Aussie Radar system goes to sea.

[gf0012-aust]

CEA-FAR to Sea

Tom Muir | Canberra

Development of CEA's active phased array radar began in 1995 and the first land-based system based on CEA-FAR was introduced into service in the United States in late 2001. A maritime version built for the RAN and acquired under SEA 1448 Phase 1D (CEA-FAR Evaluation Study ) is now undergoing sea trials aboard HMAS Arunta following successful land-based trials at the Beecroft Range, Jervis Bay. This version will demonstrate the unique scalability of the radar including the use of multiple signal processor assemblies and three different array sizes.

For the Beecroft trials the radar was directed down towards the sea to ensure that target discrimination was performed against realistic background clutter from the sea surface. Aircraft used in the trials included helicopters, Learjets and F/A-18s.

The CEA-FAR radar design is based upon a modular tile and panel active array concept. The active array comprises a number of static faces, usually six, to provide 360-degree surveillance. Each array face is made up of a number of panels and by increasing their number the performance of the radar is increased.

For the purpose of the maritime trial four faces were considered more than sufficient, two on each side forward of the mast. The number of signal processors used with CEA-FAR can be configured from one shared by all faces to one for each face. This allows the scan time to be significantly improved by the parallel operation of the faces for most modes.

The most significant advantage of the six faces is the low degradation of the beam pattern and gain as the beam scan angle approaches the edge of the face coverage. For an ESSM equipped Anzac frigate expected to operate in a complex air threat environment, a CEA-FAR radar would consist of six faces of eight panels and multiple signal processors.

From a practical viewpoint the array could also be split into forward and aft sections to provide all round unimpeded visibility. This also reduces the potential for battle damage or system failure to knock out the entire radar. If half of the six-face CEA-FAR antenna is lost the other three continue working. One configuration concept for the Anzac frigate comprises the main array panels attached to the superstructure above the bridge and in-duct arrays attached to either side of the aft superstructure. This division of capability into forward and aft zones - the two-island concept - is a feature of the B+V MEKO D-200 frigate and the MEKO X 8000 tonne future surface combatant concept designs.

Technical features of the CEA-FAR radar which set it apart from conventional radar technology include:

• the ability to operate on battery power for a frigate self defence design

• no external cooling for the array faces

• no waveguides in the entire system

• array faces need not be collocated and can be distributed around the ship

• the ability to automatically detect and classify air targets.

An important feature is that its scalable characteristics provide for an unprecedented level of degradation of performance due to failure or damage. Up to ten percent of the transmit/receive elements can fail with less than five per cent impact on range performance. Should a complete array face fail, full 360 coverage can still be achieved by increasing the scan angle of the adjacent faces from 30 degrees to 45 degrees.

Similarly the failure of a signal processor is overcome by sharing a single signal processor between two or more faces. This will retain operational capability but at a lower level. Radar functionality can actually be maintained down to one serviceable signal processor.

CEA-MOUNT illuminator

The X-Band CEA-MOUNT is an active phased array missile illuminator based on the technology concepts of the CEA-FAR radar applied to a transmit-only array. It has been designed as a slaved illuminator to meet the guidance needs of the semi-active homing ESSM and SM-2 family of missiles. It is able to engage multiple simultaneous targets and provide uplink with flexible beam management over a broad azimuth and elevation sector from each face.

The CEA-MOUNT system proposed for the Anzac class is a medium range version matched to the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM). Key operational advantages are that the Illuminator face provides multiple missile channels of fire and far higher availability and redundancy than current missile fire control systems.

However CEA-MOUNT is also fully SM-2 capable, supporting home all the way and mid-course guidance modes with terminal guidance, using Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination (ICWI). In the ICWI mode, the number of missiles that can be in terminal illumination simultaneously is significantly greater than shared function faces where time has to be allocated for fire control radar tracking and possibly search processing.

To provide optimal use against high crossing rate targets CEA-MOUNT was designed specifically to support beam re-positioning during terminal illumination. The CEA MOUNT missile illuminator has a number of unique features that set it apart from traditional missile illuminators. These include: Continuous Wave Illumination (CWI) of a target while the beam is being electronically steered, and illumination of a target within a typical 90 degree cone around the mechanical axis of the array. At shorter ranges, multiple beam operation of CEA-MOUNT can increase the number of missiles in terminal illumination limited only by the firing rate restrictions of VL systems.

