Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[barra]

You Pussers, it's all about the money and the medals isn't it...... VTIC

Icelord, is your avatar the Newcastle's crest? If so can you explain the significance of the design and colours? Just interested as a dyed in the wool Novacastrian.

Cheers.

 

[Marc 1]

I apologize.

No probs - I enjoy a robust discussion ;-). Sorry about the delay in replying - just spent the past 2.5 weeks moving house.

 

[Simon9]

Unfortunately, the further South the ship goes, the deployment bonus heads south aswell. Warramunga's crew will be getting less, from what I hear down from $150 a day that Parramatta's crew have been getting down to around $125 a day. The crews only get this when they get enter the Gulf. If they do anti-pirarcy off Somalia, which I doubt they will, it will be substantially less.
Warramunga's crew also won't be eligable for the Iraq campaign medal though they will still get the AASM for the moment.
Cheers

Aww, the poor darlings! :

I only got $60 a day bonus in the Solomons, and that was slogging through malarial jungles, not swanning around on an FFH! Sounds like I'm in the wrong branch (and that's quite possibly the only time you will ever hear me say that!)

 

[Pusser01]

Aww, the poor darlings! :

I only got $60 a day bonus in the Solomons, and that was slogging through malarial jungles, not swanning around on an FFH! Sounds like I'm in the wrong branch (and that's quite possibly the only time you will ever hear me say that!)

Yeah, but you got to visit a tropical paradise

 

[icelord]

You Pussers, it's all about the money and the medals isn't it...... VTIC

Icelord, is your avatar the Newcastle's crest? If so can you explain the significance of the design and colours? Just interested as a dyed in the wool Novacastrian.

Cheers.

You know, i never asked. I'll have a look at ships joining log, i may have missed it, when you start by hitting the ground running these things happenplus i'm from hunter so i have attatchment to the ship, still not a nova guy though!

I heard the Haz bonus dropped from $100 to $70 for warramunga,so sucks to be them, hell i know i won't be going there anytime soon, so hopefully by time FFG gets the call they comes to their sense and restore the "dash for cash"...as for solomons slog...diddumslots of love from the puss though)

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

CEA-MOUNT for AWD??

Is there any plans for the integration of the CEA-MOUNT x-band illuminator on the Hobart class AWD's? With the ability to engage 16 targets simultaneously that would make up for one of the significant deficiencies in the F-100 design, the lack of a 3rd illuminator. This excellent Australian product should be perfect for the AWD.

As a side note i wonder whether if the CEA-FAR radar system was more mature whether it would have been chosen over SPY-1D for the AWD???

 

[Todjaeger]

Is there any plans for the integration of the CEA-MOUNT x-band illuminator on the Hobart class AWD's? With the ability to engage 16 targets simultaneously that would make up for one of the significant deficiencies in the F-100 design, the lack of a 3rd illuminator. This excellent Australian product should be perfect for the AWD.

As a side note i wonder whether if the CEA-FAR radar system was more mature whether it would have been chosen over SPY-1D for the AWD???

It would be interesting to see what illuminator system the AWD is supposed to use. All things being equal, I think the CEA-MOUNT should be used. OTOH if the CEA-MOUNT is better than the SPG-62 (used on the F-100 & Arleigh Burkes), so much the better.

As for using the CEA-FAR panels in place of the the SPY-1D panels... I do not think that would work. As I understand it, the signal output from a SPY-1D panel exceeds what an AESA panel is able to put out... To me, this would mean that a SPY-1D emitter would likely have a greater detection range than something like CEA-FAR. Now CEA is working on a follow-on to CEA-FAR called AUSPAR, with some assistance and/or funding from the US. I do recall suggestions that the Anzac follow-on frigates be equipped with AUSPAR if it is available, and if not, the using CEA-FAR.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Is there any plans for the integration of the CEA-MOUNT x-band illuminator on the Hobart class AWD's? With the ability to engage 16 targets simultaneously that would make up for one of the significant deficiencies in the F-100 design, the lack of a 3rd illuminator. This excellent Australian product should be perfect for the AWD.

As a side note i wonder whether if the CEA-FAR radar system was more mature whether it would have been chosen over SPY-1D for the AWD???

No and no.

The CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR are significantly less powerful than the SPY-1 and Mk 99 illuminator. The CEAMOUNT illuminator would not be able to designate targets at the maximum range of the SM-2MR not to mention SM-2ER. The detection range of CEAFAR is about half that of SPY-1D.

