Yes, Hunter class will have CEC. AEGIS with CEC was mandated for all bidders in 2017, perhaps earlier but that's when I first saw it.
oldsig
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
oldsig
Thanks, I stand corrected. I thought it was an integral part of AEGIS.
Underway
Member
Aegis is a word that means different things to different people. Aegis has a combat system and weapon system components as well as threat libraries. It has dozens of parts. ASW, ASuW, AAW, EW, ECM, threat library, software, hardware, etc...
If I use the Aegis threat library in my combat management system is that Aegis? What if I use some of the software call functions for CEC in CMS330, is that AEGIS? Lockheed has a tendency to say that anything that touches Aegis or something that was developed for Aegis is Aegis. It's marketing.
CMS330 already uses some software and threat libraries that are also used in Aegis. So we connect it to a new radar (SPY 7) and suddenly Canada is an Aegis fleet? Hardly.
If I use the Aegis threat library in my combat management system is that Aegis? What if I use some of the software call functions for CEC in CMS330, is that AEGIS? Lockheed has a tendency to say that anything that touches Aegis or something that was developed for Aegis is Aegis. It's marketing.
CMS330 already uses some software and threat libraries that are also used in Aegis. So we connect it to a new radar (SPY 7) and suddenly Canada is an Aegis fleet? Hardly.
Last edited:
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
On the other hand, if the Canadian system is using the Aegis architecture, libraries, comm links, radar, weapons management etc and the only difference between the CMS330 and a US Aegis equipped ship is the HMI, I would argue that it is Aegis. So the question becomes, what parts of the Aegis system is CMS330 using? I haven't seen anyone volunteering that information yet.
If I was Lockheed Martin and I was approached by a country to develop a CMS, I might be tempted to take an existing system, change the HMI, give it a new name and charge a crap load of money for doing little work.
All just speculation.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
LM, as developer for Aegis and the CMS330 as well as being a partner in the CSC program, I am reasonably confident they will sort things. It’s in their interest.
DAVID DUNLOP
Active Member
Could not agree more, John Fedup!
What do you base that on? Some sources supporting your opinion are required.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Aegis might me different things to different people, but I would be more concerned about how LockMart and especially the USN as the primary user and driver of development define it.
Here is a link the USN's Aegis Weapon System factfile, last updated 10 Jan 2019.
Here is a link to a LockMart brochure about Aegis.
Both talk about the importance of the AN/SPY or describe it as "the heart of the system" so less emphasis is devoted to the actual data systems which processes the sensor data. From my POV, the systems which collection and collate the data, and then present that data to the crew, is really the heart of the system. Having read through the LockMart brochure, it talks about an Open Architecture design, which should make incorporating indigenous systems easier. My take on that seems to be quite similar to @Black Jack Shellac 's. If the CMS330 elements are 'just' part of the HMI for domestic Canadian consoles which will interface with computers running Aegis software, then the system would be an Aegis combat system. OTOH if the primary software being utilized to process the sensor returns and collate the data to present it to the crew is CMS330 software, but the system also makes use of the Aegis CSL, then the combat system would be CMS330 and not an Aegis system.
I suspect part of the issue, and the reason for some of the differences in terms of how it is viewed, is that since the Advanced Surface Missile System programme was launched (pun intended) by the USN in 1963, which is the predecessor to Aegis and led to the development of Aegis, the developed capabilities and elements have spread out.
For a very long time, when one spoke of Aegis, it was talking about a system which included specific radars, computers to process the radar returns, and consoles to display the data. All this while some of the individual components had their own specific names as well, like AN/SPY.
Now however, there are more individual elements which seem to be able to be changed/swapped out for comparable alternatives. From my POV this is largely a good thing, as using a systems architecture which is more flexible should permit easier integration of new/different systems by various operators.
Underway
Member
Combat Management Systems don't collect and collate data and then distribute it. They perform the detect to engage sequence and execute it. That is the heart of a CMS. CMS collects the data from the sensors then does all the math to ensure that whatever you are using to hit the target gets there. First you have to find the target and localize it. Identify, classify and track it. Then you have to fire and control the weapon and confirm there was an actual kill (this is called the detect to engage sequence). Developing the fire control solution: which is hitting a moving target, through a moving environment, with a moving projectile from a moving platform is extremely complicated. The sensor inputs come from many places, the environment/weather, ships attitude (gyro), weapon parameters (muzzle velocity, gun barrel temp, ammo type, ammo weight and performance etc...), radar, visual, and the list goes on. The more accurate information you can feed into the CMS the better your fire control solution.
As per the wiki entry "The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an advanced command and control (command and decision, or C&D, in Aegis parlance) and weapon control system (WCS) that uses powerful computers and radars to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets."
It can be argued that the core command and decision making software/hardware needs to be Aegis for a platform to be an Aegis one. Your home computer is labeled by its operating system (Mac, Linux, Windows) and adding or subtracting other apps, or peripherals don't change that label. As such I'm comfortable saying that adding an "Aegis type" radar doesn't change the system to be Aegis, any more then adding a Thales APAR would make this a TACTICOS system.
