OK, let me re-phrase slightly, what do you think CEC provides that L11 and L16 (both of which are fitted to T45s and USN) does not
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
To HELP clarify things, CEC (as I've mentioned in Layman's terms), is a glorified version of LINK.
In my understanding CEC takes ALL the SENSOR DATA from however many sources (whether it be one ship on full transmit of all sensors, or 2 or 3 ships & an aircraft, or even satelite data), they are interlinked / put one on top of each other, synchronised/correlated, then the data is transmitted to all & sundry, REAL TIME !
THAT requires a LOT of processing power, space (for equipment / operators & antennas), specialised staff (for operation & maintenance) and EVERYONE ELSE to have the facilities to transmit/receive data.
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) / AN/USG-2(V) Cooperative Engagement Transmission Processing Set
LINK does something similar, but it's limited in distance (MAX 30 - 50 Nautical miles) & the data processing is done using systems that were designed some 20+ years ago, on board the vessels within the vicinity (e.g. within a battle group).
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_22"]Link 22 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
T45 already has LINK, but has the ROOM to take CEC, but it hasn't been funded (reading the comments above)
SA
Sorry SA, I am still not making myself clear. I am very well aware of exactly what CEC is (and bear in mind that there is a satellite version of L16), the question is for those who think CEC is crucial...why?
what absolutely essential reqt does it fill that would put it ahead of so many other defence reqts?
CEC does indeed require more processing power (though do not underestimate L16). That does not make it the be all that some seem to think.
FWIW I would like it on T45, but there are lots of things I would like first
what absolutely essential reqt does it fill that would put it ahead of so many other defence reqts?
CEC does indeed require more processing power (though do not underestimate L16). That does not make it the be all that some seem to think.
FWIW I would like it on T45, but there are lots of things I would like first
spsun100001
New Member
Found the previous posts! They start up at around post #7518 and the guy who used CEC in the RN is poster name rnrp. He specifically discusses some of the differences between Link and CEC.
To Clarify - T45 HAS SPACE FOR, Harpoon & ASW Torpedo launchers. This probably means that there are empty slots in switchboards, which have the capacity to supply the power, that cable routes have been designated, with room on cable runs to accommodate any cables & that the HP Air plant has sufficient capacity & the pipework runs are adjacent to the areas where the equipment will be fitted.
The reality of fitting these systems will equate to a mini refit, due to how much of the current structure will have to be disturbed to fit them !
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_45_destroyer"]Type 45 destroyer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Type 45 Daring Class - Naval Technology
The RN agree with this philosophy (as T45 was DESIGNED to have them fitted), but the UK Govt hold the purse strings, which prevented them being fitted from the get-go.
SA
spsun100001
New Member
The debate did move on a bit in that I'd quoted the wrong number for aid to India through to 2015 which is what I was arguing we should use as funding. The actual aid value was £840m. ProM pointed out CEC had gone up to about £250m (I'm guessing due to the weakness of the pound and CEC being a dollar priced system) so that would leave about £590m to fit the Harpoon and Stingray's from retired units to the T45.
You're quite right of course, the lack of these systems has everything to do with the government and nothing to do with the Navy.
So, I repeat my question.
You say CEC is crucial. What operational advantage that it brings over L16 do you think makes it so crucial?
If you wanted to reproduce the magazine system from the 22's for instance where the torpedoes being passed up to the hangar could as easily be loaded directly into the ships tubes, then you're onto a hiding to nothing as it'd be immensely invasive. I think a lot of the posters suggesting it's trivial and the tubes from the 22's or wherever can just be bolted to the deck aren't connecting with that one.
What other items would you think are more important right now? Or more correctly I guess, what other items are out there to fit that are more pressing, given funds?
Ian
No particular order, and only off the top of my head. All of these I would place above torpedoes for the T45s and CEC, Harpoon fitted may just squeeze above a few, but without seeing the business cases I cannot be sure!