This is why Australia and the USA is funding the CEA/Northrop Grumman AUSPAR program to build on the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT technology to develop a high power (SPY-1/Mk 99 level) version.

Within the life of the Hobart class it is likely that they will carry an all CEA radar fit in place of the SPY-1D, SPQ-9B and Mk 99s but it won't be until the MLU refit.

 

[AegisFC]

It would be interesting to see what illuminator system the AWD is supposed to use. All things being equal, I think the CEA-MOUNT should be used. OTOH if the CEA-MOUNT is better than the SPG-62 (used on the F-100 & Arleigh Burkes), so much the better.

SPG-62, they are excellent illuminators, fast moving, reliable, rugged, well understood and resistant to jamming.
Besides once SM-6 makes an appearance the lack of a 3rd illuminator won't matter so much.

As for using the CEA-FAR panels in place of the the SPY-1D panels... I do not think that would work. As I understand it, the signal output from a SPY-1D panel exceeds what an AESA panel is able to put out...

The SPY series is a very powerful radar, it is likely the most powerful radar system on warships today.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It would be interesting to see what illuminator system the AWD is supposed to use. All things being equal, I think the CEA-MOUNT should be used. OTOH if the CEA-MOUNT is better than the SPG-62 (used on the F-100 & Arleigh Burkes), so much the better.

For ESSM at least I'm sure it is.

As for using the CEA-FAR panels in place of the the SPY-1D panels... I do not think that would work. As I understand it, the signal output from a SPY-1D panel exceeds what an AESA panel is able to put out... To me, this would mean that a SPY-1D emitter would likely have a greater detection range than something like CEA-FAR. Now CEA is working on a follow-on to CEA-FAR called AUSPAR, with some assistance and/or funding from the US. I do recall suggestions that the Anzac follow-on frigates be equipped with AUSPAR if it is available, and if not, the using CEA-FAR.

As far as i know there is more to radar performance than power/aperture ratio's, As i understand it SAMPSON has a comparable detection radius than SPY-1D. That's not to say that SPY-1D would not have a greater detection radius than a comparably sized AESA based system.

The CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR are significantly less powerful than the SPY-1 and Mk 99 illuminator. The CEAMOUNT illuminator would not be able to designate targets at the maximum range of the SM-2MR not to mention SM-2ER. The detection range of CEAFAR is about half that of SPY-1D.

Thanks Abraham. I understand CEAFAR is easily scalable though, do you mean even with a comparable aperture?

IN addition is there a case for CEA-MOUNT illuminator installation in addition to the Mk99 purely for ESSM? It seems that in the 2015~2020 time frame the ANZAC will be better equiped to survive swarm ASCM attacks through better point defence, i.e. the ability to engage 17 simultaneous targets vs 2.

This is why Australia and the USA is funding the CEA/Northrop Grumman AUSPAR program to build on the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT technology to develop a high power (SPY-1/Mk 99 level) version.

Within the life of the Hobart class it is likely that they will carry an all CEA radar fit in place of the SPY-1D, SPQ-9B and Mk 99s but it won't be until the MLU refit.

Ahh, ok. So we will see a CEA-FAR development on the AWD within its lifetime?

SPG-62, they are excellent illuminators, fast moving, reliable, rugged, well understood and resistant to jamming.
Besides once SM-6 makes an appearance the lack of a 3rd illuminator won't matter so much.

I understand that currently there is no ESSM replacement ala SM-6(?) thus a more capable illuminator will still be needed for point defence.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

SPG-62, they are excellent illuminators, fast moving, reliable, rugged, well understood and resistant to jamming.

Plus they also put out enough power that they can cause mission kills by themselves.

Besides once SM-6 makes an appearance the lack of a 3rd illuminator won't matter so much.

I don't think many Navy users will be rushing to all SM-6 active homing fitouts anytime soon. The SM-6 will provide a great over the horizon capability as long as it can be cued but the advantage of illumination cued by a phased array radar is much lower susceptibility to being decoyed.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

For ESSM at least I'm sure it is.

The way the Mk 99 FCS works with AEGIS and the CEAMOUNT/CEAFAR is using continuous wave terminal illumination. So each illuminator is only required for the last few seconds of the engagement. The AWD with two SPG-62 illuminators will be able to engage multiple anti-ship missiles with ESSM.

