Naval Radars: AEGIS, EMPAR and SAMPSON comparison

[European]

What do you think about this naval radar?
The US Aegis, Italian-French Empar or UK Sampson?

 

[webmaster]

When opening "which is best" thread, please detail your posts.

Why don't YOU tell us which is best? And WHY YOU think that? Support your comments with facts and other technical details? This will allow others to reply to your opinion and viewpoint and have a meaningful discussion. Lets see if you can do that, otherwise this thread will be deleted.

 

[Sea Toby]

To be fair, please add the Dutch/German APAR system into the poll.

 

[Grand Danois]

To be fair, please add the Dutch/German APAR system into the poll.

And to be precise, alter AEGIS to AN/SPY-1D.

 

[contedicavour]

The factors I would use to compare the systems are :
> range, especially if there is no long range AAW radar supporting the system
> number of targets that can be tracked simultaneously
> number of targets towards which missiles can be guided, simultaneously
> sensibility to ECM

I could provide you with the published data regarding EMPAR, though I lack the similar data on the other competing systems, so I cannot answer the question.

I do have a question of my own by the way : do the active phased array radars really have an edge over passive phased array radars, in regard to the criteria I highlighted above ?

cheers

 

[Awang se]

i believe the ol' soviet did attempt to developed their own aegis equivalent system. i forgot the name though.

 

[contedicavour]

i believe the ol' soviet did attempt to developed their own aegis equivalent system. i forgot the name though.

You mean the planar arrays that turned out to be filled with cement ?
If I remember correctly, the Kuznetsov and the Gorshkov (the Kiev class carrier now being sold to India) both had these, called "Sky Watch" in NATO terms. I don't know if these systems are now really operational.

cheers

 

[perfectgeneral]

I can't believe that SAMPSON isn't winning this.

It is a better system for tracking sea-skimming missles and just as good (at least) in all other respects.

 

[Grand Danois]

It is a better system for tracking sea-skimming missles and just as good (at least) in all other respects.

Happen to agree with you. But take the view that it is a horses for courses thing. The thread just didn't happen to have a very good start and you quickly risk being perceived as denigrating on a particular piece of kit.

 

[contedicavour]

It is a better system for tracking sea-skimming missles and just as good (at least) in all other respects.

If I understand correctly SAMPSON is active phased array. How does this make it "just as good (at least) in all other respects" ? No irony here at all, I'm really interested in a technical answer.

cheers

 

[McZosch]

Aegis, EMPAR and APAR are - as mentioned ealier - passive arrays. Passive arrays cannot perform multi-neam operations, nor can they form their beams digitally. On passive arrays, anything is just a matter of time- and vector-management.
Active beams can be created more or less simply by software. They can be adapted to any task you can mind. As US-AESA-radars, SMPSON has a very low probability of intercept (LPI).
The Anti-ECM-capabilities are very much the same.

Apart from this, EMPAR and APAR have far lower simultaneous engagement numbers than SAMPSON. From what I read from official sources, they can track up to 200 target, where SAMPSON will handle over 2000.

EMPAR and SAMPSON share a common benefit: the Aster-missile system. It's an active missile or - more precise - a missile with an active seeker. No illuminator is required for that. "Engaging" means track, fire and forget.

For the other systems, permanent illumination is required. All APAR-ships built to date have SM-2 missiles and 4 APAR arrays capable of guiding 4 missiles each - that makes only 16 engagements. Aegis-destroyers only have 3 separate illuminators, cruisers 4. This restricts the ability to engage targets.

At medium-range, APAR and Aegis have the benefit of ESSM, which drastically increases the number of missiles available. We will see, if VL Mica or maybe a Meteor-derivative will be introduced. At longer range, SM3-ER has nearly double the range of an Aster-30.

Aegis and APAR are fixed installations, which makes maintenance easier and cover 360° without rotating like EMPAR or SAMPSON. BAe says, it's possible to install SAMPSON like an Aegis-system. The MoD has opted for a rotating array due to cost and due to a higher installation, which increases range.

 

[Grand Danois]

APAR is also an AESA.

I would in general say numbers of tracks is more a virtue of the CMS than the radar.


It seems AESA's also have some design and maintenace advantages.

The difference between AESA and PESA
In a passive electronically scanned array (PESA), the microwave feed network in the back of the antenna is powered by a single RF source (magnetron, klystron, TWT, etc.), sending its waves into phase shift modules (usually digitally-controlled), which, in turn, feed the numerous emitting elements.

