Only if CEC is also installed in the Merlin. Space and weight might not exist for both a search radar and CEC in a helo based solution.
The Royal Navy Discussions and Updates
- Thread starter overlander
- Start date
Seeing as it's been a while & I'm getting a bit grey & wooly about CEC, I've went & found this for newbies & old farts alike, just to give people a little refresh on it...
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) / AN/USG-2(V) Cooperative Engagement Transmission Processing Set
SA
PS Congrats Rob, for taking this thread thru 10,000 replies !
Excellent, that'll keep me occupied for a while. The more I read about this, the more ludicrous to decided to remove it from the planning round becomes. Considering our AD fleet is shrinking* and we're going to be getting hold of a pair of capital assets, our AD network needs to be the most effective it can be.
Haha, I didn't even notice the post count.
*but I do believe that the Type 45 is far superior to the Type 42's.
Haha, I didn't even notice the post count.
*but I do believe that the Type 45 is far superior to the Type 42's.
I just don't think most people get CEC - they think it's "just" a data link- once I'd started to realise how much of a jump beyond that it is, not buying it looks criminally stupid.
Adding CEC to the Type 26 fleet would really make the most of their relatively budget affair radar and be a huge boost to their self defence capability, let alone what kind of a lift it'd be for the Type 45's.
Adding CEC to the Type 26 fleet would really make the most of their relatively budget affair radar and be a huge boost to their self defence capability, let alone what kind of a lift it'd be for the Type 45's.
While it's 'criminal', there are issues that many people don't really understand about it.
Like the fact that the processing isn't done locally, it is quite simply a burst of data that's sent via satellite / retransmission & then added to current data that is on the display, as an overlay.
THAT is why so many people see it's a bit like the LINK system, but LINK relied on the data being processed locally.
...or am I barking up the wrong tree ??
Like the fact that the processing isn't done locally, it is quite simply a burst of data that's sent via satellite / retransmission & then added to current data that is on the display, as an overlay.
THAT is why so many people see it's a bit like the LINK system, but LINK relied on the data being processed locally.
...or am I barking up the wrong tree ??
AegisFC can do a better job of explaining it than I ever can but as far as I understand, you're sharing raw radar tracks with other platforms, so they can be combined with existing local data.
Link 16, you can share what you see with other people. CEC, you can combine tracks so between the various radars in the link, you can see things you individually weren't aware of. So, very good for picking out say, LO sea skimming missiles. With two sets of radar tracks (for example) you'd be getting roughly twice the scan rate and twice the dwell time. It also builds in a resistance to jamming that's very hard to defeat - particularly with frequency agile sets.
Link 16, you can share what you see with other people. CEC, you can combine tracks so between the various radars in the link, you can see things you individually weren't aware of. So, very good for picking out say, LO sea skimming missiles. With two sets of radar tracks (for example) you'd be getting roughly twice the scan rate and twice the dwell time. It also builds in a resistance to jamming that's very hard to defeat - particularly with frequency agile sets.
Aologies. I know very little about Link 16 and CEC but from what you described, the impression I get is that there's a very fine line between Link 16 and CEC in terms of capabilities; both are intended to share data and increase SA.
Basically yes.
In a traditional Link (11 and 16) the Combat System (such as Command and Decision in Aegis-land) and not the sensor (the SPY computer for example) sends a processed track to the Link equipment for transmission. This processed track provides enough information to increase general situational awareness and gives the crew more reaction time.
CEC on the other hand takes the dwell data from the sensor, converts it to a common "language" and it is deconverted at the other end and is treated by the Combat System as a local track for engagement purposes.
A ship cannot engage a Link 11/16 track for one.
There's a great post on this very thread from a former RN sailor who described trials with Type 42's in which one ship, while completely jammed, was able to take a CEC feed from the other ship in the trial and then use that to engage a target drone.
With Link 16, they'd just have known there was a target out there and roughly in what direction, etc.
There's a heap of advantages (there'd have to be, the kit for CEC is more expensive and takes more room than Link 16 etc.)
protoplasm
Active Member
Single biggest advantage of CEC, you don't have to use your sensors to direct your effectors, you can use others sensors that are off-boat to engage targets that you can't see. This has really interesting possibilities when we think about the operating ranges of weapons that a ship carries versus the operating range of the sensors on that ship.
And hence why fitting CEC to AEW platforms is so interesting. Stand off at altitude and identify targets for the shooters, be they ships, aircraft or land based batteries.
I had read early on a reference to a proposed "miniaturized CEC" suitable for implementation on fighter/helo platforms. Apparently, the system was deemed capable enough to deal with timing concerns while providing for a,more expansive network coverage. I haven't seen anything recently to indicate that this had evolved beyond concept stage though.
Fast Mover
New Member
I have a question I would like to put forward - I beg your forgiveness in advance for it not being strictly RN specific - and very possibly naive - but here goes!
Having recently flown over Lake Michigan, I suddenly wondered why countries that operate SSBNs have never operated some of their boats in their significant internal lakes and seas. The above mentioned of the Great Lakes, as well as the 'Sea of Azov' and 'Aral'skoye More' (in the old USSR) being examples of bodies of water that are entirely internal to the countries they are found in.
