Anzac Ship upgrades for Australia

[Todjaeger]

The CEA-FAR radar system will replace the SPS-49 and 9LV 453 TIR radars.

The CEA-MOUNT continuous wave illuminators will replace the SaabTech J-band fire control radars.

The FFG's are using an updated version of the same radar and fire control system (Mk 92?) they use now.

Cheers.

AD

Thanks AD.

I will admit,I'm surprised that the CEA-FAR would replace so many radars though. I just double checked the arrays aboard Ticonderoga cruisers and Arleigh Burke destroyers. Both use SPY-1 air search/fire control radars, but also use radars like the Raytheon SPS-49 for air search (Ticonderoga) or Norden DRS SPS-67 surface search (Arleigh Burke). In checking other vessels equipped with SPY-1 arrays (Kongou DDG, Fridtjof Nansen FFG, Alvaro de Bazan FFG) they always have a separate surface search radar.

I had thought that CEA-FAR was an Australian phased array similar to the SPY-1. Does anyone have additional information on the performance aside from what is available from the CEA site?

 

[Tasman]

As to the CIWS issue, as I understand it, Phalanx could be integrated quite quickly (a matter of hours if not days) if necessary as the major parts required (baseplate etc) are already installed. The fact that this has never been done though even on numerous operational deployments, shows A) how confident RAN must be in ESSM and B) the sort of confidence it has in Phalanx, as RAN has plenty of Phalanx systems it COULD deploy aboard an ANZAC frigate if it wanted to.

I have wondered why RAN ANZAC class FFHs (unlike the Kiwi ships) have not been fitted with Phalanx, especially when deployed to the Gulf. Whilst I am happier now that ESSM is fitted (to most) it would still seem prudent to use some of the Phalanx pool for ships going into dangerous areas. Is the Phalanx model used by the RAN proving unreliable in its designed role? If so why is it still used on the FFGs (including SYDNEY which has ESSM) and the LPAs?

Also can anyone explain why the latest FFH (PERTH) has apparently commissioned without having Harpoon or even ESSM fitted?

Cheers

 

[Todjaeger]

I have wondered why RAN ANZAC class FFHs (unlike the Kiwi ships) have not been fitted with Phalanx, especially when deployed to the Gulf. Whilst I am happier now that ESSM is fitted (to most) it would still seem prudent to use some of the Phalanx pool for ships going into dangerous areas. Is the Phalanx model used by the RAN proving unreliable in its designed role? If so why is it still used on the FFGs (including SYDNEY which has ESSM) and the LPAs?

Also can anyone explain why the latest FFH (PERTH) has apparently commissioned without having Harpoon or even ESSM fitted?

Cheers

Admittedly this is all guess work on my part, but here goes.

As of right now, a CIWS like Phalanx (or Goalkeeper or RAM) hasn't been developed or integrated with any RAN Anzac vessel. Once a CIWS selection is made, then I'd imagine it would start being fielded aboard ship.

As for the Harpoon and ESSM. Starting in 2008-2009, the RAN Anzacs (and possibly Kiwi Anzacs too, I hope) will start undergoing an upgrade where the current air/surface search and fire-control radars will be replaced with CEA-FAR and CEA-MOUNT radars. I imagine that construction of the HMAS Perth was too far along with the existing electronics, or the various CEA systems weren't available for installation yet. Given that the ESSM (as fielded by the RAN) needs either the CEA SSCWI or CEA-MOUNT, it might have made more sense to launch Perth with the old RIM-7 Sea Sparrow for service for 2 years or so. Not sure about the Harpoons though could be similar, waiting for large scale upgrade program to start in a year or two.

-Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

I have wondered why RAN ANZAC class FFHs (unlike the Kiwi ships) have not been fitted with Phalanx, especially when deployed to the Gulf. Whilst I am happier now that ESSM is fitted (to most) it would still seem prudent to use some of the Phalanx pool for ships going into dangerous areas. Is the Phalanx model used by the RAN proving unreliable in its designed role? If so why is it still used on the FFGs (including SYDNEY which has ESSM) and the LPAs?

Also can anyone explain why the latest FFH (PERTH) has apparently commissioned without having Harpoon or even ESSM fitted?

Cheers

The contracted build standard for the ANZAC's was to be fitted with "Sea Sparrow" only. ESSM and Harpoon have been fitted to other vessels in the class during regular maintenance periods in a rolling upgrade styled program (along with necessary fire control system upgrades, MU-90 torpedo and "mini-typhoon" remote guns).