At the end of the day I'm sure you can call it what you like, as long as it makes the right things go kaboom at the right time.
As per the wiki entry "The Aegis Combat System (ACS) is an advanced command and control (command and decision, or C&D, in Aegis parlance) and weapon control system (WCS) that uses powerful computers and radars to track and guide weapons to destroy enemy targets."
It can be argued that the core command and decision making software/hardware needs to be Aegis for a platform to be an Aegis one. Your home computer is labeled by its operating system (Mac, Linux, Windows) and adding or subtracting other apps, or peripherals don't change that label. As such I'm comfortable saying that adding an "Aegis type" radar doesn't change the system to be Aegis, any more then adding a Thales APAR would make this a TACTICOS system.
At the end of the day I'm sure you can call it what you like, as long as it makes the right things go kaboom at the right time.
Last edited:
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
LM's Lemmo on New Frigate
LM's Lemmo on Combat Systems
The above two videos were both posted before in this Forum, but I don't feel like searching for the specific posts. In them Paul Lemmo of Lockheed Martin discusses both Aegis and Spy-7.
In the first vid at around 3 minutes, he discusses what Aegis is. It is not specific hardware, it is not really hardware at all. To use your own analogy, it is the operating system of a computer. And just like a computer, if I want to add a device (be it radar, gun, missile, etc) I need to install the appropiate driver. What Aegis is (based on my understanding of what Lemmo says) is an operating system and a series of software suites to control the various hardware on the ship and integrate them. In this video he specifically states that the Canadian frigate is Aegis, and the radar has nothing to do with that.
In the second video he starts around 3:45. Again he discussed how Aegis is based on a common source library of software to control the various systems on the ships. Later on, around 6:45 he discusses how any sensor can be coupled to Aegis, the sensor has nothing to do with Aegis, what is Aegis is the control for the sensor and the integration into the combat management system. He again mentions that Canada will have the Aegis combat system.
So as such I am comfortable saying that the combat management system on the CSC is Aegis as per Lockheed Martin. And the only difference between it and any other Aegis system are the subsystems selected, one being a different HMI. To again use your analogy, it would be like saying, I am use to using Windows XP and hate the Windows 10 interface, so I am going to put a shield on my computer so it looks and acts like Windows XP even though the underlying operating system is Windows 10. Canada has the CMS330 HMI, our navy and sailors are used to it and understand it, so they don't want to change the HMI. But the underlying operating system is Aegis.
In my opinion.
Underway
Member
According to Lockheeds website on the CSC that isn't the case.Black Jack Shellac said:
The CMS330 development program was significantly different enough that Chile and NZ can buy the combat management system without ITAR issues. Which by extrapolation means that Aegis combat management is not part of the core system as its an ITAR system. You can read all about it on the Lockheed CMS330 page which discusses how and why CMS330 was developed, ITAR free nature, buyers, and the advantages of the system. It also talks about how the CMS program is a 25+ year development in Canada separate from other country's programs.
As for Paul Lemmo. He's a salesman. For Lockheed. At a weapons sales conference.
*Edit*
This whole def'n issue was bugging me so today I spoke with a few senior colleagues (I work in the RCN) about their take on the definition of Aegis. The best was that Aegis is both the radar and the CMS. They work hand in glove with each other. One can have Aegis CMS and a different radar, and Aegis radar and different CMS. They were originally developed together (US Navy Factfile). Paul Lemmo was likely using Aegis as a shorthand for the capabilities of the system, without going into the minutia detail. So I'm right and wrong?? *shrug, steps off high horse*
Last edited by a moderator:
These days Aegis is basically software programs, libraries and interfaces. In the beginning it had specific hardware but that has become COTS in recent years. You can have Aegis with any radar you like (although you might have to do quite a bit of integration to make it work, it's not that open architecture) and it's still Aegis, but the initial radar was SPY-1. If you could have SPY-1 with another combat system (which I don't think has ever been done) then that combat system would not become Aegis. The confusion comes because for so long the two were related on a one on one basis and the two terms were effectively used interchangeably. They shouldn't have been, however, as it was never so -they were always distinct (I was involved with the Aegis and SPY-1 acquisition programs for the first Ticos in the early 80s).
Aegis use to be clearly identifiable thing, the USN used it, and it was fairly uniform. However, now its much more modular its not as clear cut any more. Saying Aegis is like saying 5th generation fighter, its now effectively a marketing term, and no longer really ties together all the capabilities like it used to. I see CMS330 as a component derived from Aegis. CMS330 isn't the magic key, by itself it doesn't bring a whole lot to the table.
If Lockheed says anything that has CMS330 is aegis, then the Aegis brand has fallen quite a way, and NZ in now an Aegis navy.