Obviously the vast expanse of the oceans is a defence in itself for a boomer, but SSBNs have obviously been tracked over the years by other nations subs and, I assume, could have been targeted in a shooting war. Remember, we live in a world where a Brit and a French SSBN quite literally bumped into each other!!
No country did ever operate a boomer (to my limited knowledge) somewhere like Lake Michigan - my question is what were the disadvantages that made this the case?
The submarine would have been immune from enemy subs and aircraft. A fixed ICBM silo on land is easy to target - could having subs in inland bodies of water have perhaps been an alternative to ICBM silos?
I am not advocating that it ever should have been done, or should be done today - I'm just asking my esteemed forum co-contributors why the SSBN eggs were never kept in the Lake Michigan (or equivalent) basket?!
Having recently flown over Lake Michigan, I suddenly wondered why countries that operate SSBNs have never operated some of their boats in their significant internal lakes and seas. The above mentioned of the Great Lakes, as well as the 'Sea of Azov' and 'Aral'skoye More' (in the old USSR) being examples of bodies of water that are entirely internal to the countries they are found in.
Obviously the vast expanse of the oceans is a defence in itself for a boomer, but SSBNs have obviously been tracked over the years by other nations subs and, I assume, could have been targeted in a shooting war. Remember, we live in a world where a Brit and a French SSBN quite literally bumped into each other!!
No country did ever operate a boomer (to my limited knowledge) somewhere like Lake Michigan - my question is what were the disadvantages that made this the case?
The submarine would have been immune from enemy subs and aircraft. A fixed ICBM silo on land is easy to target - could having subs in inland bodies of water have perhaps been an alternative to ICBM silos?
I am not advocating that it ever should have been done, or should be done today - I'm just asking my esteemed forum co-contributors why the SSBN eggs were never kept in the Lake Michigan (or equivalent) basket?!
FormerDirtDart
Well-Known Member
Missile range is a significant factor. SLBMs have a considerable reduced range compared to ICBMs.
Additionally, as to the NA Great Lakes, deploying subs to the sea, if needed, would be a security nightmare passing through the Locks of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. Plus, without checking, getting a boomer through the locks, size-wise, might be a challenge.
And, the Aral'skoye More has been essentially been being drained since the '60s, and likely unnavigable for any vessel with deep draft, let alone a submersible.
When they started out, SLBMs didn't have the range.
Moving past that with Trident II: I'm curious if a Soviet ICBM MIRV could have been made to detonate underwater, and if so, how many would it take to cover the Great Lakes to delouse it of submarines.
Moving past that with Trident II: I'm curious if a Soviet ICBM MIRV could have been made to detonate underwater, and if so, how many would it take to cover the Great Lakes to delouse it of submarines.
The UK does not really have the big inland lakes. Although some of the Scottish lochs are very deep. The ones that have navigable access to the sea could still be vulnerable to attack (aka the Tirpitz). Also there were nuclear depth charges, not sure of the effective range, the Loch are not that long.
Discussion outside of the UK its really not RN related so probably better to start a new threat.
Discussion outside of the UK its really not RN related so probably better to start a new threat.
The Royal Navy has released the confirmed roster for Exercise Cougar 13
Cougar 13 | Royal Navy
* these ships are currently deployed in the Gulf region, they are not sailing with the task group.
Sadly the same deficiencies from Cougar 12 are here; no AWD and no organic tanker support. RFA Fort Austin doesn't have the capability to carry wet stores, so it can't supply the task force with fuels and the like. It's a step up from last year, IIRC Cougar 12 didn't even have that.
I suppose the lack of an AWD isn't unreasonable, I expected that considering HMS Dragon is in the area she would exercise with the task force. But in the end, she's getting much more useful experience as an AWD as part of a large task force with US CVN's.
No word on any sub deployments, but that's to be expected. Besides which there's a standing deployment East of Suez, so i'd be surprised if she doesn't turn up for ASW operations.
Interesting to see both Bay's stationed in the UK being deployed plus that in the Gulf.
Cougar 13 | Royal Navy
- HMS Illustrious (LPH)
- HMS Bulwark (LPD - Flag)
- HMS Montrose (T23)
- HMS Westminster (T23)
- RFA Mounts Bay (LSD)
- RFA Lyme Bay (LSD)
- RFA Fort Austin (SSS)
- RFA Fort Victoria (AOR)*
- RFA Cardigan Bay (LSD)*
- RFA Diligence (Fleet repair ship)*
* these ships are currently deployed in the Gulf region, they are not sailing with the task group.
Sadly the same deficiencies from Cougar 12 are here; no AWD and no organic tanker support. RFA Fort Austin doesn't have the capability to carry wet stores, so it can't supply the task force with fuels and the like. It's a step up from last year, IIRC Cougar 12 didn't even have that.
I suppose the lack of an AWD isn't unreasonable, I expected that considering HMS Dragon is in the area she would exercise with the task force. But in the end, she's getting much more useful experience as an AWD as part of a large task force with US CVN's.
No word on any sub deployments, but that's to be expected. Besides which there's a standing deployment East of Suez, so i'd be surprised if she doesn't turn up for ASW operations.
Interesting to see both Bay's stationed in the UK being deployed plus that in the Gulf.