they'll attract in a given area (and an LCS will be labeled a more important threat/target than something more akin to a Cyclone-like FAC/OPV),

then isn't it pointless to even risk sending them in there?

Do I risk a surface-attack configured LCS, or a mine warfare one, in an area where there is a large probability of coastal artillery and SSMs, or even aerial threats, sending them in with minimal anti-air/anti-missile capability, hoping that their stealth will keep more than enough to them alive and harm free, or relying on Aegis-equipped Burkes farther out to sea providing adequate enough airspace monitoring and protection?

 

 

Take a recent event as example. The Russian bomber group that harassed Nimitz CBG splitted into two. One loitered 6000ft above sea level and was roughly 150km away from the carrier, but the other "shooter" flew only 600m above sea level and made their stance by a fly over.

Mission module space? That's only important when the baseline ship isn't capable on its own.

The MIW mission module and I do believe the ASW mission module are being developed where they can be integrated into existing ships, if not in whole in large part, to reduce the risk if the LCS program falls flat. At least we won't have wasted money on the mission modules. That also means we can deploy those systems on existing ship designs.