Anecdotal comments are that the US has been more than happy with the performance of the land based version. There was a fair amount of interest at Pac 2004

http://www.yaffa.com.au/defence/current/4-feat1.htm

 

[Aussie Digger]

Further examples of this system may be acquired for the whole ANZAC fleet if these trials are successful. It would be fantastic for the Australian Defence Industry if they developed the ability to develop and build radar systems for the ADF.

 

[tatra]

So, if this is (coming) available, why would the AWD mount the US Aegis system? Doesn't make sense to me, particularly if ANZAC class would be fitted with CEA-FAR.

<from another thread:>
“I needed to get moving on this project and I suggested to the Minister that we take a strategic look at what air warfare systems were available around the world. There were three different types: the Aegis system, which is well known and understood and been around since the late 1970s/early 1980s; the British/French PAMS with the Samson radar and Aster missiles that will arm the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers but is quite a few years away from maturity; and the Dutch/German APAR system. To give you an example of the three different levels of maturity between these systems, the latter has only fired three missiles as of late last year – one SM-2 and two ESSMs. So basically, that system has fired just three missiles as opposed to 3000 or so that the US has fired,†said Cdre Greenfield. “Aegis certainly dominates the world market, whereas the other area air warfare systems represent perhaps 10% of the market.â€

In terms of maturity, CEA-FAR would seem behind the >DUTCH< APAR system (since CEA FAR has not been used with any ESSM/SM2 or ASTER missiles yet).

Not my idea of how to define or measure system maturity by the way...

 

[Aussie Digger]

Yep it's only now undergoing sea trials. In terms of development, it's a long way behind other systems.

 

[gf0012-aust]

Yep it's only now undergoing sea trials. In terms of development, it's a long way behind other systems.

Which is why we also prefer some US involvement, there is no way in Hades that we could afford to fire off 30 test missiles slaved to the system - let alone 3000 over the life of the system.

 

[tatra]

Yep it's only now undergoing sea trials. In terms of development, it's a long way behind other systems.

Which is why we also prefer some US involvement, there is no way in Hades that we could afford to fire off 30 test missiles slaved to the system - let alone 3000 over the life of the system.

This is a BS comparison, these 3000 missiles. This is like saying an new assault rifle isn't any good because few rounds were fired from it compared to millions of rounds already fired with an old assault rifle like M16 or AK47. It's a silly comparison: any and all newer systems will have fired fewer rounds than any and all older systems. Also, what are those 3000 missiles, all the same type of missiles or different blocks, all controlled by the same systems or by evolved systems? (Compare: the M16 today is not the same as the M16 of the 1970's) Besides, who says you would need to fire that many in order to establish maturity? Increasingly, stuff get simulated on computer which implies fewer life firing.

 

[adsH]

Yep it's only now undergoing sea trials. In terms of development, it's a long way behind other systems.

Which is why we also prefer some US involvement, there is no way in Hades that we could afford to fire off 30 test missiles slaved to the system - let alone 3000 over the life of the system.

This is a BS comparison, these 3000 missiles. This is like saying an new assault rifle isn't any good because few rounds were fired from it compared to millions of rounds already fired with an old assault rifle like M16 or AK47. It's a silly comparison: any and all newer systems will have fired fewer rounds than any and all older systems. Also, what are those 3000 missiles, all the same type of missiles or different blocks, all controlled by the same systems or by evolved systems? (Compare: the M16 today is not the same as the M16 of the 1970's) Besides, who says you would need to fire that many in order to establish maturity? Increasingly, stuff get simulated on computer which implies fewer life firing.

TATRA u don't get it do you? that not every thing on Paper or simulation works out the same way in reality there are too many variables !!! Modelling only counts for a set number of variables and thats why western missile systems are more robust becasue we perform exsahustive missile testing to perfect safty procedures and missile acuracy. :eek
Seems like you are one of those who would perfer to base your entire Defense programe on a imperfect form of testing Modeling is a basic form of testing a scaled version which is close to reality but not close enough!!


