Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[justsomeaussie]

I don't know who 'wolfhound' is, but I know who you are. When you speak fallaciously about a company's products and systems online you mispresent the company publically. I appreciate this is done out of ignorance but presenting information as factual when it is incorrect damages a companies reputation

I ask you once again to please check your facts, call whoever you need to.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I ask you once again to please check your facts, call whoever you need to.

So you won't answer the question? You just 'know' the facts are wrong?

So what are you talking about the performance of the radars? I did notice I used the antenna weights and sizes of CEA MOUNT from back when it was first marketed in an initial brochure. This was because this was when CEA and BAE were talking about SM2 capable illuminators - which was what this discussion was all about.As I understand it the system on the ANZAC is smaller and lighter. But what about the performance – that is the same.

 

[Volkodav]

I don't know who 'wolfhound' is, but I know who you are. When you speak fallaciously about a company's products and systems online you mispresent the company publically. I appreciate this is done out of ignorance but presenting information as factual when it is incorrect damages a companies reputation

I ask you once again to please check your facts, call whoever you need to.

Wolfhound is a rough translation of volkodav, not quite right but near enough.

Are you able to elaborate, I take it you have issue with the suggested limitations of CEAMOUNT, can we take it that CEAMOUNT would be a satisfactory system with which to upgrade the AWD?

I had assumed CEAMOUNT was not incorporated in the AWD as it was seen as a risk to schedule and not for any technical reason. Raytheon’s Australian combat system was developed to permit the RAN to integrate systems into the AWD without the need to get the US to integrate it into AEGIS so integration wasn't the issue either.

My suggestion of fitting CEAFAR as well was not based on any info I have seen but purely on the basis of why not. Fitting both to replace legacy systems seemed like an elegant solution to save weight, improve performance and reliability as well as likely reducing through life costs, including training, based on commonality with the ANZAC upgrade.

 

[StobieWan]

When you speak fallaciously about a company's products and systems online you mispresent the company publically.
I ask you once again to please check your facts, call whoever you need to.

Any clues on that one? I'm assuming everything that's been discussed is open source so can be checked factually quite easily. What part of what's been discussed is incorrect?

Ian

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Any clues on that one? I'm assuming everything that's been discussed is open source so can be checked factually quite easily. What part of what's been discussed is incorrect?

That makes three of us at least who want an answer to this allegation. "Justsome" has logged on earlier today after I called him out to say what he is talking about and he hasn't bothered to respond. Considering everything I've said here about CEA radars is stuff I've learnt from CEA, Saab or the RAN/DoD I'd be very interested as to where I've misrepresented their products...

 

[Aussie Digger]

I don't know who 'wolfhound' is, but I know who you are. When you speak fallaciously about a company's products and systems online you mispresent the company publically. I appreciate this is done out of ignorance but presenting information as factual when it is incorrect damages a companies reputation

I ask you once again to please check your facts, call whoever you need to.

Mod edit:

The point of a discussion board should be quite obvious. If you want to discuss a topic, than please feel free to have a bo-peep at our rules and then contribute.

If you take umbrage at a certain statement/s made by a poster, feel free to disprove them or provide counter arguments adequately, hopefully even supported by some sort of reference.

Simply casting un-supported assertions at others is NOT what this site is designed for and won't be tolerated. Knowing Abe, I'm sure he'll be more than happy to take this discussion offline with you, should you not wish to proceed in such a matter. Otherwise, give it a rest.

AD

 

[Volkodav]

That makes three of us at least who want an answer to this allegation. "Justsome" has logged on earlier today after I called him out to say what he is talking about and he hasn't bothered to respond. Considering everything I've said here about CEA radars is stuff I've learnt from CEA, Saab or the RAN/DoD I'd be very interested as to where I've misrepresented their products...

There have been hints that CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR have exceeded expectations.

PERTH would likely have completed her CAT 4 testing by now, I'm not sure but maybe CAT 5 as well as I believe she has put to sea. CAT 6 is due early next year but the CAT 5 testing may already have indicated better than expected performance.

The impression I have received from people in the know is that this system is very good and will provide a capability far in excess of that originally anticipated. With the new seekers planned for SM 6 and ESSM Block II it could be anticipated that any perceived disadvantage CEAMOUNT may have vis SPG-62 would become irrelevant.

