Thanks for that, I wasn't sure where they were up to at the moment. Its exciting stuff and so far seems to have been run very sensibly, I can’t wait to hear how everything goes.
Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter icelord
- Start date
- Status
Info in the latest cleared DMO report (Jun 2010) indicates that Perth is to finish sea testing by July 2011 with IOC in June 2011. Also the production cost of the PAR System (CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT) to date (assumedly a single ship set) is $64.4m. Which isn’t that bad considering it’s the first production set.
The big advantage of all electric is it permits the propulsion diesels / GTs to be used to provide electrical power to other systems meaning you have access to much more power than on a conventional gearbox / shaft / controllable pitch propeller set up with separate generators spotted around the ship.
Remove the shaft lines and you have greater freedom to locate your machinery spaces. Imagine the GTs being located in the superstructure immediately below the funnels, imagine all the volume you save to use for other purposes through deleting the intake and exhaust trunking, the gearboxes and the shafts. They would also be much easier to access for maintenance or even replacement. As they would be paired with generators it then also becomes simpler to increase power output as you would just replace the combined unit with a more powerful set without having to worry about the rating of the drive train.
The next advantage is fuel economy; the Type 45 has delivered much better than expected consumption figures. This provides greater operational range for a given fuel load, or a higher speed for a given range. Through life cost will be significantly lower, especially for a navy that covers the distances the RAN does.
Yes it is very expensive but it will be worth it.
That cheap, at that sort of price would it be worth fitting to the LHDs? Would it be possible to work in an 8 cell SDL Mk41 to give the Canberras a self defence capability?
Would thid be worth while?
The LHDs will already have a pretty good search and track radar and wouldn’t need too much modification to carry and shoot ESSM. But what would be the advantage/disadvantage to the RAN of such? The LHDs as deployed as the ADAS are likely to have at least one AWD and 2-3 Anzac ASMD class ships in attendance. Adding two more ESSM shooters in an inner layer to this equation isn’t going to be transformational. The downside is shooting rockets – especially vertically – tends to be a major disruption to your air traffic control operations. So whenever there is a chance for engagement the LHDs will have to cancel their flight operations to clear the missile launcher. A more capable VSRAD system for the LHDs is a reasonable idea – something like RAM and/or Phalanx but unless they are planned to operate independently ESSM is overkill and will negatively impact the primary role.\
Absolutely. But does the RAN have the billion plus to buy it and another 400-500 in personnel numbers to be able to sustain it in service? Nope. They should but they don’t.
It's a nice idea; but I'm not sure if it would be practical given that it would have to be done by the USN; and if it is in fact they did agree I don't suppose it would be cheap. Given the centrality of SPY to the AEGIS structure, which would have to be replaced, I don't think you could do it through the sort of stand alone interface the AWD is using for the non USN combat systems. And then if we did we'd have an orphan version of the AEGIS software; unless, of course we can persuade the USN to pick up the total package, maybe for an LCS+?
Command and Decision (CND) and Aegis Display System (ADS) are independent of SPY. With the appropriate NTDS inputs into CND replacing SPY with a different radar suite would be no problem (I'm simplifying but it is doable).
The Lockheed version of LCS uses a modified CND system so it has already been done.
justsomeaussie
Member
Sounds like a nitemare to integrate. Surely a more easy solution would be the integration of CEC into another CMS (such as 9LV). What other advantages are we gaining by other parts of AEGIS? We could end up with a problem like the SPY-1F where it's pretty much legacy as soon as it was built.
Agree it would be doable (by the US, that is, not by Aust on its own; hence the comment about LCS+) - but is it sensible and financially reasonable to try to do it?
I doubt 9LV has the grunt to run CEC or provide the same kind of processing for long range phased array volume search and track. AEGIS CND/ADS is pretty much top of the line in processing (hardware and software) and is continually upgraded with new technology inserts. Certainly at a lot higher rate than 9LV has been upgraded. AEGIS CND/ADS plus the CEA PAR System provides a growth capability to take on the longer range AUSPAR radars and act basically as a ‘short range’ AWD (even with the current CEA PAR System). Also the other factor in this is SEA 5000’s ASW focus. Does 9LV have the capability to manage a force level ASW system like on the AWD? If not you will need 9LV plus the ASW system (as in the AWD but with AEGIS instead of 9LV) so will not be saving anything in combining an above and below water combat system.
I don’t see this as more complex than integrating the CEA PAR System with 9LV. Its taking an off the shelf combat system and an off the shelf radar system and joining them together. Especially since both the combat system and the radar system should be well understood and proven within the RAN in 10 years time and the PAR System as a co-operator in AEGIS CEC.
justsomeaussie
Member
AEGIS with a non SPY-1 radar will blow some minds in industry no doubt. It's an interesting concept. Guess it's really the only way forward in the new coalition combined forces.
Agreed, Raytheon were contracted as the Combat System integrator on the AWD project for the simple reason the requirement to integrate non USN systems within an AEGIS platform was foreseen. The fact we don’t have multiple layers complementary ships means our ships each will need to be able to fill more roles than is the case for the USN.