WHAT I KNOW OF SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT

Analysis DESING Implement TEST Maintainance
the test procedure is extensive even when i am asked to test software i have to Test the System useing live data from clients and my main aim is always to try and throw the System in Chaos by feeding it alot of information and record faults in it to Repair it where it fails in a sophisticated system like a Defense system you can have so many faults with the new system that are un detectable to computers simply becasue you would not normally use the system in that way(so you never find out what the fault is or was) but when you live test some system like that you give the system a hard time to checks its abilities its operational bouderies and to check if it needs more Design stage intervention or that a simple repair would do it. Most of the time Design stage intervention is important but then the system Cycle development cost more the more interventions you do the more expensive the system is!!! GF mate your an analyst explain it further to these kidz!!! thnx

 

[Aussie Digger]

Anyway who thinks live operational firings of a weapon system is BS, well what can I say? What other better testing of a system can you get than live firing? Simulation is all well and good and very necessary but nothing proves a system to those in charge, like a successful live firing. 3000 accurate successful live firings is a pretty good validation of a system's capabilities in mind and apparently most defence forces around the world, seem to agree. If you believe differently...

 

[gf0012-aust]

Not wanting this to go into an argument exercise, but every project that I was involved in worked pretty well on simulation - but tended to break or show new flaws when it went live.

This was particularly so in ballistics.

The issue is one of balance, I've yet to see anything where the sim was absolutely reflected when it went to general release.

AFAIK the JSF is the first major platform (available to allies) that is entirely simmed. Prior to that it was the B2 and F117 (which doesn't really count as they used data from the Have Blue projects.

the 3000 number BTW was not literal, it was an example of a number to reflect a concept. (ie a figure of speech)

 

[tatra]

Gents, please read carefully what I said. I did not say simulation can replace testing. I did not say testing is BS. I did say that I am unconvinced that the comparison between 3 rounds fired by LCF/F124/APAR and 3000 by Tico/AB/Aegis is fair or even the most relevant.

I suggested that increasingly testing is minimized and simulation is maximized. This is due to cost but also because the ability to simulate has improved as computers and software have improved over time. That is, you can model things today that you couldn't model ten, twenty or thirty years ago. The implication is that newer systems - all else being equal - will see less 'live' testing overall than old systems. Hence, my point that the number of tests is not necessarily the most relevant indicator of system maturity (any more)

I noted that the number of 3000 firings is unspecified. Consider that SM1 is not SM2 is not SM3 and that there are differences between various 'blocks' of SM2 for example. What is included in that number of 3000? All Standard missile firings ever? Or is that all firings of SM2 block IV? Are all of these test firings or are war-shots also included?

Same type of questions with respect to radar and electronics systems. APAR is newer than AEGIS, in that sense less mature. But is the latest version of AEGIS much newer than APAR? How much difference is there between the latest AEGIS version and early versions? Has the latest version of AEGIS been involved in testfiring to a greater extent then the APAR has? You don't want to compare apples and oranges.

Another questoin is whether you need to fire 3000 rounds to prove system maturity. If not, then what does the difference between the lower number (X) and 3000 indicate? If you take a system that worked 10 times and compared it with a system that worked 3000 times, your best chance is obviously with the latter. But what if the first system hit 10 out of 10 times and the latter hit 2500 out of 3000? Ask you local statistician! Now, consider deployment in the AWD, say at least 5 years from now. How much additional testing could you do in the mean time? Succesfull additional testing may clearly strengthen the case for the first system, while it makes less difference for the latter system.

Just some questions to ponder when you think of what to consider before you call a system mature and before you make a choice between systems. All I am saying is that it ain't so simple as it may sound. And lets keep in mind various parties are preparing to sell various options politically. I am inclined to think the 3000 firings argument should be approached as a sales pitch. Sales pitches stack as many positives and as little negatives of one product as possible against as little positives and as many negatives of another ....

 

[gf0012-aust]

tatra, i understand what you are saying, that the issue of certification is fluid as the test parameters and conditions evolve over time - so are not fixed. eg it's not a military version of the "skinner box" test.

but the number i used (3000) wa not meant to be a literal test figure either, it was a figure plucked to exagerate an example of how a test restriction could restrict a country like australia in undertaking equivalent milspec tests like the US..