The greatest issue the AWD has in replacing or upgrading SPY-1 is, as you have stated, cooling and power requirements. The Hobarts simply don’t have the spare volume to incorporate the increased auxiliary machinery that will be required for most upgrades being postulated for the Flight II Burkes. There is no second hanger to convert to an additional generator room. This is why the growth plan looks for options to reduce weight and free up cooling and power budget. The Evolved design would have been better in this respect, but that is water under the bridge.

I don’t need to know but would like to.

 

[StobieWan]

ESSM has been integrated with the AIM-120 seeker as the (SLAMRAAM-ER) so potentially could provide an Aster 15 replacement without the need for terminal illumination. But such a replacement would also be a very big task because you would also have to integrate the radar mid course update for the new missile. Without mid course update an active homing missile like Aster or AIM-120 is not very effective. The RN is pretty much stuck with PAAMS/Aster/Sea Viper and has to make a go of it.

Cheers - the original discussion was definitely just to do with ESSM being a cheap and easy fix - I'm personally thinking working the CEA MOUNT panels into the topweight of the Type-45, providing it with cooling and power, making sure it didn't interfere with the SAMPSON set, plus integrating ESSM with Sylver silos would be a bit much work. Anyways, I regard SeaViper as working after the admiralty board had at it - they're sailing the ships likely to be most directly affected by an incoming missile.

I do think CEA FAR/CEA MOUNT is a nice application of technology mind.

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

Cheers - the original discussion was definitely just to do with ESSM being a cheap and easy fix - I'm personally thinking working the CEA MOUNT panels into the topweight of the Type-45, providing it with cooling and power, making sure it didn't interfere with the SAMPSON set, plus integrating ESSM with Sylver silos would be a bit much work. Anyways, I regard SeaViper as working after the admiralty board had at it - they're sailing the ships likely to be most directly affected by an incoming missile.

I do think CEA FAR/CEA MOUNT is a nice application of technology mind.

Ian

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Type 45 designed with space and weight for a strike length Mk 41 VLS for possible employment of Tomahawk?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

There have been hints that CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR have exceeded expectations.

I’ve heard similar to but even if CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR perform at say 150% of specified capability they are a long way from SPY-1/SPG62.

With the new seekers planned for SM 6 and ESSM Block II it could be anticipated that any perceived disadvantage CEAMOUNT may have vis SPG-62 would become irrelevant.

SM-6 is still being built with an ICWI terminal homing capability in addition to the active homing. This is because active homing is vulnerable to decoy.

The best solution is of course to have both and with an AEGIS ship the RAN can be using Cooperative Engagement Capability. An AWD with one or more ASMD upgraded Anzacs and a Wedgetail as co-operators is going to have extremely high radar coverage and with SM-6 a layered defence.

Under such a situation the CEAMOUNT can provide the close range (radar horizon) illumination for high assurance engagement and a mix of active and AEW&C illumination for outer layer and over the horizon. But I wouldn’t be so quick to dismount the SPG-62 because it can provide long range, high altitude illumination against enemy fighters to defend the AEW&C.

Also its excess power for ESSM range engagements is good to have around in heavy weather.

 

[StobieWan]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't the Type 45 designed with space and weight for a strike length Mk 41 VLS for possible employment of Tomahawk?

There's space for'ard of the existing Sylver 50 cells that could take an additional set of cells - either Mk41 or one of the Sylver family. Sylver 70 (strike length) will fit into the existing space taken by the Aster/Sea Viper cells right now -- there's space under them that can be used - -although there was talk of having to remove the gym or some other space.

So, bags of room for growth there.

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

But I wouldn’t be so quick to dismount the SPG-62 because it can provide long range, high altitude illumination against enemy fighters to defend the AEW&C.

The issue is the weight and how high up they are (installation and alignment are also a PITA), before we fit anything else something has to be removed. SPY is probably the most difficult system to replace as the superstructure is built around it, the horizon search set and the directors are much easier options to replace and the older tech as well.

Ironically I hope they don't last long enough to need a replacement for SPY, the way we use ships compared to the Armada they will be shagged at 20 years let alone 30 or 40!

Do a new hull design for the ANZAC replacements, go all electric and look at adapting that for an AWD replacement if we desperately need to get new AWD systems to sea around 2030-35 (mid life update window).

 

[StingrayOZ]

I thought adapting ceamount to a AWD would assist in one area it was somewhat deficent, illuminators (F-100 has 2?). Plus would provide redudancy for a very key area.

