Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[Todjaeger]

I cant really correct you, what i know that in surface ships the combat system is more cllearly apart from the sensors, while maybe in subs or navies they can say the coombat system are the sensor´s gears, workstations, etc. But for example for the awd, the combat system is the saab something, the software, the hardware for the combat system is other thing (for ex general workstations, processors and nodes, wiring).
EDITED LATER: for ex the aegis is the combat system of the radar spy, it makes the target engagement and tracking, but i dont include that in the combat system of the ship, this gives pass to the aegis when it comes to radar spy tasks.

The thing is the combat system, strictly not sensors, of the collins it is not the most importante, for ex i would give more importance to the system associated to the digitized hull (probably the active sonnar?), but active sonnar in a sub is less importante than the set of passive sonnars.

I could be mistaken (GF, AegisFC, want to chime in here?) but the Combat System is the computer system(s) which process/fuse the contact information coming in from the sensors and datalinks. Again, as I understand it, this is the case for both subs and skimmers. In the case of the AWD the combat system is to be a version of Aegis, while in the Anzac FFH, it is the SaabTech 9LV 200 IIRC.

-Cheers

 

[gf0012-aust]

I could be mistaken (GF, AegisFC, want to chime in here?) but the Combat System is the computer system(s) which process/fuse the contact information coming in from the sensors and datalinks. Again, as I understand it, this is the case for both subs and skimmers.

Correct.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The thing is the combat system, strictly not sensors, of the collins it is not the most importante,

No its not. Whatever possesses you to state such things as fact. Subs are multiple hatters.
Please don't comment about what subs can and can't do when its apparent that you don't have much of an idea.

You should cast your responses as opinions and provide supporting logic.

for ex i would give more importance to the system associated to the digitized hull (probably the active sonnar?), but active sonnar in a sub is less importante than the set of passive sonnars.

in what country do they express a priority of passive over active or vice versa? The sensor mode is tactical and strategic dependant. One does not have importance over the other without tactcal context being taken into consideration.

the mode capability is not restricted to sonars (??)

arrays and transducers are not sonars. both are part of the ISR suite.

 

[agc33e]

I could be mistaken (GF, AegisFC, want to chime in here?) but the Combat System is the computer system(s) which process/fuse the contact information coming in from the sensors and datalinks. Again, as I understand it, this is the case for both subs and skimmers. In the case of the AWD the combat system is to be a version of Aegis, while in the Anzac FFH, it is the SaabTech 9LV 200 IIRC.

-Cheers

I read the saab x.x was going for the awds as well, the saab (hard or/and soft) integrates as many as possible informations and managements, including the aegis, other weapons, systems of vigilance, sonars, comms...all being able to be presented and managed at the screens in the combat centre or other points of the ship.
So there are both, the aegis combat system, especific for some warfare, and the saab etc as the integrating net of all functions of the ship.

 

[agc33e]

in what country do they express a priority of passive over active or vice versa? The sensor mode is tactical and strategic dependant. One does not have importance over the other without tactcal context being taken into consideration.

the mode capability is not restricted to sonars (??)

Very important sub intentions are silently, for gain info, or to attack, they will be using the passive, the active declares itself and will be used in a situation of numerical superiority, for the active you have the surface ship´s one, with its helo, which has an active one as well, better keep the sub undiscovered, in a tense situation of 2 fleets f ex.
So if i am going to spend money on different components of the sub, when planning one, i would give more importance to have the best passive sonar, apart from the big importance points of time and power and noise at full inmersion, and number of subs.

arrays and transducers are not sonars. both are part of the ISR suite.

An example of another system integrated in the whole combat system of the ship.

Do you think they can put the 64 cells vertical launcher instead of the 48 in the awd´s or new anzacs?

I remeber i had to correct that in for the lhd, they can park chinooks by couples in the hanger, i mean 2 per row, not 3, along the rectangular shape of the hangar.

I suppose the gas turbine of the lhd uses jp5.. from the same 800 tonnes used by the aviation.

Cheers.

 

[Todjaeger]

I read the saab x.x was going for the awds as well, the saab (hard or/and soft) integrates as many as possible informations and managements, including the aegis, other weapons, systems of vigilance, sonars, comms...all being able to be presented and managed at the screens in the combat centre or other points of the ship.
So there are both, the aegis combat system, especific for some warfare, and the saab etc as the integrating net of all functions of the ship.

Were did you read that? I ask because to my knowledge, The Aegis system is the combat system, which would mean that it would already be integrating the different data sources and allowing/controlling the ship's response. Having an additional one (from SaabTech or anyone else) would be not only redundant, but also asking for increased risk for programme difficulties and failure.

-Cheers

Edit: When checking further, the combat data system that is what is currently planned for the Hobart-class AWD appears to be the Aegis Weapon System Baseline 7.1 and I have not found any mention of Saab involvement in the AWD Mission Systems Integration, that will be handled by Raytheon Australia.