The radar used to be very tightly integrated into Aegis, but that is no longer the case. CMS330 advantage is that it is supposed to be fairly easy to integrate other aegis components into it.
I find Australia is a very interesting example what it is doing with its Hobart class. Its going to junk out its entire rather new Aegis set (radar, consoles, C&D, WCS, etc) and replace it with newer versions of Aegis and the 9LV system (which will be the consoles), its own unique powerful radar, but still firing US weapons etc. I find it quite curious that such a new user of Aegis has decided to junk a lot of the previous strong points (radar, consoles, displays), and really focus on keeping the core aegis system (which is the newer baseline C&D,WCS, and I assume some sort of adapted FCS but operating through different illumination..), selection high capability additions like CEC, but replacing a lot of its outer portions, it then starts to become very blurred. They clearly aren't doing this to save money (they already have the equipment installed) and clearly the ships won't be any less capable. The fact they are putting CEC on every ship also seems to indicate they foresee no issues tightly integrating with US and other aegis fleets.
edit to provide sources:
References regarding upgrade:
Aegis for Future Frigates with Saab tactical interface - Australian Defence Magazine
Aegis for Future Frigates with Saab tactical interface
www.australiandefence.com.au
Radical shake up planned for Australia’s Hobart-class destroyers
Australia’s troubled shipbuilding industry could be overhauled under radical proposals by the Canberra government, local media reports have indicated. Speculation is rife that British defence giant BAE Systems will be brought in to rescue the Navy’s long-delayed and over-budget Hobart-class air...
www.naval-technology.com
There is some interesting points regarding this on the hunter - A BIGGER SHIELD – Aegis Baseline 9 for Australia – ADBR
But that highlights the modularity of the system in place now. Not all US equipment and configuration is ideal for other nations. Its not just about less capability or saving money either.
Aegis is now more like the software (it no longer needs special military hardware, regular COTS servers run it) and is really the development API for warships. More like how DirectX or OpenGL is API. Vendors then develop solution that integrate and interface their hardware with those API libraries.
We will probably see Aegis scale up into new high capability platforms, and scale down to smaller ships and platforms. And possibly into different ships other than surface combatants.
Last edited:
Underway
Member
I don't know, but I expect Australia is moving away from Aegis CMS because of ITAR issues. With ITAR you continuously pay. In money, delays, security clearances, US only contractors and with the whims of US Congress. This is one of the reasons many nations are going with European built systems on their ships. If you look at the NZ frigate upgrade I'm pretty sure almost every major system is European (Swedish radar, British missiles etc...). So much easier to buy and integrate.
Todjaeger
Potstirrer
Why would you expect Australia to move away from Aegis, when that is going to be the CMS used not just aboard the Hobart-class DDG's, but the upcoming Hunter-class FFG's? If the RAN had existing classes using the Aegis CMS, and their incoming replacement classes were to utilize a different CMS, then I could understand, but that is not the case for the RAN.
As for FMS and ITARS issues, yes, they can occur. OTOH to assert that Euro systems are "easier to buy and integrate" IMO is not an accurate statement. As I see it, there are advantages and disadvantages to procuring systems from the US and from European sources. Blanket statements that one is 'easier' to do really is not all that accurate.
Australia is not moving away from Aegis; what it is doing in the Hobarts is to replace a bespoke front end to the system with a more standard one based on 9LV. So far as I know there is no intention to replace the SPY-1D(V) in the Hobarts with another radar, although I have no special knowledge.
A similar solution is planned in the Hunters where Aegis is mandated, but there it will be interfaced, through the SAAB developed products presumably, to the CEA radars.
ITAR is a pain in the neck but it is not all that expensive and while its management is arcane and can be very convoluted it's pretty well understood inside the Australian DoD and is managed on a day to day basis.
(Ed, sorry Todjaeger, I was writing while you were posting!)
A similar solution is planned in the Hunters where Aegis is mandated, but there it will be interfaced, through the SAAB developed products presumably, to the CEA radars.
ITAR is a pain in the neck but it is not all that expensive and while its management is arcane and can be very convoluted it's pretty well understood inside the Australian DoD and is managed on a day to day basis.
(Ed, sorry Todjaeger, I was writing while you were posting!)
I have nightmares about integrating Euro systems. Almost every But not all cluster f experienced by the modernADF has been caused by it.
Can you point me to a source for replacing the radar on the Hobarts with a CEA radar suite? All I know of is the Sea 4000 Phase 6 upgrade to Baseline 9 which (although it introduces open architecture) doesn't appear to include new radars, nor 9LV for that matter unless I've completely forgotten something
oldsig
A CH-148 Cyclone helicopter from the frigate HMCS Fredericton has crashed in the Mediterranean between Greece and Italy on 29/4/2020 Search for Canadian military helicopter underway in Mediterranean. The SAR OP for the six crew onboard is underway. Unconfirmed reports suggest that one body has been found. Royal Canadian Air Force CH-148 Cyclone Helicopter Crashes into Ionian Sea - DefPost