Aegis for Aussie SW vessels

[tatra]

I was always under the impression that the Engagement was not the Radars responsibility

That's true, it's job is to feed data to the FCS. The FCS doesn't need to "see" anything - all it does is tell the threat responder what to do and where to go.

VLS missiles are all aspect, "off bore sight" etc... so they just need to know what address to visit.

When you add in the radar capability of a strike group that is NETFORCED it's even more impressive. They can literally prioritise over 1000 concurrent targets and commit a response on a graduated response.

Aren't Sea Sparrow, ESSM and Standard SM1/2 all semi-active radar homing. If so, then you need to paint the target with a fire control radar. On a Ticonderoga, you have 4 and on and Arleigh Burke you have 3 of those. So, you can engage 3-4 targets simultaneously, with another 3-4 missiles 'on the way' . With APAR, that number is 16 , with another 16 on the way.

Of course, European practice is to have a group of ships around an AAW ship like LCF or F124, which takes care of medium range AAW for the group. By contrast, US practice is several AB's and/or Tico's in a group and these have CEC. The number of targets that the USN group can engage simultaneously is probably about the same as that for the European group, but both groups represent a different AAW approach.

Right?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I was always under the impression that the Engagement was not the Radars responsibility

That's true, it's job is to feed data to the FCS. The FCS doesn't need to "see" anything - all it does is tell the threat responder what to do and where to go.

VLS missiles are all aspect, "off bore sight" etc... so they just need to know what address to visit.

When you add in the radar capability of a strike group that is NETFORCED it's even more impressive. They can literally prioritise over 1000 concurrent targets and commit a response on a graduated response.

Aren't Sea Sparrow, ESSM and Standard SM1/2 all semi-active radar homing. If so, then you need to paint the target with a fire control radar. On a Ticonderoga, you have 4 and on and Arleigh Burke you have 3 of those. So, you can engage 3-4 targets simultaneously, with another 3-4 missiles 'on the way' . With APAR, that number is 16 , with another 16 on the way.

Of course, European practice is to have a group of ships around an AAW ship like LCF or F124, which takes care of medium range AAW for the group. By contrast, US practice is several AB's and/or Tico's in a group and these have CEC. The number of targets that the USN group can engage simultaneously is probably about the same as that for the European group, but both groups represent a different AAW approach.

Right?

Yep, but the missiles can also be handed off under netforce. so if you consider netforce to be like an overgrown virtual fire control system it probably draws a closer analogy

 

[Awang se]

Are u saying that SM-2 is a fully automatic missile like AMRAAM. That's the only way you can terminally home the weapon without FC-radar aid.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Are u saying that SM-2 is a fully automatic missile like AMRAAM. That's the only way you can terminally home the weapon without FC-radar aid.

the SM-2 is a monopulse, semi-active radar terminal guidance, it has intertial or mid course guidance - which means that a handoff is possible to another vessel in the area. Later versions have side mounted infra red imaging sensors as well. Guidance is via TARTAR and/or AEGIS.

 

[Aussie Digger]

The AMRAAM is fully capable of self-guiding all the way to the target, but it's not usually fired in that manner, as I understand things. The most effective way is normally to use the aircraft's FCR and data-link the target info to the missile. The missile normally only uses it's radar in the terminal phase of the engagement to avoid alerting the enemy aircraft as much as possible. It also has a much longer range when fired in this manner...

 

[tatra]

Yep, but the missiles can also be handed off under netforce. so if you consider netforce to be like an overgrown virtual fire control system it probably draws a closer analogy

Still, for a single AEGIS equipped ship, the limiting factor is the number of fire control radars (4 on Tico, 3 on Burke). For a group, the limit is the sum of the number of FCR on all ships with CEC (so the number of ships with CEC is the limiting factor).

Considering the typical make up of a carrier battle group (1 CVN, 2 CG, 3 DDG/DD/FFG, 2 SSN, 1 AOR), you're looking at 5 AEGIS/CEC equipped ships at best (2 Tico, 3 Burke) with 17 FCR channels between them. That is, not counting Sea Sparrow directors on CVN (6) and AOR (2), which are less likely to have CEC.

A single LCF/F124 has 16 channels. Accompanying ships (usually 2-5 ships)would have their own FCR channels (usually 2 per ship). Currently lacking 'Netforce' and CEC, a european group would have a comparable surveillance capability and a comparable number of fire control channels. The networked approach does make the USN group less vulnerable because the loss of a single AEGIS ship does not affect the group as severely as the loss of the (single) AAW ship in the european group.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yep, but the missiles can also be handed off under netforce. so if you consider netforce to be like an overgrown virtual fire control system it probably draws a closer analogy

Still, for a single AEGIS equipped ship, the limiting factor is the number of fire control radars (4 on Tico, 3 on Burke). For a group, the limit is the sum of the number of FCR on all ships with CEC (so the number of ships with CEC is the limiting factor).

