Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Redlands18]

Does NASAMS require intergration with the CMS?
Why cant it operate as a Stand Alone system?

NASAMS needs a seperate Radar to work and that means either integrating with the Ships CMS or using the Radar that comes with NASAMS, if you set up a Radar on the Flight Deck seperate to the Ships Radar how will that effect the Ships CMS/Radar set up?
It would certainly work far better if you could integrate it into the Ships CMS.

 

[ASSAIL]

Does NASAMS require intergration with the CMS?
Why cant it operate as a Stand Alone system?

A ship’s response to a threat requires the coordination of all its sensors and weapons, hence the term Combat Management System.
If each individual sensor or weapon simply reacted as each saw fit, chaos would result.
Integration is paramount.

 

[Todjaeger]

A ship’s response to a threat requires the coordination of all its sensors and weapons, hence the term Combat Management System. If each individual sensor or weapon simply reacted as each saw fit, chaos would result. Integration is paramount.

In addition, failing to integrate such a system could trigger a number of service issues during operations, never mind the potential for chaos that Assail mentioned if such a system were actually employed for a real event.

For instance, with NASAMS requiring radar cuing, the positioning and placement of the radar would be very important in a number of different aspects. If the radar system was placed on the flight deck, then there would likely be radar 'shadows' or blind spots caused by the ski ramp and island structures.

Another and related area of concern would be whether or not the NASAMS radar transceiver would cause or receive interference from other ship's RF systems like the 'normal' ship's radars, comms, and/or ship electronics.

One of the last to keep in mind is whether or not having such a radar system would be potentially harmful to crew working on the flight deck or perhaps even exposed areas of the island, etc. I do recall that various types of USN vessels have restrictions on crew being in certain spaces when various communications systems are being utilized, due to the amount of RF energy being emitted. I have no idea what the power output of the NASAMS radar is or even which band it operates on but anything above 50 watts PEP would likely be a concern.

 

[alexsa]

Does NASAMS require intergration with the CMS?
Why cant it operate as a Stand Alone system?

Completely agree with Tod and Assail ... added to this ,,,,

The combination of launcher and sensors will take up quire a bit of deck real estate as they cannot sit next to each other. Added to this the superstructure is going to mask some of your radar horizon. In short you are going to compromise you aviation capability for and ad hoc AAW capability. Better to fit decoys and a local defence (at the moment that will be CIWS ... Sea RAM would have been nice) system and rely on the DDG and FFG to of their job.

 

[StingrayOZ]

LHD (and older Anzacs) has a Giraffe type radar like other Konsberg setups? (Giraffe radar - Wikipedia)

I imagine the ultimate aim is to have one complete networked force, with multiple sensors and firing solutions. I don't really see a need to locate the missiles physically on the LHD, not sure how the army would feel about that.... But could use LHD sensors, or could be useful to, say in complex terrain etc...

 

[alexsa]

LHD (and older Anzacs) has a Giraffe type radar like other Konsberg setups? (Giraffe radar - Wikipedia)

I imagine the ultimate aim is to have one complete networked force, with multiple sensors and firing solutions. I don't really see a need to locate the missiles physically on the LHD, not sure how the army would feel about that.... But could use LHD sensors, or could be useful to, say in complex terrain etc...

Only if they are linked into the system as part of a shared picture. They may be able to share data the NASAMS configuration being purchased but we have no visibility of that. The ships cedrtainly can share data given the combat systems they have. So, even with an ANZAC as an escort you have 32 ESSMs to add to the defence layer. Further the systems developed for the ANZAC ASMD project included a capability to take out a crossing target as opposed to just an imbound one. As such they can defend the LHD's and other assets that may be in the group (AOR's and LPD-A as examples).

The one issue not being considered is are the prime users of this system going to be thrilled about having this asset tied up in a role it is not intended for? I doubt they would.

 

[Boagrius]

Quick question on the topic of NASAMS - can anyone explain/speculate as to why Raytheon has bothered to produce both AMRAAM-ER and ESSM Block II? As far as I can tell they both use the baseline ESSM propulsion section and they both feature an active radar seeker (the front end of an AIM120C in the case of the AMRAAM-ER). Seems like an odd case of duplication to me?

 

[Milne Bay]

Quick question on the topic of NASAMS - can anyone explain/speculate as to why Raytheon has bothered to produce both AMRAAM-ER and ESSM Block II? As far as I can tell they both use the baseline ESSM propulsion section and they both feature an active radar seeker (the front end of an AIM120C in the case of the AMRAAM-ER). Seems like an odd case of duplication to me?

Perhaps Ratheon sees possible double duty in the AMRAAM-ER
It is totally conceivable that the AMRAAM-ER could be fairly easily adapted to fill an air-to-air role as either the next generation of the AIM120 or as an interim measure whilst awaiting the AIM 120C replacement
MB

 

[StingrayOZ]

The one issue not being considered is are the prime users of this system going to be thrilled about having this asset tied up in a role it is not intended for? I doubt they would.

Yeh, can't see the Army going along with that one. But I can certainly see Army and Navy coordinating together to properly protect forces. Being able to create overlapping protection, but with one complete picture I think is important going forward even if it isn't all integrated from day one. Its highly likely that Navy/Air force sensors will see threats first even if they aren't in a position to deal with them.

 

[Todjaeger]

Quick question on the topic of NASAMS - can anyone explain/speculate as to why Raytheon has bothered to produce both AMRAAM-ER and ESSM Block II? As far as I can tell they both use the baseline ESSM propulsion section and they both feature an active radar seeker (the front end of an AIM120C in the case of the AMRAAM-ER). Seems like an odd case of duplication to me?

I could be mistaken, but I believe there are some fairly significant differences between ESSM Block II and the AMRAAM family of missiles.

