Subject Study- RAN Future FFG

New radar allows ‘channels of fire’

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/new-radar-allows-channels-of-fire/

A LITTLE bit of history was made this month in Western Australia when an Anzac-class frigate, HMAS Perth, slipped her moorings and sailed into Cockburn Sound for the first time with an all-new Australian radar system fitted.

The ship has been moored at the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson, just south of Fremantle, being fitted with solid-state radars designed and manufactured by Canberra-based firm CEA Technologies. These are mounted atop a sleek, futuristic-looking new lightweight mast built by BAE Systems Australia.

The Ceafar and Ceamount radars will transform the ship’s ability to protect itself against enemy aircraft and missiles. The six-face Ceafar radar will detect and track incoming aircraft and anti-ship missiles; the four-face Ceamount radar is an “illuminator” — its radar energy will bounce off the incoming target to guide the ship’s Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) all the way to impact.

As well as being extremely accurate, this combination allows the ship to deal with multiple incoming missiles at once — sufficient, says Defence, to stay ahead of any foreseeable threats until the Anzac frigates retire in about 2033.

Defence sources told The Australian HMAS Perth will be tied up at the naval base at HMAS Stirling while the new radars and heavily upgraded Saab Australia combat system undergo Harbour Acceptance Trials. The new radars will be set to work for the first time next month, according to a source in the project, but the ship won’t start its formal sea trials until late February.

The Ceafar and Ceamount radars have been under development for a decade. Ceafar consists of 30cm by 30cm “tiles” each made up of 64 miniature, solid-state transmitters and receivers — a so-called electronically scanned Phased Array Radar with no moving parts. Each of its six antenna faces is made up of a 4×4 array of these tiles. The smaller Ceamount consists of 20cm x 20cm tiles with 256 elements, and its four antenna faces consist of 2 x 2 arrays of tiles.

Both radars are similar to the Aegis system on the RAN’s new Air Warfare Destroyers, and siblings (in a technology sense) of the electronically scanned antenna on the RAAF’s Wedgetail early warning aircraft.

But the Australian radars represent the fourth generation of this sensor technology: they are lighter and smaller so can be mounted high on the masthead of a ship instead of on the superstructure. Nevertheless, shipbuilder BAE Systems Australia has had to design new lightweight masts to reduce “top weight” on the frigate while carrying the necessary cables, cooling elements and other equipment.

The development program has involved, first, the testing of single tiles on land then on a test rig at sea. In 2008 a full-scale prototype was installed on HMAS Perth to demonstrate that the radar’s beam could be switched from one radar face to the next without losing the target. Meanwhile Saab Systems has been upgrading its proven 9LV Mk3 combat system to cope with the increase in radar, weapons and communications data which the upgraded Anzac frigates will generate.

The sea trials next year will test the Ceafar radar’s ability to detect and track a mass of incoming targets. The Ceamount “illuminator” faces an even tougher challenge: its PAR technology means its beam can skip rapidly between multiple targets to provide continuous guidance for ESSMs being launched in different directions.

This ability to achieve multiple so-called “channels of fire” from a single illuminating radar is a unique feature of Ceamount. Traditional illuminators with their dish-type antennas can’t do this because they can point in only a single direction at a time. As a result ships with only a single illuminator can engage only one target at a time, which means a mass attack can easily saturate their defence.

It’s this vulnerability that has driven the RAN’s Anzac frigate Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) project, Sea 1448. The Ceafar and Ceamount element in Phase 2B (which includes a minor navigation radar upgrade) is worth $459 million.

In next year’s sea trials, ships, aircraft and carefully simulated missiles will put Ceafar and Ceamount to the test. If all goes well the RAN and CEA Technologies will know by April if they’re working properly. If they are, the federal government is expected to give the green light for a similar upgrade to the remaining seven Anzac-class frigates as early as the third quarter of next year.

Well, well he would be, with the RN now going for CATOBAR 😉

😮 Scooter back !!

I stand corrected but both can still fire the ESSM and Standard Missiles among others.

Mk 48 can fire Sea Sparrow & ESSM. It’s too small for any version of Standard.

The Murasame class has Mk 41 VLS for ASROC, which Standard could fit into, but that does not, by itself, give the ship the ability to fire Standard, & AFAIK the class lacks the other equipment which would be needed.

Murasame class DD is equipped Mk.48 VLS, not Mk.41 VLS. But Following DD Takanami and Akizuki(was known as 19DD) class are equipped Mk.41 VLS.

I stand corrected but both can still fire the ESSM and Standard Missiles among others.

As they are designed to work directly with Aegis Destroyers. Being equipped with the same Mk 41 VLS. Which, can fire both ESSM’s and Standard Missiles. Though the latter has to be guided by the escorting Aegis Ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murasame_class_destroyer_(1994)

Murasame class DD is equipped Mk.48 VLS, not Mk.41 VLS. But Following DD Takanami and Akizuki(was known as 19DD) class are equipped Mk.41 VLS.

Murasame Class

Ja- I would think something along the lines of the Japanese Murasame Class would be ideal. As they are designed to work directly with Aegis Destroyers. Being equipped with the same Mk 41 VLS. Which, can fire both ESSM’s and Standard Missiles. Though the latter has to be guided by the escorting Aegis Ships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murasame_class_destroyer_(1994)

Back to the original question, since we have the rights to manufacture the F-100 why stuff around with the F-105 design at all? Why not simply replace AEGIS with a domestic combat system, replace SPY-1D with AUSPAR (which we will on the AWD’s anyway) and viola. Redesigning the entire superstructure of the F-105 simply in order to remove SPY-1D will not only increase the risk in the design but increase development costs and reduce capability, and you end up with essentially an entirely new ship. Even relatively small redistribution of weight can cause significant stability issues which all have to be addressed and tested, for what? Greater risk, greater design costs, inferior capability.