Considering the typical make up of a carrier battle group (1 CVN, 2 CG, 3 DDG/DD/FFG, 2 SSN, 1 AOR), you're looking at 5 AEGIS/CEC equipped ships at best (2 Tico, 3 Burke) with 17 FCR channels between them. That is, not counting Sea Sparrow directors on CVN (6) and AOR (2), which are less likely to have CEC.

A single LCF/F124 has 16 channels. Accompanying ships (usually 2-5 ships)would have their own FCR channels (usually 2 per ship). Currently lacking 'Netforce' and CEC, a european group would have a comparable surveillance capability and a comparable number of fire control channels. The networked approach does make the USN group less vulnerable because the loss of a single AEGIS ship does not affect the group as severely as the loss of the (single) AAW ship in the european group.

yep, thats true, what it fundamentally allows is not only a larger virtual network, but redundancy if one of the aegis/cec assets is compromised. IIRC most strike forces at a peace time compliment are 1 x CG and 2-3 x Aegis. (well, that was what they were as of July 2002 - the USN doesn't release formal advice on what units are in a strike force - but if you were patient enough you could slowly start to work them out by the port visit rosters.. )

Strangely enough the Pac Fleet is now one of the smallest strike forces. Considering the hoo har that has happened over North Korea, I would have thought that it would be bigger. They have allocated another 3-4 Aegis vessels to Japan for nominal ABM tasking, but I was under the impression that they are a separate disposition and not fleet attached as such.

If you add up the US aegis assets and the Kongo's it makes an interesting ABM picket

The other thing is the Link 16 capability between the strike force and either carrier aviation and/or shore based. The Orions are link 16'd and in the case of the RAAF hornet upgrades, so are they. That gives the US extra depth within the virtual network. Are the JSDF Shin Meiwas Link 16'd??

 

[tatra]

Don't think so

 

[gf0012-aust]

Don't think so

They' just released an upgraded version of it in the last month. It's always struck me as a useful if but limited use platform.

It would be ideal in a nation of islands, or archipelagos. For a country that required an autonomous ASW capability it would be a useful adjunct.

 

[tatra]

Don't think so

They' just released an upgraded version of it in the last month. It's always struck me as a useful if but limited use platform.

It would be ideal in a nation of islands, or archipelagos. For a country that required an autonomous ASW capability it would be a useful adjunct.

Even better for SAR. And could help save money or provide value for money(e.g. doesn't necessarily need a large airbase to support it) ... and flexibility (e.g. support from ships)

 

[tatra]

AWD shortlist reveals Navy thinking

Defence has shortlisted three Air Warfare Destroyer designs; the next challenge will be to select a winner, and also a prime systems integrator.

Gregor Ferguson | Adelaide

The Department of Defence produced no surprises when it named the three shortlisted ship designers whose offerings will compete for the RAN’s Air Warfare Destroyer (AWD) contract. A source selection is due by mid-2005 and the three new ships will enter service from 2013 at a cost (according to the DCP) of $4.5-6 billion.

All three contenders will develop concept designs which incorporate the Lockheed Martin Aegis air warfare system. The Commonwealth has requested the US Navy’s help integrating the Aegis system into the various design concepts. This will take place under the umbrella of the recently signed Statement of Principles between the RAN and the US Navy for collaboration on surface ships.

The Minister for Defence, Senator Robert Hill, announced on March 14 that Spanish firm IZAR will produce an evolved concept design based on the Aegis-equipped Alvaro De Bazan-class frigate (F100) which it is currently building for the Spanish Navy.

Building on its successful relationship with Australia in the Anzac frigate program, Germany’s Blohm + Voss will produce an evolved concept design based on the Sachsen Class Frigate (F124) which it is currently building for the German Navy.

While a small but influential lobby has pushed for the outright purchase of three ex-US Navy Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) Aegis destroyers, these were generally felt to be too big, too expensive and to require too large a crew for the RAN. However, the DDG-51 class detail design agent, Gibbs & Cox, is the third shortlisted contender for the AWD design – it will produce an evolved concept design based on a modified version of the DDG-51. Whether or not this ends up resembling the International Frigate design Gibbs & Cox has proposed in the past, this may answer some of the Australian critics of the Arleigh Burke design.

What's the program's current status? Have bids been made, has a choice been made between bids?