Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates

[StobieWan]

Radar Basics[/url]

I'm a bit dubious about the link cited there as it states the SPY-1 is an E/F band radar whereas Lockmart's site state it's an S band. The site also claims that the SPY-1 transmits simultaneously in all directions at all times - which I don't *think* is correct - Friedman states that the faces transmit in sequence and that a complete picture is synthesised in software but I'll welcome any input from anyone who can add to my understanding of how SPY-1 does work.

In summary that's one total howler and one "I think it's wrong" in the space of a half page of text. The rest may be totally and absolutely correct but I'd certainly cross check anything from that site before using it as a reference based on that kind of a batting average.

Ian

 

[AegisFC]

I'm a bit dubious about the link cited there as it states the SPY-1 is an E/F band radar whereas Lockmart's site state it's an S band. The site also claims that the SPY-1 transmits simultaneously in all directions at all times - which I don't *think* is correct - Friedman states that the faces transmit in sequence and that a complete picture is synthesised in software but I'll welcome any input from anyone who can add to my understanding of how SPY-1 does work.

In summary that's one total howler and one "I think it's wrong" in the space of a half page of text. The rest may be totally and absolutely correct but I'd certainly cross check anything from that site before using it as a reference based on that kind of a batting average.

Ian

The site uses NATO radio bands rather than IEEE radar bands most other sources use in fact that is the first time I've seen radars listed like that.

That site is incorrect about the way SPY transmits. SPY-1A,B and D only radiate out of one array face per transmitter (A and B have two transmitters while D and D(V) have one) at a time and D(V) can radiate out of 2 opposite faces at a time so it has double the scan rate.

It also gets the number of elements wrong and the size of the arrays slightly wrong.

I think whoever wrote that page had a very old copy of Janes or other old document for reference back since it only mentions UYK-7.

In short even Wiki has better general info about the SPY-1 series.

 

[StobieWan]

The site uses NATO radio bands rather than IEEE radar bands most other sources use in fact that is the first time I've seen radars listed like that.

That site is incorrect about the way SPY transmits. SPY-1A,B and D only radiate out of one array face per transmitter (A and B have two transmitters while D and D(V) have one) at a time and D(V) can radiate out of 2 opposite faces at a time so it has double the scan rate.

It also gets the number of elements wrong and the size of the arrays slightly wrong.

I think whoever wrote that page had a very old copy of Janes or other old document for reference back since it only mentions UYK-7.

In short even Wiki has better general info about the SPY-1 series.

cheers for that - I'm fascinated by how the SPY-1 works but trying to get any definitive description is awfully hard work - that clears up a chunk for me,

Ian

 

[Volkodav]

Unfortunately, no there does not appear to be. While space & weight was indeed 'set aside' for a 2nd 8-cell Mk 41 VLS, due to topweight increases (either current or projected), there is no longer sufficient weight, at least where needed, to accomodate 8 more cells. Which is part of the reason why no Mk 15 Phalanx CIWS has been fitted. OTOH, some of the topweight increase has been as a result of quadpacking the ESSM canisters instead of a single missile per canister, per cell. With that in mind, 32 ESSM in an 8-cell VLS is better IMO than 16 ESSM in what amounts to a 16-cell VLS..

-Cheers

Thanks for that, sorry I don't know how I missed your post. I was wondering if the ANZACs had maxed out an that answers the question. I suppose we are lucky that any space and weight was provided in the first place as we would be royally screwed now if it was not possible to upgrade them at all.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

and as long as you need x-band illumination it doesn't make much sense to use x-band illuminators, s-band mfr's and l-band vsr's. it's more useful to use a x-band mfr either with an s-band mfr (dbr aka spy-3/amdr-s or whatever) or with an l-band vsr (apar/smart-l).

There is another option: L Band VSR and S Band HSR as may be seen in the Anzac class in their upgrade after ASMD that will replace SPS-49 and ESM/ECM. Will be very interesting to see what is offered for the SPS-49 replacement. There are several L Band rotating phased arrays out there on the market but maybe a fixed array (at least three faces) might be possible. Especially with CEA’s low cost, low weight tech.

Potential future set for SEA 5000 could include L Band VSR, high power S Band VSR (Auspar) and X Band MFR. 18 radar antennas anyone?

 

[Todjaeger]

One thing I have been wondering about, particularly since the Anzac's are being fitted with CEA-FAR (or is it PAR now?) and with the F-35 and AWD's due to enter service over the next decade. Is there going to be work done to fit the Anzac's, AWD's and/or Anzac II's with an AESA for comlink usage?

From information that I have following re: USAF F-22A Raptor ops and supporting assets, the Raptor operting with EMCON is able to act as a harvester, but is unable to relay information via datalinks. This has led some other USAF assets (B-1, amongst others) to be fitted with an AESA to receive comlink transmissions from the F-22, and in the future the F-35 as well.

