Royal Australian Navy Discussions and Updates 2.0

Todjaeger

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Bob53 said:
Without wanting to restart a discussion about an Aircraft carrier for Australia. I finally had time to watch this YouTube video.

Putting aside the upscaled and navalised MQ28 …..one aspect discussed around the 55 minute was the claim a F35B ASEA radar could effectively be used as an Early Warning radar to give ships targeting data against inbound Anti Ship Missiles at ranges of up to 100 miles when flying at 30000 ft.

Is that a valid claim?
Click to expand...
As I understand it, sort of yes but also in many respects, "no."

There is a significant problem that many, in the public especially, are largely unaware of with respect to radars and early warning systems. By virtue of what frequencies and RF bands used (not counting the tricksy OTHR systems and possibly some weather radars) the radar systems used are basically directional in nature. The radar system emits a pulse (or pulses) and then is looking to receive a reflection back aka the return, if/when the emission comes in contact with something which would be in the vector which the emission traveled away from the radar system.

Where this becomes important for early warning and broad area sensing/surveillance systems is that wide arcs of coverage are needed in potentially detect objects. This is why area search radars fitted aboard aircraft and warships are either mechanically turned, so that the radar array can cover the entire area, or there are individual radar arrays to cover the approach arcs. With a fighter radar like the APG-81 AESA radar in the nose, most of the area around the F-35 could not be scanned by the radar unless the fighter itself was constantly conducting turns to cover/refresh return data on the approaches. Not sure what the arc is for the F-35 radar, but it is no where near 180 degree coverage, much less 360 degrees. The radar itself should work to detect a potential contact at a distance, provided that the contact is within the arc of the radar array. However if the F-35 is on a heading which is even a few degrees off from the potential target, it could very well escape detection if everything is reliant upon the F-35 for early warning
 
J

Julian 82

Active Member
Todjaeger said:
As I understand it, sort of yes but also in many respects, "no."

There is a significant problem that many, in the public especially, are largely unaware of with respect to radars and early warning systems. By virtue of what frequencies and RF bands used (not counting the tricksy OTHR systems and possibly some weather radars) the radar systems used are basically directional in nature. The radar system emits a pulse (or pulses) and then is looking to receive a reflection back aka the return, if/when the emission comes in contact with something which would be in the vector which the emission traveled away from the radar system.

Where this becomes important for early warning and broad area sensing/surveillance systems is that wide arcs of coverage are needed in potentially detect objects. This is why area search radars fitted aboard aircraft and warships are either mechanically turned, so that the radar array can cover the entire area, or there are individual radar arrays to cover the approach arcs. With a fighter radar like the APG-81 AESA radar in the nose, most of the area around the F-35 could not be scanned by the radar unless the fighter itself was constantly conducting turns to cover/refresh return data on the approaches. Not sure what the arc is for the F-35 radar, but it is no where near 180 degree coverage, much less 360 degrees. The radar itself should work to detect a potential contact at a distance, provided that the contact is within the arc of the radar array. However if the F-35 is on a heading which is even a few degrees off from the potential target, it could very well escape detection if everything is reliant upon the F-35 for early warning
Click to expand...
Could the F-35’s DAS and barracuda EW system provide 360 degree coverage? I accept that these systems may not be effective as a radar but would they assist in cueing the pilot to the threat axis?
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Todjaeger said:
As I understand it, sort of yes but also in many respects, "no."

There is a significant problem that many, in the public especially, are largely unaware of with respect to radars and early warning systems. By virtue of what frequencies and RF bands used (not counting the tricksy OTHR systems and possibly some weather radars) the radar systems used are basically directional in nature. The radar system emits a pulse (or pulses) and then is looking to receive a reflection back aka the return, if/when the emission comes in contact with something which would be in the vector which the emission traveled away from the radar system.

Where this becomes important for early warning and broad area sensing/surveillance systems is that wide arcs of coverage are needed in potentially detect objects. This is why area search radars fitted aboard aircraft and warships are either mechanically turned, so that the radar array can cover the entire area, or there are individual radar arrays to cover the approach arcs. With a fighter radar like the APG-81 AESA radar in the nose, most of the area around the F-35 could not be scanned by the radar unless the fighter itself was constantly conducting turns to cover/refresh return data on the approaches. Not sure what the arc is for the F-35 radar, but it is no where near 180 degree coverage, much less 360 degrees. The radar itself should work to detect a potential contact at a distance, provided that the contact is within the arc of the radar array. However if the F-35 is on a heading which is even a few degrees off from the potential target, it could very well escape detection if everything is reliant upon the F-35 for early warning
Click to expand...
Which is, of course, why old AEW aircraft have rotating radars above the fuselage, & modern ones have fixed arrays pointing at the very least to each side for 300˚ coverage, so nothing more than a looping or weaving track is needed, & often 360˚, depending on type.