Thanks Abraham. I understand CEAFAR is easily scalable though, do you mean even with a comparable aperture?

All phased array radars are inherent scalable. CEAFAR is built in tiles so you can increase the apperture this way. Each face on the ANZAC will have four tiles. But this is not going to increase the peak power output of the radar system.

IN addition is there a case for CEA-MOUNT illuminator installation in addition to the Mk99 purely for ESSM? It seems that in the 2015~2020 time frame the ANZAC will be better equiped to survive swarm ASCM attacks through better point defence, i.e. the ability to engage 17 simultaneous targets vs 2.

That's not quite right and only a typical on paper calculation. AEGIS is all about CEC: cooperative engagement capability. In the coming over the horizon battle a task force of AWDs and ANZACs will complement each other. Their radars will work together and they will share missiles and terminal illumination to shoot down or decoy all the threats. For example while the four CEA MOUNT faces provide better all round coverage the two SPG-62 provide far more power which can help illumination during weather effects and so on.

 

[splat]

Plus they also put out enough power that they can cause mission kills by themselves.

When you say spg-62 can put out enough power that they can cause mission kills themselves,what exactly does that mean?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I understand that currently there is no ESSM replacement ala SM-6(?) thus a more capable illuminator will still be needed for point defence.

Actually there is. The SLAMRAAM-ER is an AIM-120 active homing seeker with an ESSM missile body. So I guess if you considered it an ESSM missile with an AIM-120 seeker it could be a ship launched weapon.]

But naval users are more than happy with the CWI ESSM capability. Certainly with a ship with five illuminators like the ANZAC after the ASMD. Such a ship would run out of missiles before it would be swamped with simultaneous ASM barrages. All that without the decoy risk active homers take.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

When you say spg-62 can put out enough power that they can cause mission kills themselves,what exactly does that mean?

That against most targets it will be a mission kill just to be illuminated by the SPG-62. A mission kill is something like the radar and avionics goes unserviceable and the pilot's teeth start falling out and he can't think because his brain is heating up...

Fortunately the best thing about a SPG-62 illumination is there is an SM-2 missile a few seconds away about to put you out of your misery.

 

[splat]

Plus they also put out enough power that they can cause mission kills by themselves.



I don't think many Navy users will be rushing to all SM-6 active homing fitouts anytime soon. The SM-6 will provide a great over the horizon capability as long as it can be cued but the advantage of illumination cued by a phased array radar is much lower susceptibility to being decoyed.

That against most targets it will be a mission kill just to be illuminated by the SPG-62. A mission kill is something like the radar and avionics goes unserviceable and the pilot's teeth start falling out and he can't think because his brain is heating up...

Fortunately the best thing about a SPG-62 illumination is there is an SM-2 missile a few seconds away about to put you out of your misery.

Ok i see thanks.

Mabey they need to come up with a type of sunscreen derivative to coat weapon,aircraft and man in.

 

[AegisFC]

Plus they also put out enough power that they can cause mission kills by themselves.

I know SPY can easily mission kill electronics and wild life, haven't heard that about the SPG's though.

I don't think many Navy users will be rushing to all SM-6 active homing fitouts anytime soon. The SM-6 will provide a great over the horizon capability as long as it can be cued but the advantage of illumination cued by a phased array radar is much lower susceptibility to being decoyed.

I never implied that they would, SM-6 is just another great option to help defend the battlegroup.

 

[StevoJH]

That against most targets it will be a mission kill just to be illuminated by the SPG-62. A mission kill is something like the radar and avionics goes unserviceable and the pilot's teeth start falling out and he can't think because his brain is heating up...

Fortunately the best thing about a SPG-62 illumination is there is an SM-2 missile a few seconds away about to put you out of your misery.

I believe i've read the same about the iluminators for Sea Dart on the Type 42's.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The way the Mk 99 FCS works with AEGIS and the CEAMOUNT/CEAFAR is using continuous wave terminal illumination. So each illuminator is only required for the last few seconds of the engagement. The AWD with two SPG-62 illuminators will be able to engage multiple anti-ship missiles with ESSM.

So the SM-2/ESSM will utilize mid course updates until the missile reached the terminal stage?

