Military History \| How To Make War \| Wars Around the World	Rules of Use	How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Australia Discussion Board
Return to Topic Page

Subject: How does CEAFAR compare to SPY-1F in small surface combatant applications
Volkodav 12/8/2008 3:41:59 AM

I was looking at the AFCON Corvette concept and got to wondering what would be the better setup cost vs capability of Aegis Light with SPY-1F or SAAB 9VL with CEAFAR. I was also wondering if CEAMOUNT could be intergrated with AEGIS and whether it has the performance to replace SPG-62 Mk99?

Quote Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

Aussiegunneragain Volkodav 12/8/2008 6:45:58 AM

"I was looking at the AFCON Corvette concept and got to wondering what would be the better setup cost vs capability of Aegis Light with SPY-1F or SAAB 9VL with CEAFAR.

I was also wondering if CEAMOUNT could be intergrated with AEGIS and whether it has the performance to replace SPG-62 Mk99?"

I don't know but I believe that SPY-1K, not F, is the corvette version of the SPY-1 radars.

Anyway, I was thinking along similar lines recently and was wondering if the various fighter AESA radar back ends could be adapted for naval use? I'm imagining that they would 3 or 4 of the array's on the corvette or even on FAC/Patrol boat and make the appropriate software upgrades to integrate the images into a 360 degree display. If something like an APG-79 can guide an AMRAAM out to its full range it should be entirely adequate for an ESSM and should be light enough to fit on a small boat.

Quote Reply

VGNTMH 12/8/2008 7:49:48 AM

I have often posted about CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT. But without much response! No one seems to know much about CEA, or at least are not able to speak publicly.

I cannot work out why the combination of CEAFAR, CEAMOUNT, and the associated Saab combat data system are not ?selling like hotcakes?.

After all CEAFAR and (at least the mast mounted version of) CEAMOUNT are 100% AESA and thus:
? Multi beam and thus inherently multi channel
? Multi ?generator? and thus have graceful degradation
? Fixed, non rotating, and thus non mechanically dependent

The combination would seem to be superior to the other western naval radar and combat data system combinations as:

Compared with AEGIS /SPY-1
? The main SPY-1 radars associated with AEGIS are PESA and thus can only generate a single beam at a time and do not have graceful degradation
? The illuminators are very limited in number/channels of fire and are mechanically steered

Dutch SMART-L/APAR
? The main search radar, though AESA (I think), is single panel, rotating and thus mechanically dependent
? The APAR combines low level search, tracking, and SAR illumination in one, and I am not sure X band is optimal for low level search or tracking?

Sampson:
? Both main radars are rotating and thus mechanically dependent
? There currently are no X band illuminators, resulting from and necessitating the use of active radar missiles (ie Aster)

CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT/Saab CDS would therefore be the only combination with:
? 100% AESA radars
? 100% fixed non rotating radars
? Specifically 100% AESA and fixed radar for surveillance
? Separate S and X band radars for surveillance/tracking and illumination respectively
? The only 100% AESA and fixed radar combination to operate with ESSM

All resulting in a huge number of channels of fire for ASMD!

I wonder why CEAFAR et al is not ?selling like hotcakes??

Is CEAFAR very low power compared to SPY-1? Is the Saab combat data system limited compared to AEGIS?

It also seems that, if my arguments are correct, the upgraded ANZACs would have more modern radars and more channels of fire that the AWDs would!

Quote Reply

doggtag air radars into surface radars 12/8/2008 9:36:46 AM

Do I dare even bring up the fiasco of the M247 Sgt York DIVADS, that took a decent analog/mechanical F-16 radar and turned it into a dismal failure on a surface ADA system that just wouldn't stop looking for its sidelobes?

I trust that radar tech, in this latest guise of digital AESA sets, can get around such issues without the risk of the systems locking onto the head (latrine) fans on the next nearest surface vessel?

Could a "micro SPY" system be created around using multiple small-form AESAs placed around the ship (like these latest models coming out that can retrofit into legacy aircraft as small as the F-16's and F-5's radomes, yet can also scale larger for bigger radomes?

Put these equi-distant around a ship, with some limited overlap that would eliminate any near-range blind zones (3 @ ~120-150° each, or 4 @ ~90-120° each?), and, at least theoretically, it sounds like it has a lot of potential.

With current digital sets being ble to rapidly (milliseconds) switch between search and track modes, navigation, surface search, air search, etc), it does sound like a winner.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 12/8/2008 2:22:21 PM

I trust that radar tech, in this latest guise of digital AESA sets, can get around such issues without the risk of the systems locking onto the head (latrine) fans on the next nearest surface vessel?

With current digital sets being ble to rapidly (milliseconds) switch between search and track modes, navigation, surface search, air search, etc), it does sound like a winner.

I would still like to separate the radio bands for search and fire control, if for no other purpose than to discriminate between the detect/acquire and track/engage telemetry. The French tried to combine the two halves in a single system and we see where that led them [ASTER]. As for scattering the sensors, active and passive, across the ship? Sure. It eliminates LOS blind spots and it promises redundancy if you use an insectile approach as to detection architecture per platform. You still need to fine discriminate to actively track and engage though. That means you need to paint the threat with a rather powerful radio beam array [its all LIGHT to me] to overcome its low observable features as well as provide a good two way communications link between you and your interceptor.

Herald

Quote Reply

streddy 12/8/2008 9:44:43 PM

Quite simply, this technology is so new that people are being a little standoffish till it's performance has been proven on the ANZACs.

It is the only 4th generation naval phased array out there, so countries are a little hesitant in investing serious cash till they can see results. After its installation in 2009 on HMAS Perth, things should get very interesting.

Quote Reply

Volkodav Sea trial success for CEA-FAR 12/9/2008 3:21:29 AM

http://www.australiandefence.com.au/adm/images/HMAS_Perth.jpg" name="myImage" />

A vessel of success

The CEAFAR maritime multifunction radar systems aboard HMAS Perth is one of the most advanced in production.

09 Dec 2008

The ANZAC ASMD Upgrade Project successfully demonstrated the CEA-FAR active phased array multi-function radar installed on an ANZAC Frigate, HMAS Perth off the coast of Western Australia.

CEA-FAR is one of the most advanced maritime multifunction radar systems in production, from Canberra based CEA Technologies.

Being a fully digital beamforming system, it can dynamically adapt and change modes to meet complex environmental and threat scenarios.

Its scalability is enabled by the tile-based face architecture and the digital beamforming backend.

This makes CEA-FAR suitable for consideration in applications as small as offshore patrol craft and as large as
destroyers and cruisers.

The risk reduction and data collection objectives of the at-sea demonstration were successfully achieved in significantly less than the planned time frame.

This enabled additional capabilities to be assessed during the sea going opportunity.

Activities included tactical air and surface scenarios involving multiple aircraft and ships, small targets representative of anti-ship missiles and weapon systems.

These were conducted in littoral and open ocean maritime conditions and included the complex electromagnetic environments associated with multiple warships and aircraft.

The at-sea demonstration followed a successful land-based demonstration of the same production hardware at CEA?s Canberra facilities on 6 November.

The faces used in the demonstration were from the first production run and had been delivered on schedule from the company?s production line in July 08.

?This project has experienced delays so it is pleasing to see this milestone achieved," commented Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Greg Combet.

"However, much work remains to be done and the Government will continue to closely monitor the progress of this project.?