Do a new hull design for the ANZAC replacements, go all electric and look at adapting that for an AWD replacement if we desperately need to get new AWD systems to sea around 2030-35 (mid life update window).

Electric fixed prop? New hull? Sounds expensive and time consuming. F-100 hull with Auspar seems more likely for anzac replacements. But if we can flog off the AWD around 2030-2040, then we could build new AWD's. Maintaining production facillities, skills and stable levels of production etc.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The issue is the weight and how high up they are (installation and alignment are also a PITA), before we fit anything else something has to be removed. SPY is probably the most difficult system to replace as the superstructure is built around it, the horizon search set and the directors are much easier options to replace and the older tech as well.

But whatever weight (and power drain) savings you have by replacing SPG-62 with CEAMOUNT are not worth it to lose terminal illumination of long rang, high altitude targets.

I thought adapting ceamount to a AWD would assist in one area it was somewhat deficent, illuminators (F-100 has 2?). Plus would provide redudancy for a very key area.

This is not such a tactical issue as it once was. ESSM, SM-2, etc only require illumination at their terminal phase of interception so the combat system time shares a large number of airborne missiles with a single illuminator. The biggest problem with only two illuminators is what happens when one breaks down: you suffer a lot of degradation.

The ASMD has four illuminators so they can cover 360 degrees. Originally CEA MOUNT was on a trainable mounting so two could cover 360 degrees. But as cost and weight of the faces was driven down it became cheaper to fix four rather than train two. Also the training mount was designed and owned by BAE so the fixed system was an all CEA affair.

PS In case "Justsome" wants to accuse me of misrepresentation the info in that last paragraph was explained to me by the CEA CEO...

 

[justsomeaussie]

But whatever weight (and power drain) savings you have by replacing SPG-62 with CEAMOUNT are not worth it to lose terminal illumination of long rang, high altitude targets.



This is not such a tactical issue as it once was. ESSM, SM-2, etc only require illumination at their terminal phase of interception so the combat system time shares a large number of airborne missiles with a single illuminator. The biggest problem with only two illuminators is what happens when one breaks down: you suffer a lot of degradation.

The ASMD has four illuminators so they can cover 360 degrees. Originally CEA MOUNT was on a trainable mounting so two could cover 360 degrees. But as cost and weight of the faces was driven down it became cheaper to fix four rather than train two. Also the training mount was designed and owned by BAE so the fixed system was an all CEA affair.

PS In case "Justsome" wants to accuse me of misrepresentation the info in that last paragraph was explained to me by the CEA CEO...

I apologise if I didn't wait with bated breath for your reply. Yes, I'm a defence professional former military who is quite familiar with this system. I'll pass on your regards next time i'm in Fyshwick. As you've chosen to use your real name in this forum your journalistic credentials are also on show and that means your ability to research and present information correctly. If you were unsure of the capabilities of a system you should of called the company rather than present old information as new.

I'm not about to start some personal flame war, just that if you think industry isn't monitoring these forums you have to be kidding yourself. I'll leave this here and final.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I apologise if I didn't wait with bated breath for your reply.

Actually I was referring to the moment about an hour after my reply in which your log on was clearly show to be active on this page for sometime and no reply was made. So it had nothing to do with assuming you must wait around for a reply but rather that you had an opportunity to reply but chose not to. Only now after quite a few people, including moderators, have waded in have you deigned us with a response, which I note is still completely counter fact free:

Yes, I'm a defence professional former military who is quite familiar with this system. I'll pass on your regards next time i'm in Fyshwick. As you've chosen to use your real name in this forum your journalistic credentials are also on show and that means your ability to research and present information correctly. If you were unsure of the capabilities of a system you should of called the company rather than present old information as new.

I'm not about to start some personal flame war, just that if you think industry isn't monitoring these forums you have to be kidding yourself. I'll leave this here and final.

You’ve already started a flame war by defaming and slandering me and refusing to back it with any evidence. You haven’t even bothered to clarify where I’ve written something that is ‘wrong’ just alluded that it is all wrong. I’ve presented nothing but factual information no matter how much you want to read into it. You’ve also implied a lot of things about the company CEA which I very much doubt their management has authorised you to do so.