A fighter is particularly ill-suited to the AEW role because it has to fly towards the area it wishes to survey, unlike purpose-built AEW aircraft.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
Todjaeger said:
With a fighter radar like the APG-81 AESA radar in the nose, most of the area around the F-35 could not be scanned by the radar unless the fighter itself was constantly conducting turns to cover/refresh return data on the approaches. Not sure what the arc is for the F-35 radar, but it is no where near 180 degree coverage, much less 360 degrees
Click to expand...
AFAIK most US fighters have a horizontal scan of -60 to + 60 so about 120 degrees, but there are limits to that as well that would further restrict its actual usable field of view.

There is a reason the US still has E3's, and is rushing in E7's. The US also has satellites and ships and land based radar systems.

The F-35 could update target information and provide tactical information on a target. Say a ship has moved ~50nm from where the ship last had radar contact, the F-35 could update that target data to the ship and perhaps even onto inbound smart munitions. But in no way is that acting like a AEW covering the whole sky horizon to horizon with updates. Its not going to find and track targets across the sky.

Stealth aircraft are designed to limit emissions, not go around blasting radar around with constant updates etc. Pretty much every airforce that is flying F-35's also intends to operate dedicated AEW aircraft. (Australia, US, UK, Italy, Greece, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and most of NATO would operate under a NATO AEW). As most AEW aircraft have ranges in the ~5000-6000 km range unrefueled, they can easily be operated by nearby land airbase, while still offering 24/7 cover of a fleet even in deep blue water.

IMO there is no need for anyone other than perhaps the US to require organic AEW on a carrier. Your navy and your fighters will run out of range before your land base AEW does. Even then, I wonder if the USN would even consider perhaps in the future replacing the E-2 or complimenting the E2 with E7s. After all the USN doesn't operate P8's from its carriers, but they do provide capability to carrier forces. Freeing up the AEW mission from even super carriers would allow more war fighting capability. The carrier could instead embark a drone for medium range organic cover.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Would any of Saab’s AEW business jets offer any advantages over the USN’s Hawkeye? Would it even be feasible to adapt a business jet for carrier operations?
 
M

Morgo

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
Would any of Saab’s AEW business jets offer any advantages over the USN’s Hawkeye? Would it even be feasible to adapt a business jet for carrier operations?
Click to expand...
More relevant for us - and the US Marines, and perhaps the RN - is the prospect of an AEW version of the V-280.

I have often wondered why this hasn't already been done with the V-22 to provide US amphibs with organic AEW but I presume that it has something to do with either (1) the cost (particularly for a relatively small fleet) not being worth the capability (ie they never expect their "Lightning carriers" to be too far away from their big brothers), and/or (2) there being a technical limitations in the interaction between the rather enormous tiltrotor nacelles / blades and a conformal AESA like the one on the Peregrine.

If it's #1, perhaps the greater scale of AUKUS might make developing such a capability feasible. The Poms would certainly benefit from the increased range and payload over the Crownest helicopters they're using now.

(Apologies in advance mods, I know this is speculative but feasible in the context of AUKUS).
 
S

seaspear

Well-Known Member
This article from Defence News goes into the U.S.N trials towards reloading missiles oton ships at sea it does make a claim that adding just to three ships capable of reloading would provide the equivalence of having 18 more cruisers and destroyers in the fleet ,obviously the R.A.N may be interested in such trials and rearming its ships quickly
US Navy prioritizes ‘game-changing’ rearming capability for ships (defensenews.com)
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Morgo said:
More relevant for us - and the US Marines, and perhaps the RN - is the prospect of an AEW version of the V-280.

I have often wondered why this hasn't already been done with the V-22 to provide US amphibs with organic AEW but I presume that it has something to do with either (1) the cost (particularly for a relatively small fleet) not being worth the capability (ie they never expect their "Lightning carriers" to be too far away from their big brothers), and/or (2) there being a technical limitations in the interaction between the rather enormous tiltrotor nacelles / blades and a conformal AESA like the one on the Peregrine.

If it's #1, perhaps the greater scale of AUKUS might make developing such a capability feasible. The Poms would certainly benefit from the increased range and payload over the Crownest helicopters they're using now.