For starters, the weight of an ESSM is ~622 lbs or ~282 kg, vs. ~356 lbs or ~162 kg for an AMRAAM AIM-120C 5/6/7/D. For the ESSM Block II specifically, in addition to an active radar seeker, it also has a semi-active radar seeker like in the Block I.

The two missiles might have a common "ancestor" in the Sparrow, but the missiles themselves have gone in somewhat different directions due to the different service requirements.

 

[Boagrius]

^ Yes, I'm referring to the fact that AMRAAM-ER is a bit of an outlier in the AMRAAM family. My understanding is that it is essentially an AIM120C7 front end (guidance section, warhead, datalink) mated to an ESSM back end (propulsion & control):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_MuRjgUwAEizp4.jpg

Given that you'd expect such a weapon to have broadly comparable kinematic performance to a baseline ESSM, I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone bothered to produce it when the ESSM Block II can do much the same thing(s).

 

[SteveR]

Perhaps Ratheon sees possible double duty in the AMRAAM-ER
It is totally conceivable that the AMRAAM-ER could be fairly easily adapted to fill an air-to-air role as either the next generation of the AIM120 or as an interim measure whilst awaiting the AIM 120C replacement
MB

The replacement being the AIM-260 which is not that far away having been developed in Secret: https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheeds-aim-260-counter-china-s-pl-15

 

[MickB]

Yeh, can't see the Army going along with that one. But I can certainly see Army and Navy coordinating together to properly protect forces. Being able to create overlapping protection, but with one complete picture I think is important going forward even if it isn't all integrated from day one. Its highly likely that Navy/Air force sensors will see threats first even if they aren't in a position to deal with them.

I beleave the idea was along the lines of,
If the NASAMS was an organic part of the force being landed it would be aboard as cargo anyway. If located on the deck it could provide extra cover in the approach phase and during the landing before being offloaded to cover the ground forces.

But it seems in this case it might hinder rather than help.

 

[Boagrius]

The replacement being the AIM-260 which is not that far away having been developed in Secret: https://aviationweek.com/defense/lockheeds-aim-260-counter-china-s-pl-15

Yes and AFAIK Raytheon are developing LREW which could also be relevant for NASAMS in the future. Good to know there are a broad array of effectors for this GBAD system both now and going forward.

 

[Todjaeger]

^ Yes, I'm referring to the fact that AMRAAM-ER is a bit of an outlier in the AMRAAM family. My understanding is that it is essentially an AIM120C7 front end (guidance section, warhead, datalink) mated to an ESSM back end (propulsion & control):

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D_MuRjgUwAEizp4.jpg

Given that you'd expect such a weapon to have broadly comparable kinematic performance to a baseline ESSM, I'm a bit puzzled as to why anyone bothered to produce it when the ESSM Block II can do much the same thing(s).

Honestly, until more definite information is actually out about the "AMRAAM-ER" it is quite a bit of speculation on our part. We know Raytheon is working on it, but just exactly what "it" encompasses is another story. Even the name which Raytheon is using is not really 'right' since AMRAAM stands for Advanced Medium-Ranged Air to Air Missile, while the AMRAAM-ER is a ground-based missile...

Further, an AIM-120 AMRAAM has a diameter of ~7 inches with a warhead of 40-50 lbs, with the ESSM has a diameter or either 8 inches or 10 inches depending on whether one is measuring at the guidance or controls/rocket motor section, with a warhead of ~90 lbs.

This leads me to suspect that the "AMRAAM-ER" is using elements from the ESSM programme, though I doubt whole missile segments are being taken. If that were the case, then I would have expected a contract or contracts from Raytheon to purchase the rocket motor would have been recorded.

 

[StingrayOZ]

Anyone want to win $5000

Open, defence and youth categories.

 

[76mmGuns]

In case anyone missed it, the US has now kicked Turkey out of the F35 program, both as a parts manufacturer and buyer.

That means their carrier TCG Anadolu now has no planes. According to TCG Anadolu LHD: A Naval Platform that will Multiply the Power Projection Capability of Turkish Navy! - Defence Turkey Magazine , Turkey wants to be a global force, to project power, to show the Turkish flag around the world.

Without F35s, that's unlikely. No one's scared of a helicopter carrier.

Which leads me to my point.

There's a possibility, albeit small, that Turkey might sell it. And if they do, there's a small, yet delightfully delicious chance that Australia might get lucky again, with another newish cheap naval vessel. Of course not $100m, but , say, $500m? That'd be amazing.

 

[hauritz]

In case anyone missed it, the US has now kicked Turkey out of the F35 program, both as a parts manufacturer and buyer.

That means their carrier TCG Anadolu now has no planes. According to TCG Anadolu LHD: A Naval Platform that will Multiply the Power Projection Capability of Turkish Navy! - Defence Turkey Magazine , Turkey wants to be a global force, to project power, to show the Turkish flag around the world.

Without F35s, that's unlikely. No one's scared of a helicopter carrier.

Which leads me to my point.

There's a possibility, albeit small, that Turkey might sell it. And if they do, there's a small, yet delightfully delicious chance that Australia might get lucky again, with another newish cheap naval vessel. Of course not $100m, but , say, $500m? That'd be amazing.

I can't see the Turks wanting to sell and I think it would have to be a real bargain before Australia got interested in buying it. Originally Turkey intended for it to operate as a LPD. Turning it into a light carrier was an after thought.

 

[John Fedup]

I think the Turkish navy would oppose any sale in the hope that someday F-35Bs could be obtained once Erdogan is gone. Probably a false hope IMO as Turkey is unreliable as an ally and Erdogan’s departure will likely be another Islamic leaning dictator.

 

[seaspear]

It might get interesting if Turkey offered to sell it to Russsia , certainly it could be a replacement for the failed Mistral purchase