With the F/A-18F SHornet's entering RAAF service, and the F-35 due towards the end of the decade, it would seem sensible to have other joint assets able to receive/send to LO harvesters. I know that the Wedgetail with an L-band MESA might be able to act as a 'relay' but was wondering if any ship mounted comlinks would be setup, and/or would AESA be fitted to the Future Naval Helicopters to allow them to act as relays?

-Cheers

 

[radar07]

There is another option: L Band VSR and S Band HSR as may be seen in the Anzac class in their upgrade after ASMD that will replace SPS-49 and ESM/ECM.

i think this fits to l-band vsr, s-band mfr and x-band illuminator, which i mentioned. we will see if the sps-49 is replaced or not. at the top of the mast weight will be a big issue.

in general three radar systems for x, s and l-band would be a interesting solution but factors like cost, weight, volume, power supply, etc. makes a dual band solution more realistic.

6 arrays per system looks to me a little bit curious as long as they are all fitted in a single mast. with 6 arrays a complete breakdown of a single array can be absorbed be the two nearby arrays but how realistic is this scenario?

 

[Abraham Gubler]

One thing I have been wondering about, particularly since the Anzac's are being fitted with CEA-FAR (or is it PAR now?) and with the F-35 and AWD's due to enter service over the next decade. Is there going to be work done to fit the Anzac's, AWD's and/or Anzac II's with an AESA for comlink usage?

There is no need to use AESA radars on these ships for data links because they already have big data link antennas fitted as standard. Using your AESA linked to a modem is just something you do when your aircraft isn't carrying around a big dish to broadcast data in the first place.

 

[justsomeaussie]

What advantages are there by having a triband solution rather than an 4th gen AESA dual band?

You need the L band for the VSR and IFF and if the S band has high enough resolution there should be no need to obtain an X band. X band is limited in range and subject to weather attenuation but its advantage is resolution. So provided your S performs at a high enough resolution the X band is fairly redundant.
*
Ezmil's Blog: Furuno Radar X-Band vs. S-Band Rain Performance
*
Nomenclature wise its “CEAFAR” for the radar “CEAMOUNT” for the missile illuminator and “CEAPAR (Phased Array Radar)” is a reference for both radars together. So HMAS Perth is fitted with CEAPAR which is comprised of CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT.
*
It probably should be pointed out again that both of the systems are scaled for the ANZAC Anti-Ship Missile Defence solution, so they can be scaled up and down (in size and power) dependant on the platform and user requirements.
*

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Nomenclature wise its “CEAFAR” for the radar “CEAMOUNT” for the missile illuminator and “CEAPAR (Phased Array Radar)” is a reference for both radars together. So HMAS Perth is fitted with CEAPAR which is comprised of CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT.

Close but CEAPAR is CEA’s name for their phased array product line using their current technology. This potentially includes a lot more than the radars fitted to HMAS Perth. The Navy refers to these configurations of CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT (as on HMAS Perth) as the “PAR System” [PAR: Phased Array Radar].

 

[Todjaeger]

There is no need to use AESA radars on these ships for data links because they already have big data link antennas fitted as standard. Using your AESA linked to a modem is just something you do when your aircraft isn't carrying around a big dish to broadcast data in the first place.

Are the existing and planned datalink antennas able to receive and process a comlink broadcast from an AESA? My (admittedly limited) understanding is that due to how an AESA transmits and receives when acting as a comlink, it establishes a directional high bandwidth transmission, and that another AESA has to be in place to receive the transmission.

While I cannot confirm this, I was under the impression that part of the reason why the B-2 was being fitted with the AN/APQ-181 LPI AESA and an AESA is being developed (if not mounted already) for the B-1, was that LO fighters like the F-22 cannot currently broadcast targeting information over datalinks like Link 16. A workaround which was found once it was determined that AESA radars can act as comlinks, was that the targeting info could be broadcast from an F-22 and received by another aircraft, who could then either make use of the information, or possibly pass the information back through a regular datalink system.

If this is incorrect, either in terms of limitations aircraft like the F-22 or F-35 will have in providing targeting information to other assets, or in how the aforementioned other assets can receive such targeting information I would be happy to be corrected.

-Cheers

 

[Abraham Gubler]

AESA with modem is a high bandwidth datalink but so too are many dish antennas used for communications. As long as the receiver can handle the data flow rate and encryption it can be of any type of antenna.

AESAs are used as datalinks on fighter and bombers when very high bandwidth is needed. For example quickly transferring a high resolution image. Otherwise the regular radios are used.

 

[justsomeaussie]

India receives first Israeli MR-STAR radar

India receives first Israeli MR-STAR radar


Interesting update, pity that it's wrong that it's the first fully digital AESA now that Perth is radiating.


India receives first Israeli MR-STAR radar

Akhtar Jamal

Islamabad—Indian Navy is believed to have secretly received from Israel its first multi function surveillance and threat alert radar (MF- STAR) but neither India nor Israeli officials are ready to leak the deal. But on Thursday reports from Israel said that the first delivery of most advanced radar system was made to an undisclosed “foreign customer.”

Two weeks ago Pakistan Observer had reported details about an unpublicized visit of Indian Naval Chief Admiral Nirmal Verma to Israel during third week of this month.