I am curious though, I have heard that although AEGIS is supreme in covering huge volumes of air space that there are European systems that offer better perfomance in high intensity environments over short to medium ranges, is this the case? Would we be better off continuing to differentiate between our AWD and GP escorts types with the GP frigate being dedicated to short to medium range?
I think this is more to do with the types of radars being used not the combat systems processing the radar measurements. SPY-1 is S Band passive electronically scanned array whereas APAR is an X Band active electronically scanned array. S Band provides better long range capability and the PESA higher power output. X Band provides higher resolution and AESA can generate more beams and mroe agile beams. CEAFAR and SAMPSON are S Band AESAs.
Really naive question would it be possible to interleave X and S band elements in the same panel? And could an X band AESA be used for high resolution horizon search as well as terminal guidance?
That is the objective of the USN’s Dual Band Radar (DBR) but rather than combine them in a single face combines three faces of X Band and three faces of S Band. By interleaving the different elements in the same face you would be reducing the size of the antenna and complicating the physical arrangement.
The advantage of PAR Systems like the CEA system is the cost and weight of the panels is reduced so you can have a large number of arrays. This could include 12 faces with six S Band Volume Search Radar faces and six X Band Multi Function Radar faces.
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/stellent/groups/ids/documents/content/cms04_014621.pdf
Yes they are on the APAR and the DBR. X Band AESA for both horizon search and terminal guidance tend to be called Multi Function Radars (MFR).
Thanks for that, radars and combat systems really arn't my thing, I'm more of a platform guy but when time allows I try to fill in the gaps. These days its all whole of system rather than system specific.
If you want to fit 12 faces (6 of VSR and 6 of MSR) to a frigate it is very much a platform issue. You need to find the surface area (up high of course) to hold them. TK did some twin superstructure stuff with the MEKO D and MEKO X that might be the way to go. Of course the US went the path of an uber superstructure with the DDG 1000. Top hamper managemet is more than just RADHAZ but very much a design issue just to fit all the antennas in. Especially with all the length demands of VLS, helo flight decks/hangars and multi mission decks.
justsomeaussie
Member
X band is horribly attenuated by weather though. Digital beamforming S and L bands at an elemental level should be able to give the accuracy of X band but with the performance and range of S and to some extent L.
I wonder how far off Raytheon, LM and NG are from achieving the AMDR. By all accounts I've heard they are still many years away from achieving anything useful.
A
Aussie Digger
Guest
The latest ANAO audit provides some "interesting" though obviously well known data that I feel is rather applicable to this point.
21 projects are reviewed. 12 projects have schedule delays, 8 are on schedule and 1 is ahead of schedule.
Of those 12 schedule delayed projects, 5 are also significantly "above" budget.
None of the 9 at or ahead of schedule projects (IIRC) are above budget.
Each of the on or ahead (and under budget) projects are MOTS acquisitions. EVERY over schedule and over budget projects are "Australianised MOTS" or "developmental" projects.
Doesn't speak well of Defence Industry (Australian or otherwise). Doesn't speak well of Defence when "scope creep" is largely to blame for schedule delays either, but then "scope creep" couldn't occur if Defence Industry didn't agree to the contract change proposals allowing it to enter into the projects...
To me, the introduction to service of the capability Australia needs to defend herself should be the number 1 priority. Domestic defence Industry investment should NOT be a priority for Government in preference to the delivery of useable capability and developmental projects, especially whilst defence industry is demonstrably unable to deliver on schedule and under budget on existing projects. If work performance improves, the scope and potential profit should improve likewise...
These points are a heresy no doubt, but I fail to understand WHY such a situation continues again and again.
The replacement of SPG-62 with CEAMOUNT etc seems to me to be a case in point. SPG-62 will provide GOOD capability. An EXCELLENT capability in fact. One that the USN is using as it's frontline capability. CEAMOUNT remains developmental. Therefore UNTIL it demonstrates a sound operational capability (as opposed to theoretical development) it should be the province of industry to "prove" it. Defence should concern itself with introducing it's planned capability into service and achieve "professional mastery" of the capability before scope creep or capability upgrade is even considered.
I understand the "cutting edge of technology" issue very well, but defence so often repeats that PEOPLE are the true determinate of capability NOT the platform itself, that it beggars belief that IF this mantra is actually believed then WHY should the platform in the capability acquisition phase, be changed around or re-configured so much during it's introduction to service that the change itself actually and directly impedes the introduction to service...
It's bureaucracy gone mad. Personally I'd rather see ALL current proposals for weapons platforms upgrades/replacements completely halted UNTIL current acquisitions actually give us a useable capability and ALL current project management resources are devoted to delivering the capabilities we already have planned.
Project Overlander is a case in point. Scope creep and operational realities (ie: Army is finally realising that non-protected vehicles can't operate in a modern battlespace littered with IED's, mines and light/heavy anti-armour weapons and are in fact only useful for peacetime training activities NOT operations) have completely stuffed that program, leading to unbelivable schedule delays to what will, at the end of the day, provide ADF with new light and medium utility vehicles, hardly the most technically complex project.
God only knows what someone actually firing modern anti-ship missiles at the ANZAC Class or AWD's would actually do to those platforms...
- Status