 

[adsH]

Gents, please read carefully what I said. I did not say simulation can replace testing. I did not say testing is BS. I did say that I am unconvinced that the comparison between 3 rounds fired by LCF/F124/APAR and 3000 by Tico/AB/Aegis is fair or even the most relevant.

I suggested that increasingly testing is minimized and simulation is maximized. This is due to cost but also because the ability to simulate has improved as computers and software have improved over time. That is, you can model things today that you couldn't model ten, twenty or thirty years ago. The implication is that newer systems - all else being equal - will see less 'live' testing overall than old systems. Hence, my point that the number of tests is not necessarily the most relevant indicator of system maturity (any more)

I noted that the number of 3000 firings is unspecified. Consider that SM1 is not SM2 is not SM3 and that there are differences between various 'blocks' of SM2 for example. What is included in that number of 3000? All Standard missile firings ever? Or is that all firings of SM2 block IV? Are all of these test firings or are war-shots also included?

Same type of questions with respect to radar and electronics systems. APAR is newer than AEGIS, in that sense less mature. But is the latest version of AEGIS much newer than APAR? How much difference is there between the latest AEGIS version and early versions? Has the latest version of AEGIS been involved in testfiring to a greater extent then the APAR has? You don't want to compare apples and oranges.

Another questoin is whether you need to fire 3000 rounds to prove system maturity. If not, then what does the difference between the lower number (X) and 3000 indicate? If you take a system that worked 10 times and compared it with a system that worked 3000 times, your best chance is obviously with the latter. But what if the first system hit 10 out of 10 times and the latter hit 2500 out of 3000? Ask you local statistician! Now, consider deployment in the AWD, say at least 5 years from now. How much additional testing could you do in the mean time? Succesfull additional testing may clearly strengthen the case for the first system, while it makes less difference for the latter system.

Just some questions to ponder when you think of what to consider before you call a system mature and before you make a choice between systems. All I am saying is that it ain't so simple as it may sound. And lets keep in mind various parties are preparing to sell various options politically. I am inclined to think the 3000 firings argument should be approached as a sales pitch. Sales pitches stack as many positives and as little negatives of one product as possible against as little positives and as many negatives of another ....

the-reason why i like discussing this is becasue its seems so closely related to my field ofwork. although your point are very valid. but i just wan't to give you an example I was told to design a DataBase system which was based on a older system. what i had to do was to use the old system as a model becasue u can't just pick the old modules and fit them into the new one. well i designed a system based on old system when it was implemented and reday i tested it!!! i didn't test it the extent some people "GF" would perfer so i was fairly confident that the system would not fail but i was in for a big shock when i was demonstrating the software to the client it failed !!!!it was humiliating and degrading experience when the client walked out!!! these are mistake that you learn from !! i did static testing without any live data input
i did not try and push the system to perform every new addition to the old design has to be extensively tested just becasue a software is black hole you never know where it might fail you module compatibilities and robustness have to exhaustively checked. and with a system like defense you cannot afford to have system crashing becasue of a small bug in middle of a battle.

Gun rounds are completely different story they are not that sophisticated they don't have thousand of thousand of module of AI and control programming in them !!

 

[gf0012-aust]

If you look at the last test programme for the SA-80 ser 2, it was tested till stoppage - which IIRC was 12500+ rounds before seizure. Thats better than the M4 in its most developed form.

so the MTBF for the firing mechanism becomes 1 in 12500. That doesn't guarantee that the weapon will never fail before it reaches 12500 discharges, but it's a reasonable test of ruggedness. But, in a clinical world, you would then test that again in a different environment - to see if it could be replicated.

Maturity can also refer to a system that is stable enough to undergo constant mods with impacting on core performance.

I think we might be discussing at cross purposes here...

 

[tatra]

@adsH: Got your point and you are right. See for example what happened with IN Talwar class. All proven systems, yet when put together in a new package ... :help ... main SAM didn't work at first.

@all: ok, it got a little heated but ... good discussion!

As for objectivity: Aw, c'mon Aussies, be wild, buy Dutch