An AESA, instead, has an individual RF source for each of its many transmit/receive elements, making them "active".

This provides for a graceful degradation, so that many T/R modules may fail and the radar would not stop functioning.

Furthermore, AESA radars do not have an RF source in the common meaning of the term (magnetron\klystron\TWT), which usually requires extremely high operating voltages (reaching 50 kVa). Instead of any of the aforementioned traditional RF sources, individual AESA elements create electromagnetic waves through such objects as gallium-arsenide modules which usually require no more than 40 to 60 volts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Electronically_Scanned_Array

Another note. AN/SPY-1D has two magnetrons ie has to arrays active at any one time, cycling through all four. It beats a single faced rotator hands down, but you'll get an equal amount of time on target from a double faced rotator like SAMPSON.

 

[killbill2]

How about the AN/SPY 3. it's an AESA and already been delivered. It;s being saved for the DDX.

The AN/SPY-3 Multi-Function Radar (MFR) is an X-band active phased-array radar designed to meet all horizon search and fire control requirements for the 21st-century Fleet. MFR is designed to detect the most advanced low-observable anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) threats and support fire-control illumination requirements for the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM, see separate program summary), Standard Missiles (SM-2/SM-3, see separate program summaries), and future missiles required to support engagement of the most stressing ASCMs. MFR also supports new ship-design requirement for reduced radar cross-section, significantly reduced manning (no operators), and total ownership cost reduction. MFR is planned for introduction in CVN-77 and next-generation CVNX aircraft carriers and the now-refocused DDX surface warship programs (see separate program summaries).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/mfr.htm

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Ray...dar_Successfully_Conducts_At_Sea_Testing.html

 

[contedicavour]

Aegis, EMPAR and APAR are - as mentioned ealier - passive arrays. Passive arrays cannot perform multi-neam operations, nor can they form their beams digitally. On passive arrays, anything is just a matter of time- and vector-management.
Active beams can be created more or less simply by software. They can be adapted to any task you can mind. As US-AESA-radars, SMPSON has a very low probability of intercept (LPI).
The Anti-ECM-capabilities are very much the same.

Apart from this, EMPAR and APAR have far lower simultaneous engagement numbers than SAMPSON. From what I read from official sources, they can track up to 200 target, where SAMPSON will handle over 2000.

EMPAR and SAMPSON share a common benefit: the Aster-missile system. It's an active missile or - more precise - a missile with an active seeker. No illuminator is required for that. "Engaging" means track, fire and forget.

For the other systems, permanent illumination is required. All APAR-ships built to date have SM-2 missiles and 4 APAR arrays capable of guiding 4 missiles each - that makes only 16 engagements. Aegis-destroyers only have 3 separate illuminators, cruisers 4. This restricts the ability to engage targets.

At medium-range, APAR and Aegis have the benefit of ESSM, which drastically increases the number of missiles available. We will see, if VL Mica or maybe a Meteor-derivative will be introduced. At longer range, SM3-ER has nearly double the range of an Aster-30.

Aegis and APAR are fixed installations, which makes maintenance easier and cover 360° without rotating like EMPAR or SAMPSON. BAe says, it's possible to install SAMPSON like an Aegis-system. The MoD has opted for a rotating array due to cost and due to a higher installation, which increases range.

Thanks, I've found in your post a lot of information I didn't have.
A few questions :
> why woud a Navy be interested in tracking 2000 targets when it can anyway only engage as many as its number of illuminators or of active missiles ? Even if the ship was coordinating 3 or 4 DDG/FFGs so much information would be useless wouldn't it ?
> what it is the range of SM-3 ER ? Aster 30 is 120km.
> if I understand correctly, an AESA with LPI would thus be less vulnerable to ECM and Harm-type missiles than a PESA ?

cheers

 

[contedicavour]

APAR is also an AESA.

I would in general say numbers of tracks is more a virtue of the CMS than the radar.


It seems AESA's also have some design and maintenace advantages.



Another note. AN/SPY-1D has two magnetrons ie has to arrays active at any one time, cycling through all four. It beats a single faced rotator hands down, but you'll get an equal amount of time on target from a double faced rotator like SAMPSON.