All phased array radars are inherent scalable. CEAFAR is built in tiles so you can increase the apperture this way. Each face on the ANZAC will have four tiles. But this is not going to increase the peak power output of the radar system.

AFAIK Passive arrays are not as easily scalable because you have to amp up the single EM source, compared to you're AESA where you just add more modules? In any case i was just clarifying we were talking about a scaled up CEAFAR. Having more tiles on a single facing should increase the systems peak power output in conjunction with the increased aperture. Unless I'm missing something, by increasing the amount of T/R modules you increase the systems peak power.

That's not quite right and only a typical on paper calculation. AEGIS is all about CEC: cooperative engagement capability. In the coming over the horizon battle a task force of AWDs and ANZACs will complement each other. Their radars will work together and they will share missiles and terminal illumination to shoot down or decoy all the threats. For example while the four CEA MOUNT faces provide better all round coverage the two SPG-62 provide far more power which can help illumination during weather effects and so on.

Yeah i see what you mean. Still if the AWD is relying on point defence i.e. ESSM, CEC may not have a huge impact (other assets would probably not be close enough to engage the incoming). As I understand it CEC will have a much grater impact on area defence, thus the additional simultaneous engagement capacity should increase the vessels survivability. I guess the question is is it worth the investment.

Actually there is. The SLAMRAAM-ER is an AIM-120 active homing seeker with an ESSM missile body. So I guess if you considered it an ESSM missile with an AIM-120 seeker it could be a ship launched weapon.]

Yeah i've heard of this, SLAMRAAM has been around for a while AFAIK, it is vehicle mounted yeah? In any case i hadnt heard of any plans to navalise the system.

But naval users are more than happy with the CWI ESSM capability. Certainly with a ship with five illuminators like the ANZAC after the ASMD. Such a ship would run out of missiles before it would be swamped with simultaneous ASM barrages. All that without the decoy risk active homers take.

Thats what i was thinking. Once you have the illumination capacity, and your working in point defence then there cant be a great advantage to active seekers.

I don't think many Navy users will be rushing to all SM-6 active homing fitouts anytime soon. The SM-6 will provide a great over the horizon capability as long as it can be cued but the advantage of illumination cued by a phased array radar is much lower susceptibility to being decoyed.

As i understand it SM-6 can be function in an SARH mode in the same manner as SM-2. IIRC AMRAAM can. If that is the case then there seems to be no reason to retain SM-2 considering SM-6 simply gives you the option of over the Horizon engagement in addition to legacy capability.

 

[ThePuss]

ASC SALE WILL NOT PROCEED
The Rudd Government announced today that the sale of ASC Pty Ltd, formerly the Australian Submarine Corporation will not proceed at this time.

Lindsay Tanner, Minister for Finance and Deregulation and Joel Fitzgibbon, Minister for Defence emphasised that the current uncertainty in global financial markets presented significant risks to a successful sale of the company. In addition, a sale in the short term could complicate the operations of the company given ASC is currently building the Royal Australian Navy’s Air Warfare Destroyers and likely to be considered in any future submarine build program.

Lindsay Tanner thanked the business, legal and process advisers to the sale, Lazard Carnegie Wylie, Freehills and Sparke Helmore, for their work in helping prepare ASC for sale.

Lindsay Tanner said: “It is unfortunate that the current economic climate presents significant risks to a successful sale of ASC. However, the work undertaken in preparing ASC for sale will provide valuable lessons for the Commonwealth’s roles as owner and customer in the future”.

Lindsay Tanner and Joel Fitzgibbon also thanked ASC’s Board of Directors and management team for their assistance and professionalism in preparing the company for sale.

Source DOD

Well this really was the only decission that could of been made in the current economic crisis.
However I hope the government decides to retain ownership in the long term as having the yard in government hands makes getting technology transfers much easier. If the yard was sold it would be likley end up as foreign owned and the Americans are scared of their technology leaking to foreign competitors. So having the yard owned by our government means that America is much happier to deal with us when it comes to sensitive equipment such as submarine components.

This dose not just apply to naval dock yards as we should never of sold ADI as it ended up being French owned an the Americans refused to deal with it.
I believe we would of sold hundreds of Bushmasters to the USA by now if the proceeds had not been going to "The Frenchies". After all they probably would of thought that ADI standed for "American Defence Industries" any way :

Call me old fashioned but I don't feel comfortable with our domestic arms and munitions manufacturer base being foreign owned.