Converting the carriers to CATOBAR
AEW aircraft for the carriers
T26 Main gate
Land Attack missile and modern anti-ship missile for T45 (and subsequently T26)
Trident II main gate
Infantry modernisation - various
Improved countermeasures and data exchange for helos et al
Ballistic Missile defence (land and naval)
Seems reasonable - might be nice to see Harpoon skipped and a modern alternative sourced that would do a mix of the land attack and ASM roles but yeah, I'd sort that list out first. AEW for the carriers in particular..
IIRC Stobie is a big fan of a navalised MBDA Fire Shadow which MBDA announced at DESi 2011 (i think). Looking into it it seems to be a pretty decent system, a low cost loitering munition with a total flight duration of 6hrs with an operating range of 100km.
Could be an interesting development for T26 as the first land units are sheduled to be delivered to the British Army somewhen in 2012 (IIRC the first was delivered late March) so that'd give it some time to mature. Depending just how 'cheap' it is, could it fit nicely between a capability with a further reach than the 4.5in but something not as expensive as a LAM?
Last edited:
I like it lots as it's made of bits of working kit, and should be fairly cost effective - the loitering capability with optical feed is attractive as you can lob it in as a disposable UAV and then use that for observed artillery fire or to guide in other weapons. Certainly for blowing snot out of people driving boats, trucks or trains, it's cheaper and more responsive than Harpoon or TLAM.
We'll see if they can persuade the thing to launch from a VLS, preferably dual packed if possible and certainly cold launched if desirable.
If not Fireshadow, certainly something like it in terms of flexibility and cost.
the concerned
Active Member
your right after all we going to have an effective ASUW capabilty soon its called JSF more capable than any current missile in service.
spsun100001
New Member
You think 8 years is soon?
That's true, didn't think of it about it in the way that it could be used for a bit of basic recce.
At the moment it looks like VLS isn't on the cards as AFAIK there's been no actual customers who want a navalised variant (AFAIK, could easily be wrong on that one), but how it seems to deploy in the following video it seems like it wouldn't be too difficult to squeeze one in a VLS. After all the wings can fold in so i assume there'd be a way to deploy them after a certain time period.
[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJDJm3eawcM"]Fire Shadow Naval Launch by MBDA - YouTube[/nomedia]
The actual frame it's mounted on doesn't look too bad, but after wandering around HMS Dragons hangar it doesn't look like there would be anywhere convenient to store it (i assume that'd be the same for T26) so potential to have it at a relatively horizontal trajectory mounted somewhere on the superstructure like Harpoon perhaps? (I know it's not really horizontal but more so than VLS
)
We already have an effective ASuW capability, it's called the Submarine Service
On a more serious note, the need for a modern + effective SSM for our escorts is very important, too important to just leave it 8 years and invest in an anti-ship missile for the JSF.
After all, carriers might not always be around when ASuW capabilities are required.
Personally, if a RN carrier battle group was established i would like the FAA to focus on CAP/CAS and only being called in for ASuW when absolutely neccesary rather than people saying "well, we have naff SSMs so can't really do much so divert some JSFs to take out those ships".
What i'm trying to say, ASuW should be a secondary (or even tertiary) role for the JSF - much akin to the FA2 - and let the escorts deal with surface threats unless completely neccesary.
Well, the Norwegian Ship Missile is already cleared for JSF does come in a ship launched (but not VLS) capable version so that'd tick two boxes. Fireshadow may be packaged in a box launcher of some sort but there's no way it's going to sea with that rickety launcher demoed in that videoWe already have an effective ASuW capability, it's called the Submarine Service
On a more serious note, the need for a modern + effective SSM for our escorts is very important, too important to just leave it 8 years and invest in an anti-ship missile for the JSF.
After all, carriers might not always be around when ASuW capabilities are required.
Personally, if a RN carrier battle group was established i would like the FAA to focus on CAP/CAS and only being called in for ASuW when absolutely neccesary rather than people saying "well, we have naff SSMs so can't really do much so divert some JSFs to take out those ships".
What i'm trying to say, ASuW should be a secondary (or even tertiary) role for the JSF - much akin to the FA2 - and let the escorts deal with surface threats unless completely neccesary.
We definitely need some method of shooting at the bad guys in boats and ships though. If Type 26 does get a 127mm mount capable of taking Vulcano then that will help with the smaller targets but that's some way off.