Of course I’m aware that by using my real name what I write is public here. It’s hardly something I need to be reminded of as it’s a choice I made. Your pathetic attempts to bully me over it simply show you up as a goon. You’re just a defamer and slanderer trying to intimidate me out of a very reasonable opinion.

Judging by your comments to date you seem to have a problem with understanding basic factual evidence. The fact remains: the CEA FAR and CEA MOUNT system is not, is not intended to and does not replicate the capability of SPY-1D and SPG-62. You have here and in another discussion about similar capabilities made some very lose with the facts assertions about these radars capabilities like your knowledge poor assertions about SPY-1.

Far from my ‘credentials’ being under question it is you who can be judged to be wanting.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'm not sure where I've mentioned that CEAFAR is comparible to the SPY-1. They preform quite different functions and roles. Still quite simply the SPY-1 is legacy technology. Technology like the CEAFAR and MF-STAR are what the programs like AMDR are trying to achieve:

AMDR-Competition-The-USAs-Next-Dual-Band-Radar-05682/]AMDR Competition: The USA’s Next Dual-Band Radar

It is frustrating however seeing stats and specifications quoted online when they are simply wrong, hence why I encouraged you to call the company and inform yourself. I probably shouldn't have spoken up as i'm also not in a position to provide "correct" data as it simply isn't published in the public domain.

As a former employee I'm happy wax lyrical about the technologies capabilities. It's amazing stuff with huge potential in many domains. Anyone wandering past their stand at LWC will appreciate.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

It is frustrating however seeing stats and specifications quoted online when they are simply wrong, hence why I encouraged you to call the company and inform yourself. I probably shouldn't have spoken up as i'm also not in a position to provide "correct" data as it simply isn't published in the public domain.

So if you’d said something as reasonable as this 4-5 posts ago then you could have avoided all this hoopla? Of course I can only type what is open source and revealed as well. Contracting with the DoD has a habit of seeing information disappear from the open source…

The antenna sizes and weights for CEA MOUNT are from official CEA information releases. As I said I understand they are smaller and lighter on the ASMD upgrade. Also those data sheets are from the context of when CEA were talking about illumination for medium and long range targets, ie ESSM and SM-2 BIII engagement ranges, which is the whole point of the discussion. Providing a comparitive basis for the difference required to achieve the aim (ESSM vs SM-2). Sure CEA PAR is scalable but a very small and light array that can be fitted to a tank to detect incoming ATGMs or dismounts crawling in the bushes is not going to be able to illuminate for an SM-2 engaging at a 100km slant range on a cloudy day.

PS the CEO I was talking to was M.A.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Do a new hull design for the ANZAC replacements, go all electric and look at adapting that for an AWD replacement if we desperately need to get new AWD systems to sea around 2030-35 (mid life update window).

Electric fixed prop? New hull? Sounds expensive and time consuming. F-100 hull with Auspar seems more likely for anzac replacements. But if we can flog off the AWD around 2030-2040, then we could build new AWD's. Maintaining production facillities, skills and stable levels of production etc.

There are a lot of advantages in a new hull with electric propulsion for the SEA 5000 project. If the project is going to be resourced for it, like SEA 1000, then a tailored domestic design using the latest proven technology is certainly the way to go. The SEA 5000 ship is going to be the majority of the future surface combatant fleet so trying to leverage commonality from the SEA 4000 (AWD) ship is only advantageous if there is nothing better to be had (ie just another CODAG, ~6,000 tonne ship).

Also there has been some discussion in the Navy/CDG about using SEA 5000 to build more AEGIS capable ships so the fleet can achieve the right balance. The AEGIS command and decision suite (the computers here, not the SPY-1 radars) is far more capable than the 9LV Mk 4 combat system and would make the best core for the SEA 5000. If you could build such a ship: new hull, electric propulsion, AEGIS C&D, force level ASW system, mission deck and CEA radars then you would have an excellent capability with a very good growth path for future capability.

 

[Pusser01]

There have been hints that CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR have exceeded expectations.

PERTH would likely have completed her CAT 4 testing by now, I'm not sure but maybe CAT 5 as well as I believe she has put to sea. CAT 6 is due early next year but the CAT 5 testing may already have indicated better than expected performance.

Perth hasn't sailed this year, other than the cold move from Henderson. She isn't scheduled to until after the New Year. Some testing is being done alongside FBW over the next month with a Pel-Air GAT36.
Cheers