 

[AegisFC]

I could be mistaken (GF, AegisFC, want to chime in here?) but the Combat System is the computer system(s) which process/fuse the contact information coming in from the sensors and datalinks. Again, as I understand it, this is the case for both subs and skimmers. In the case of the AWD the combat system is to be a version of Aegis, while in the Anzac FFH, it is the SaabTech 9LV 200 IIRC.

-Cheers

You are correct.

Were did you read that? I ask because to my knowledge, The Aegis system is the combat system, which would mean that it would already be integrating the different data sources and allowing/controlling the ship's response. Having an additional one (from SaabTech or anyone else) would be not only redundant, but also asking for increased risk for programme difficulties and failure.

-Cheers

Edit: When checking further, the combat data system that is what is currently planned for the Hobart-class AWD appears to be the Aegis Weapon System Baseline 7.1 and I have not found any mention of Saab involvement in the AWD Mission Systems Integration, that will be handled by Raytheon Australia.

He has no clue what he is talking about. The AWD's are either getting baseline 7.1 or 7.3 with no extra CMS or outside involvement.

Actually the first Aegis "set" for the AWD's finished testing at the Moorestown NJ facility last December and was shipped for installation. One thing I am curious about is if Australia is going to use the standard Q-70 family of consoles like the USN uses or are they going to go with locally produced consoles like Japan and Spain did?

 

[agc33e]

Were did you read that? I ask because to my knowledge, The Aegis system is the combat system, which would mean that it would already be integrating the different data sources and allowing/controlling the ship's response. Having an additional one (from SaabTech or anyone else) would be not only redundant, but also asking for increased risk for programme difficulties and failure.

-Cheers

Edit: When checking further, the combat data system that is what is currently planned for the Hobart-class AWD appears to be the Aegis Weapon System Baseline 7.1 and I have not found any mention of Saab involvement in the AWD Mission Systems Integration, that will be handled by Raytheon Australia.

Ah, ok, so it is raytheon australia who is doing the "mission systems integration", not saab. Cheers. That missions systems integration is what it is called in many places the combat system of the ship as well.
Probably saab will be for the canberras then, i was confused.

 

[Todjaeger]

Ah, ok, so it is raytheon australia who is doing the "mission systems integration", not saab. Cheers. That missions systems integration is what it is called in many places the combat system of the ship as well.
Probably saab will be for the canberras then, i was confused.

IIRC the SaabTech 9LV 200 will be the Combat Data System used aboard the Canberra-class LHDs, and it is presently being used aboard the Anzac-class FFHs. From what I recall, the systems aboard the Anzacs are due for upgrade during the planning systems upgrades for the entire class in RAN service. I am uncertain just how different the upgraded frigate version (supporting use of CEA-FAR & CEA-MOUNT arrays) would be from what is currently in service or planned for the LHDs, but these systems are completely different from what is planned for service aboard the AWDs.

What would be an interesting question to have answered would be for the future combat data system to be used aboard the Anzac Follow on Frigate. At present the radar seem to be planned around using the AUSPAR arrays currently in by CEA. Would a future version of the Aegis Weapon System be in consideration for use managing the data aboard the Anzac II. Or would the vessels be better off utilizing a different combat data system.

-Cheers

 

[StevoJH]

Ah, ok, so it is raytheon australia who is doing the "mission systems integration", not saab. Cheers. That missions systems integration is what it is called in many places the combat system of the ship as well.
Probably saab will be for the canberras then, i was confused.

Err, what? The company doing the systems integration is generally the one that builds the systems. Even if the computers and software was installed by Saab (its not), it would still be called Aegis. It could be like calling Windows "[insert name] Computers" because they were the people that installed the operating system on the computer.

 

[agc33e]

Err, what? The company doing the systems integration is generally the one that builds the systems. Even if the computers and software was installed by Saab (its not), it would still be called Aegis. It could be like calling Windows "[insert name] Computers" because they were the people that installed the operating system on the computer.

I past these phrases from the awd alliance web, referring to raytheon australia:
"Develop the design of the complete Hobart Class Combat System with the Commonwealth, USN and the Aegis Weapon System Engineering Agent (CSEA)"
or
"Integrate the non-Aegis elements of the Hobart Class Combat System and conduct combat system trade studies"

One thing is to integrate a system, other thing is to integrate all the systems (already ready by individual integration) together in a room in some screens and workstations for being able to work over all of them together at the same time.

:smokie

 

[AegisFC]

Ah, ok, so it is raytheon australia who is doing the "mission systems integration", not saab. Cheers. That missions systems integration is what it is called in many places the combat system of the ship as well.
Probably saab will be for the canberras then, i was confused.

No. Systems Integration is simply the installation and testing of various elements of the Combat System on the ship.

 

[LancasterBomber]

To be fair, he was "only" 'Champion shot of the Navy'. NOT Champion shot of AASAM...

That went to an Army fellow...

I was on our range today and we had a fair few spare mags to clean out down range. A couple of our POs went at it....

Anyone who thinks our boys cant go toe to toe with Army is seriously delusional!

If you go up against some of our boys holding a steyr at close range then you are guaranteed to be force fed a massive shit sandwich.

 

[agc33e]

No. Systems Integration is simply the installation and testing of various elements of the Combat System on the ship.