Obviously given the size requirement these vessels are intended to handle a sizable air threat on their own, why limit their sensor fit to a smaller, inferior system (CEAFAR) when you have already sunk the development costs into AUSPAR? With 48x VLS and a decent radar you have the flexibility to equip all of your large surface combatants with SM-6/SM-2/SM-3 if we start dealing with a high intensity shooting war, and when you are doing peacetime power projection ops you can have a greater load-out of ASROC and TLAM’s.

Personally I don’t see why the RAN would bother with anything else.

does this mast feature 4 radar arrays for targeting/guidance purposes and six larger aperture arrays for surveillance/tracking? I must say ive never seen such layout. Most of the time i see 4 panels being used, sometimes even just three are enough to get some sort of 360 degree coverage. But 6? Is that really necesarry?

The ASMD configuration has 6 CEAFAR S Band radar faces providing 3D volume surveillance and 4 CEAMOUNT Illuminators.

Each CEAFAR radar face provides 90 degrees of coverage so by having 6 faces allows for redundancy and a significantly higher scan rate. If the radar only had 4 faces losing a single face means losing a significant portion of surveillance area, where as with a traditional rotator losing the turning mechanism means losing almost all of your surveillance area.

ANZAC Radar Cross Section Screens

RCS screens (woven stainless steel ring mesh sliding screens, similar to successful installations for the South African Navy and Royal Malaysian Navy) have been planned for fitting to 1 Deck waist area and 2 deck quarterdeck cutouts

See article: http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/projects/rcs.htm

Below further HMAS Perth in her current state and the first new mast under construction. She is expected to be completed and put to see in October 2010 for sea trials through until April 2011.

Story: http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1448/sea1448.cfm

does this mast feature 4 radar arrays for targeting/guidance purposes and six larger aperture arrays for surveillance/tracking? I must say ive never seen such layout. Most of the time i see 4 panels being used, sometimes even just three are enough to get some sort of 360 degree coverage. But 6? Is that really necesarry?

How can that be, since the existing hull panels to which one would have to attach aren’t sloped?

Looks like they slope in to me? 3 degrees is enough.

I think the upgraded ship looks awesome!

I don’t know how they are doing it, but if they are going to the effort of putting these in , I assume they would be sloped….

How can that be, since the existing hull panels to which one would have to attach aren’t sloped?

Would that matter much, if the smoothed-out superstructure remains vertical rather than angled (just making a larger reflecting surface, though with less scatter)?

I don’t know how they are doing it, but if they are going to the effort of putting these in , I assume they would be sloped….

I read somewhere that they were getting screens fitted to the sides of the superstructure to smooth out the structure and make them more stealthy. From what was said, the models havent had all the latest changes added to them yet.

Would that matter much, if the smoothed-out superstructure remains vertical rather than angled (just making a larger reflecting surface, though with less scatter)?

any technical/performance information about the cae radars to be used on the ships?

I read somewhere that they were getting screens fitted to the sides of the superstructure to smooth out the structure and make them more stealthy. From what was said, the models havent had all the latest changes added to them yet.

I haven’t read that anywhere but makes sence, I also noticed that the CEA mast in the pic is different to the models so you may be right mate!

I read somewhere that they were getting screens fitted to the sides of the superstructure to smooth out the structure and make them more stealthy. From what was said, the models havent had all the latest changes added to them yet.

HMAS Perth begins ASMD upgrade

BAE Systems has begun modifying the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s ANZAC class frigates to be upgraded under the Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Upgrade Project.

HMAS Perth entered the Henderson dockyard in Western Australia on 18 January on schedule.

The Defence Materiel Organisation, supported by BAE Systems and Saab Systems, under an alliance contracting arrangement, is managing the ASMD Upgrade project.

The upgrade will significantly improve the anti-ship self-defence capabilities of the ANZAC Class by integrating:

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

The platform integration of these systems required significant structural modifications, Jason Beer, BAE Systems Maritime Through Life Support General Manager, said.

“This includes replacement of both the frigates’ forward and aft masts, which has required us to develop innovative design solutions to minimise the impact on the ship’s weight and stability,” he said.

Source: ADM

Pics to follow show the new masts, lay out and operation of the system.

The last pic is of the new main mast for the CEA products under final construction at Henderson in WA, note the size of the two chaps working on it

Wow umm ok, I guess it’s just me that can actually see the US connections here then, most notably the US weapons and electronics installed, similar machinery to US equipment. Certain vessels are clearly of US design but changed to add certain capabilities introduced at the time of construction, Hatakaze is a modified Truxtun class, which removed the nuclear propulsion unit and installed COGAG machinery (using British Speys and Olympus engines which the British were happy to sell).

Tell me you can’t see the similarities.

I can see that Hatakaze is a much smaller ship than Truxtun, with completely different propulsion which implies a very different internal structure. Any similarities would seem to be superficial.

The use of US weapons & electronics doesn’t make Japanese ships copies of US ships, any more than their widespread use of Italian guns & British gas turbines makes them copies of Italian or British ships.