WRT to Phalanx, the RAN ANZAC's are "fitted for but not with" meaning that Phalanx could be installed quickly if necessary. (ThePuss might be able to correct me on that though?). They have already been integrated into the ANZAC's combat system and the ships are fitted with the "baseplate" or some such needed to mount it. The ANZAC class haven't been deployed in an environment that really requires more than ESSM as yet, though the "mini-typhoons" will provide an increased close protection capability for the ships.

RAN I believe is also less inclined to use a gun based CIWS system nowadays given their perceived lack of utility against modern threats. Or perhaps RAN simply doesn't possess enough Phalanx system to fit them. They only 3 or so available for Gulf War 1 and had to "rush" systems off other ships to equip the DDG heading to the Gulf... :unknown

 

[Tasman]

The contracted build standard for the ANZAC's was to be fitted with "Sea Sparrow" only. ESSM and Harpoon have been fitted to other vessels in the class during regular maintenance periods in a rolling upgrade styled program (along with necessary fire control system upgrades, MU-90 torpedo and "mini-typhoon" remote guns).

WRT to Phalanx, the RAN ANZAC's are "fitted for but not with" meaning that Phalanx could be installed quickly if necessary. (ThePuss might be able to correct me on that though?). They have already been integrated into the ANZAC's combat system and the ships are fitted with the "baseplate" or some such needed to mount it. The ANZAC class haven't been deployed in an environment that really requires more than ESSM as yet, though the "mini-typhoons" will provide an increased close protection capability for the ships.

RAN I believe is also less inclined to use a gun based CIWS system nowadays given their perceived lack of utility against modern threats. Or perhaps RAN simply doesn't possess enough Phalanx system to fit them. They only 3 or so available for Gulf War 1 and had to "rush" systems off other ships to equip the DDG heading to the Gulf... :unknown

Thanks AD.

I would have thought that the environment that HMAS Anzac was deployed to during the 2003 Iraq War was an area of operations calling for an enhanced close in defence capability. LPAs deployed to the Gulf were fitted with Phalanx (which I don't believe they had carried in RAN service previously) and also had an army RB70 team deployed. Also, Anzac did not have ESSM at the time.

The decommissioning of Canberra must provide at least one more Phalanx mount that can be used and given the ease with which it seems it could be fitted I am still surprised that it hasn't at least been trialled on an Australian FFH (even if returned to store later as was the case after the trials of Phalanx on Success).

Cheers

 

[Aussie Digger]

Thanks AD.

I would have thought that the environment that HMAS Anzac was deployed to during the 2003 Iraq War was an area of operations calling for an enhanced close in defence capability. LPAs deployed to the Gulf were fitted with Phalanx (which I don't believe they had carried in RAN service previously) and also had an army RB70 team deployed. Also, Anzac did not have ESSM at the time.

The decommissioning of Canberra must provide at least one more Phalanx mount that can be used and given the ease with which it seems it could be fitted I am still surprised that it hasn't at least been trialled on an Australian FFH (even if returned to store later as was the case after the trials of Phalanx on Success).

Cheers

Can't explain it either I'm afraid. I agree that GW2 is the closest an ANZAC frigate has come to facing an anti-shipping threat and I suppose that given it was operating as part of a "package" it may have not been considered necessary.

At any rate with the anti-ship missile defence upgrade approved and a 2nd tier "close in defence" capability to be chosen in partnership with the AWD program (for the commonality benefits) I guess it's a moot point really.

All the ANZAC's will have ESSM, "Mini-Typhoon" and the 2nd tier system, mated to an enhanced 3D radar system, phased array continuous wave illuminator, an IRST system and improved EW system.

At that point they'll be pretty well protected against ASM threats and Phalanx will likely not even be carried in the fleet.

 

[Pusser01]

The RAN currently has 9 Phalanx in its inventory. 6 purchased with the FFG's, 1 spare mount bought for training & the 2 that came with the LPA's. The Anzacs are currently space-&-weight reserved, not-fitted-for-but-not-with. They would require most of the wiring to be fitted etc, probably a couple of weeks would be required to fit one.
Cheers

 

[Tasman]

The RAN currently has 9 Phalanx in its inventory. 6 purchased with the FFG's, 1 spare mount bought for training & the 2 that came with the LPA's. The Anzacs are currently space-&-weight reserved, not-fitted-for-but-not-with. They would require most of the wiring to be fitted etc, probably a couple of weeks would be required to fit one.
Cheers

Thanks for that info. I hadn't realised how small the RAN's Phalanx inventory was. No wonder they were pulled off Success so soon after being trialled. Also explains why I never saw more than one of our old Perth class DDGs carrying them at any one time.

Cheers