According to defence observers MF- STAR is an advanced all-weather, day and night radar capable of performing various missions simultaneously such as multiple target tracking and identification and defence munitions guidance. It provides a 360 degree defence against a wide variety of airborne platforms and munitions.

The radar is the first fully digital operational naval AESA (Active Electronically Scanned Array) radar in the world, according to IAI. It has been designed for new generation military ships, including small frigates or corvettes.

It may be recalled that during his visit to Israel Indian Admiral Verma, had detailed talks with Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak, Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi and Israeli Navy Chief Vice Admiral Eliezer Marom.

Gulf sources had revealed that India and Israel also agreed to enhance cooperation for sharing of UAV technology, submarine-launched cruise missiles and anti-ballistic missile systems to network-centric operations, micro-satellite surveillance systems, advanced precision-guided munitions (PGMs) and third-generation night-vision devices.

 

[Ozymandias]

I'm not allowed to post links, but has everyone seen the Canberra class video on the RAN website yet?

-Go to the RAN homepage
-Go to The Fleet
-Click on Future Ships
-Scroll down to Amphibious Assault Ship, then click on Canberra class
-video is down the bottom of the page

I had no understanding of how much space is taken up by helicopter, landing craft and vehicle storage. How on earth can they fit living quarters for 1500 people in that space? Unless different shifts share beds...

Mod edit:

http://www.navy.gov.au/Canberra_Class#Video

There you go mate...

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'm not allowed to post links, but has everyone seen the Canberra class video on the RAN website yet?

-Go to the RAN homepage
-Go to The Fleet
-Click on Future Ships
-Scroll down to Amphibious Assault Ship, then click on Canberra class
-video is down the bottom of the page

I had no understanding of how much space is taken up by helicopter, landing craft and vehicle storage. How on earth can they fit living quarters for 1500 people in that space? Unless different shifts share beds...

Probably by stacking the bunks all the way up like they do on most ships. I was on the USS Boxer (Wasp class amphibious assault ship) a few years ago and most of us were housed in 4 bunks all the way to the ceiling. Maybe here will help:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra_class_landing_helicopter_dock"]Canberra class landing helicopter dock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia@@AMEPARAM@@/wiki/File:USS_Boxer_5Avn_(USN).jpg" class="image"><img alt="" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/USS_Boxer_5Avn_%28USN%29.jpg/220px-USS_Boxer_5Avn_%28USN%29.jpg"@@AMEPARAM@@commons/thumb/c/c6/USS_Boxer_5Avn_%28USN%29.jpg/220px-USS_Boxer_5Avn_%28USN%29.jpg[/ame]

 

[StevoJH]

Probably by stacking the bunks all the way up like they do on most ships. I was on the USS Boxer (Wasp class amphibious assault ship) a few years ago and most of us were housed in 4 bunks all the way to the ceiling.

I'm guessing crew accomodation will probably be much better then Embarked forces accomodation since they'll be there long term rather then the more short term visits of the EMF.

 

[justsomeaussie]

I'm guessing crew accomodation will probably be much better then Embarked forces accomodation since they'll be there long term rather then the more short term visits of the EMF.

I was certainly in the embarked forces accommodation. The ship's crew were in quite decent 4 person berths with a tv. The best ship I've lived on is the Oceanic Viking. Two person berths with ensuite and heated floor and a sauna!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I mean aeronautical engineer as in the aeronautical engineering officer (AERO) not aviation technician, pilot or air traffic controller.

It has been indicated to me that they do not tend to get posted to ships currently.

I stumbled across this and I have the answer: Yes! The LHD will have the first at sea AERO posting since HMAS Melbourne. A LCDR AERO will be in charge of all the birdies for the flight deck division.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I had no understanding of how much space is taken up by helicopter, landing craft and vehicle storage. How on earth can they fit living quarters for 1500 people in that space? Unless different shifts share beds...

It’s a big ship. The top hangar/garage deck only extends as far forward as about the front of the island. Forward of this is three decks for personnel. Also there is a full length personnel deck between the two hangar/garage levels. Then alongside each of the hangar/garage decks are ‘sponsons’ of personnel decks. This provides all the space for 1,403 bunks and the generous provision for messing, gyms, workrooms, etc.

 

[aussienscale]

I'm not allowed to post links, but has everyone seen the Canberra class video on the RAN website yet?

-Go to the RAN homepage
-Go to The Fleet
-Click on Future Ships
-Scroll down to Amphibious Assault Ship, then click on Canberra class
-video is down the bottom of the page

I had no understanding of how much space is taken up by helicopter, landing craft and vehicle storage. How on earth can they fit living quarters for 1500 people in that space? Unless different shifts share beds...

Mod edit:

Canberra Class - Royal Australian Navy

There you go mate...

Also look at the JC1 Sea Trials thread, many links to videos and picture threads with pic of not only the JC1 but also the Canberra, this will give you a very good idea of how big they are and the layout of the ship
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/sea-trials-lhd-jci-9587/