Ok, sorry, it seems i gave a bad example with the awd´s because i read aegis can act as the "complete combat system" as stated in the alliance web, i read aegis can include all of the other tasks rather than just the radar spy ones, it can coordinate the sonars, the helos, the ciws, satcoms, all that it is what i was calling "complete combat system", including aegis-spy as a part of it, but not, aegis itself is the complete combat system.

Please dont be angry with me.:roll

 

[agc33e]

What would be an interesting question to have answered would be for the future combat data system to be used aboard the Anzac Follow on Frigate. At present the radar seem to be planned around using the AUSPAR arrays currently in by CEA. Would a future version of the Aegis Weapon System be in consideration for use managing the data aboard the Anzac II. Or would the vessels be better off utilizing a different combat data system.

-Cheers

Probably many components of the anzac ii are similar to the awd´s, sonars, helos, electronic warfare, comms, weapons...so it is normal to think that aegis (complete combat system) can be used, but the part of the aegis related to spy radar i think it is not necessary, because probably the capacities of the auspar are different, less range, less simultaneos trackings maybe, less fire control channels, less data to process, for the processor of the spy radar. The shape of the auspar is similar to the little spy-f of the norwegian frigates, maybe for the processors lockheed martin has a package for the nansen coping betteer for the auspar than the radical spy´s ones.
EDITED LATER: or probably the auspar has its own processor and complements. Probably Auspar should be integratet by raytheon australia in the aegis combat management system like any other "non aegis" system, as they state in the alliance web.

 

[agc33e]

I past these phrases from the awd alliance web, referring to raytheon australia:
"Develop the design of the complete Hobart Class Combat System with the Commonwealth, USN and the Aegis Weapon System Engineering Agent (CSEA)"
or
"Integrate the non-Aegis elements of the Hobart Class Combat System and conduct combat system trade studies"

One thing is to integrate a system, other thing is to integrate all the systems (already ready by individual integration) together in a room in some screens and workstations for being able to work over all of them together at the same time.

:smokie

In the first sentence they say "with the commonwealth" so they are thinking in the future anzac ii as well, for the aegis combat system management, because the anzac ii is supposed to be sharing the commonwealth design, bussiness they are doing.

 

[aussienscale]

Anzac II

Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ? If that was the case you would think the same system would be used for an overall picture. How do these new systems tie in with the F35 the RAAF will be getting, as I understand it the F35 can share battle information between themselves and also pass it onto the ground an sea forces as well.
Any info appreciated

 

[hairyman]

The Aegis system that the AWD's are to be fitted with, the same as used by the Spanish ships and the latest South Korean and Japanese AWD type ships, as well as the Arliegh Burke and other US ships, is very, very, expensive. It would be responsible for a large part of the huge cost of the AWD's. That fact, and the fact that the Anzac II's will not be armed with S3 missiles, as they are over-kill for their role, would be why the Anzac II's will be fitted with a cheaper and more practicle system.

All that aside, I would still like to see Australia acquire more than three AWD's.

 

[StevoJH]

Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ? If that was the case you would think the same system would be used for an overall picture. How do these new systems tie in with the F35 the RAAF will be getting, as I understand it the F35 can share battle information between themselves and also pass it onto the ground an sea forces as well.
Any info appreciated

They are thinking about reusing the same hull, presumably with a different superstructure. The ANZAC replacement will most likely get the AUSPAR radar under development by CEA Technologies. At worst they would get CEAFAR (though I doubt it).

With another 10 years of development before any of them hit the water, I wouldn't be surprised if they gave Aegis a run for its money.

 

[agc33e]

Correct me if I am wrong, I think I have read somewhere (probably on here) but wasnt there a suggestion that the replacement Anzac's might be based on a watered down version of the AWD'S ? If that was the case you would think the same system would be used for an overall picture. How do these new systems tie in with the F35 the RAAF will be getting, as I understand it the F35 can share battle information between themselves and also pass it onto the ground an sea forces as well.
Any info appreciated

Possibly aegis combat management system its better/easier for cooperative engagement capability for the f35, and for the awd´s and anzacs ii between them.

But the question is if the aegis combat managemt system, which maybe grew with the years around an original combat system of an air/surface radar/s, it is such that that it can accomodate a different radar/s. I would say yes, for ex for the sonars, i am sure aegis combat manag syst has no problem in using the sonar of the f100 or the sonar of the nansen frigates which was the spherion something, but note for me, the processors of the sonar are not part of the combat management system strictly, because if you change the sonar, their processors go with it, and the combat manag system remains the same. Said in other way, the comb manag syst is not who processes the sonar signals, and it is not who processes the spy radar signals, that is the aegis combat system (processor and complements for spy+radars) is not the same as aegis combat management system.:jump2

F35 from the raaf, the canberra is not with the aegis combat management system and should be able to communicate well, via satcom, datalink or whatever radio comms uses the modern f35. We are going further and asking whether the f35 is able to communicate an objetive for the tactom directly with finger click? Who knows but for that you´ve got the aegis cmb mang syst... Also you have the comms from the ships to the f35, i would put an spy radar in the canberras...:

Cheers.