(Apologies in advance mods, I know this is speculative but feasible in the context of AUKUS).
Click to expand...
Probably both issues would be my guess. Certainly a VTOL AEW aircraft would offer advantages over Crownest helicopters.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
seaspear said:
This article from Defence News goes into the U.S.N trials towards reloading missiles oton ships at sea it does make a claim that adding just to three ships capable of reloading would provide the equivalence of having 18 more cruisers and destroyers in the fleet ,obviously the R.A.N may be interested in such trials and rearming its ships quickly
US Navy prioritizes ‘game-changing’ rearming capability for ships (defensenews.com)
Click to expand...
This certainly would be a game changer but as per the article, operation on the open sea is needed but is a long way off. The other concern would be the vulnerable and valuable resupply ships. How many missiles would these vessels carry, I assume enough to rearm several ships. Sub bait for sure.
 
B

Bob53

Well-Known Member
Todjaeger said:
As I understand it, sort of yes but also in many respects, "no."

There is a significant problem that many, in the public especially, are largely unaware of with respect to radars and early warning systems. By virtue of what frequencies and RF bands used (not counting the tricksy OTHR systems and possibly some weather radars) the radar systems used are basically directional in nature. The radar system emits a pulse (or pulses) and then is looking to receive a reflection back aka the return, if/when the emission comes in contact with something which would be in the vector which the emission traveled away from the radar system.

Where this becomes important for early warning and broad area sensing/surveillance systems is that wide arcs of coverage are needed in potentially detect objects. This is why area search radars fitted aboard aircraft and warships are either mechanically turned, so that the radar array can cover the entire area, or there are individual radar arrays to cover the approach arcs. With a fighter radar like the APG-81 AESA radar in the nose, most of the area around the F-35 could not be scanned by the radar unless the fighter itself was constantly conducting turns to cover/refresh return data on the approaches. Not sure what the arc is for the F-35 radar, but it is no where near 180 degree coverage, much less 360 degrees. The radar itself should work to detect a potential contact at a distance, provided that the contact is within the arc of the radar array. However if the F-35 is on a heading which is even a few degrees off from the potential target, it could very well escape detection if everything is reliant upon the F-35 for early warning
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to explain here.
 
StingrayOZ

StingrayOZ

Super Moderator
Staff member
John Fedup said:
Would any of Saab’s AEW business jets offer any advantages over the USN’s Hawkeye? Would it even be feasible to adapt a business jet for carrier operations?
Click to expand...
The USN has a missile tracking NC37b based off a gulfstream, and the USAF has another but neither are AEW, but could be with that airframe.
www.thedrive.com

Behold The First Official Photo Of The Navy's New NC-37B Missile Tracking Jet

Once complete, the unique aircraft will support various missile and missile-defense research and development projects and help patrol test ranges.
www.thedrive.com www.thedrive.com

E-2 Hawkeyes are noisy, uncomfortable things. Even if they had some AEW G550's to augment them, it would probably be a nicer job to sit in. The E2's core systems are pretty old, while there have been some hardware upgrades, the core fundamental bits are much the same.
 
S

swerve

Super Moderator
StingrayOZ said:
... Stealth aircraft are designed to limit emissions, not go around blasting radar around with constant updates etc. Pretty much every airforce that is flying F-35's also intends to operate dedicated AEW aircraft. (Australia, US, UK, Italy, Greece, Singapore, Japan, South Korea, and most of NATO would operate under a NATO AEW). ....
Click to expand...
Don't forget Israel.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
The Australian has confirmed the rumors that Australia will indeed be getting new corvettes.
For those who cannot breach the paywall it seems that Austal CEO Patrick Gregg has confirmed that they will be building up to a dozen new corvettes based on their successful Cape design. Gregg stated that the first of these new corvettes will enter service around 2028.

He was also pitching the idea of a specialised ASW and AAW version.

"We could field dozens of these vessels for the cost of a single Hunter class frigate" claimed the Austal CEO.

cape03.jpg
 
Last edited:
V

Volkodav

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
hauritz said:
The Australian has confirmed the rumors that Australia will indeed be getting new corvettes.
For those who cannot breach the paywall it seems that Austal CEO Patrick Gregg has confirmed that they will be building up to a dozen new corvettes based on their successful Cape design. Gregg stated that the first of these new corvettes will enter service around 2028.

He was also pitching the idea of a specialised ASW and AAW version.

"We tookcould field dozens of these vessels for the cost of a single Hunter class frigate" claimed the Austal CEO.

View attachment 50387
Click to expand...
April 1st.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top