Thks Grand Danois for the info.
Though the more I read the more I get the feeling AESAs are easier to maintain, require lower voltage, may track fewer targets but PESA track more than enough vs available missiles, in short they are not better in terms of performance (range, number of targets engaged in any given time) ?
If I am allowed to make a dumb comparison, it's like comparing 2 engines with the same horsepower, only the more recent one consumes less, is more easy to maintain ...
I get the feeling the difference between PESA and AESA is so limited to date that missiles (with active seekers) and CMS make much more of a difference !

cheers

 

[McZosch]

APAR is also an AESA.

That's right, i was mistaken. I read, the beam-forming mechanism is inferior to that of SAMPSON. Another article I read stated APAR has no such beam.forming device, which is clearly false. So much rumours.

> why woud a Navy be interested in tracking 2000 targets when it can anyway only engage as many as its number of illuminators or of active missiles ? Even if the ship was coordinating 3 or 4 DDG/FFGs so much information would be useless wouldn't it ?

One commonality of those systems is the ability to put other surface combatant's missiles into the "basket". This capability was the main criteria for Aegis, as at the beginning of the 80's, only few Aegis-ships were available. So it's a question of how much missilies (and what type of missiles) the whole battlegroup has.
For usefulness: if there are 2000 targets, it is very useful to know them. It's very useful to be able to pick out high value targets. If you're out of ammo, this information may help the staff to bring in reinforcements. A.s.o..

> what it is the range of SM-3 ER ? Aster 30 is 120km.

According to Wikipedia (article is mostly basing on US Navy fact file) > 200nm, other sources stating up to > 270nm (~500km). Btw, the SM-3 ER is not the counter-part of the ASTER. It's an ballistic-missile-defence weapon. In 2008, the SM-6 ERAM will be in service with the USN. That will remedy most deficiencies against ASTER combined with far greater range (~200nm).

> if I understand correctly, an AESA with LPI would thus be less vulnerable to ECM and Harm-type missiles than a PESA ?

Theorethically, yes. Because there are not one single RF source but one per module, which makes it more fault-tolerant. The outgoing beam can be adapted to ECM, which is impossible for PESAs.
The effective range of interception of the SAMPSON is below 1.5 km, making SEAD-equipment like HARM very - let's say inefficient. Further, AESAs can act themselves as ECM suites, someone has stated they can even be used as some kind of very secretive com-array.

 

[DoC_FouALieR]

what it is the range of SM-3 ER

AFAIK, the SM-3 is only a derivate version of the SM-2 ER designed to engage ballistic missile in their mid-course with an exo-atmospheric kill vehicle. I don't know precisely the range of the SM-2 ER, but it certainly have a range in excess of 100 nm.

 

[Grand Danois]

This is a golden oldie document, I just remembered and Googled up. Easy to read and covers this subject and the radars in question.

Waypoint: Shipboard Phased Array Radars

Based on the radars alone, and not missiles etc., my perception with the information at hand with regard to technology and performance, is that the list should look like this:

1. SAMPSON/S1850M
   
   
2. APAR/Smart-L
   
   
3. AN/SPY-1D
   
   
4. EMPAR/S1850M
   

SPY-3 is not on the list, as little is known (by me). However, if ranked it would probably go # 1.

 

[contedicavour]

This is a golden oldie document, I just remembered and Googled up. Easy to read and covers this subject and the radars in question.

Waypoint: Shipboard Phased Array Radars

Based on the radars alone, and not missiles etc., my perception with the information at hand with regard to technology and performance, is that the list should look like this:

1. SAMPSON/S1850M
   
   
2. APAR/Smart-L
   
   
3. AN/SPY-1D
   
   
4. EMPAR

SPY-3 is not on the list, as little is known (by me). However, if ranked it would probably go # 1.

Just an important detail : at least on our DDGs and on the new Carrier we use EMPAR always in conjunction with S1850 long range radar.
I just saw it operational on the Andrea Doria DDG 2 days ago in the Muggiano shipyard of Fincantieri near La Spezia. Huge range !!
How would this mix rank in your hierarchy ?

cheers

 

[Grand Danois]

Just an important detail : at least on our DDGs and on the new Carrier we use EMPAR always in conjunction with S1850 long range radar.
I just saw it operational on the Andrea Doria DDG 2 days ago in the Muggiano shipyard of Fincantieri near La Spezia. Huge range !!
How would this mix rank in your hierarchy ?

cheers

I didn't forget the S1850M for the EMPAR when making my hierarchy. Just forgot to write it on the list.