A Ground Based ARTISAN

The BAE/ROKE ARTISAN (Advanced Radar Target Indication Situational Awareness and Navigation) Radar is now in service with the Royal Navy, designated the Type 997.

[tabs] [tab title=”ARTISAN 3D”]

HMS_Argyll_Type_997_Radar_MOD_45156530

[/tab] [tab title=”ARTISAN Video”]

[/tab] [/tabs]

It is an advanced medium range 3D radar with a high level of resistance to jamming, providing air surveillance, target identification and air traffic management services.

The Saab GIRAFFE Agile Multi Beam Radar is now in service with the British Army as part of the Land Environment Air Picture Provision (LEAPP) system being developed by Lockheed Martin in a £100m contract awarded in 2008.

[tabs] [tab title=”Giraffe”]
Saab Giraffe Radar 2012 Olympics
Saab Giraffe Radar 2012 Olympics
[/tab] [tab title=”Giraffe Video”]

[/tab] [/tabs]

It is an advanced medium range 3D radar with a high level of resistance to jamming, providing air surveillance, target identification and air traffic management services.

Both will be used to provide target information for the Common Anti Air Missile (Sea and Land Ceptor) as part of the Future Local Area Air Defence System (FLAADS) land and naval flavours.

Sea Ceptor missile system FLAADS(M)
Sea Ceptor missile system FLAADS(M)
Future Light Anti Aircraft Defence System (Land) - FLAADS(L) using the MBDA Common Anti Air Missile
Future Light Anti Aircraft Defence System (Land) – FLAADS(L) using the MBDA Common Anti Air Missile

The ARTISAN antenna weighs in at about 700kg and was developed at a cost of over £100m, the UK has a lot invested in ARTISAN and just looking at the headline brochure stats looks much more capable.

Saab has a naval version of the lower Giraffe AMB but BAE do not seem to be marketing a land version of ARTISAN.

We have a common missile, gone will be Sea Wolf and Rapier to be replaced with CAMM but different primary search and target sensors.

My question, why no commonality between the land and maritime environments to eliminate duplication and drive down support costs?

If we really want to drive down defence costs, commonality and the elimination of duplication is one of the most fruitful avenues. If there is no good reason for maintaining two systems that do the same thing is there an ‘invest to save’ argument to withdraw the handful of Giraffe radars in service and replace them with the much more numerous and higher performance ARTISAN?

Maximising our considerable investment in ARTISAN and lowering overall support costs, best pack that kind of radical nonsense in right now.

 

75 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mark1603
Mark1603
April 13, 2015 10:47 am

Perhaps the question should be, why did the Navy go down the BAe route, when LEAPP was already in service. Sadly there is a lack of “joined-up” thinking and discussions across all three services, and even worse in the Army between the Arms and Services Directorates. If you do commonality, that would mean you could have a reduction in head-count across the services and associated Civil service PT’s.

Hohum
Hohum
April 13, 2015 11:06 am

Radars are not my specialty but I must admit to having wondered exactly the same thing.

Certainly historically the RN has kept a very close relationship with its radar and CMS providers (they were doing this work in-house or very closely with industry until the 80s) where as the RAF and Army were always more commercially orientated. It could be a throwback to that.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
April 13, 2015 11:38 am

700kg gets you the antenna only………

ARTISAN has been in development for nigh-on twelve years and pre-dates the LEAPP by some margin.

It might also be instructive to compare the target sets and operational environments in the respective staff requirements (were they in the public domain).

Topman
Topman
April 13, 2015 12:07 pm

@ TD

How much would it have cost to use the ARTISAN instead of SAAB’s system, what would we have got for a £100m?

Observer
Observer
April 13, 2015 12:14 pm

I’m more worried that a single type of radar system might be vulnerable to specific jamming methods/frequencies, so killing your entire IAD grid at once rather than only degrading it.

How big a problem is that?

Topman
Topman
April 13, 2015 12:23 pm

@ TD

I get your point about commonality, but at what cost? If it was triple the cost (I don’t know either) would it be worth it? I’m not sure, does girafe have alot of uses that we can get economies of scale?
Maybe a cheaper/modified system could have been used for both, but I don’t know the exact requirements.

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 12:36 pm

ARTISAN is a maritime radar optimised to work over water, in different environmental conditions and against a different threat set; it has a much longer genesis in the ARTIST project which itself evolved from the requirement for the successor radar to 996. It has nothing to do with FLAADS; the missile evolved separately and is designed to be plug-and-play with any C2 system and/or radar or other source of target data. It operates very differently to GIRAFFE, a radar that evolved from an over-land requirement. The two environments are quite different, and so are the radars. Anyway, the UK gave up on over-land air defence so buying off the shelf is probably quicker and cheaper.

Beno
Beno
April 13, 2015 12:43 pm

I think the idea with our ground based integrated networked air defence systems. Is that you have relatively small mobile and distributed interconnected nodes. This give an enemy a targeting problem as taking out a single node does not achieve a failure in the grid. It also allows for better coverage in terrain where single more powerful radar might encounter blind spots, hilly terrain for instance.

The power requirements for ARTISAN + the 700kg planar array are enough alone to make it less than mobile. Even before we look at the mounting method.

Giraffe as you can see already comes with a handy dandy wheelie based mounting method and extendable “neck”. Is nicely self-contained in a very similar way to CAMM(L) and is already geared to a land environment.

Try to remember to that CAMM(L) is sensor agnostic, so it really doesn’t care where it gets it cue’ing information from. In a totally integrated defence network, it could well be cuing of more than Giraffe. If we are discussing cooperation among the forces, and cost saving decisions. THIS really was the key !

Beno

Kent
Kent
April 13, 2015 1:13 pm

In other news, the RAF announced that the Chain Home radio direction and ranging system has been augmented by the Chain Home Low system…

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 1:34 pm

TD, but it’s a non-existent cost reduction? You are buying two different sensors for two different jobs so by abandoning one requirement you are compromising the other. Your saving is a loss of capability. And in any case, what costs are you saving – turning 997 into a land-based system will be sufficiently complex and expensive that you could probably buy a dozen sets of GIRAFFE off the shelf anyway, which in itself is obviously a proven system with >450 sets manufactured (wikifacts!). Remember, £90M to integrate Sea Venom onto a helicopter designed to receive it!

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 1:39 pm

Sorry, took a while to post that (slow day in the JHQ).

Sea Giraffe might be ‘good enough’ but good enough against what? For tracking small boats and aircraft in average littoral conditions, perhaps. Against supersonic sea-skimming missiles in the baffling and f***ed up environmental conditions of the Gulf or other hot/humid environment, maybe not. The genesis of the ARTIST project is interesting, pity it’s not more widely releasable. ARTISAN is less advanced at the antenna end than you might think, but the guts of it are borderline brilliant. Sea Giraffe might be good enough for the LCS but I don’t see us buying them any time soon either.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
April 13, 2015 1:44 pm

What TAS said. In spades.

TD – I refer you to my earlier comment – “It might also be instructive to compare the target sets and operational environments in the respective staff requirements (were they in the public domain)”. Incidentally – just because the USN (or more precisely LM) have adopted Sea Giraffe for one variant of LCS, doesn’t mean it would be suitable for the requirement for T23 and/or T26.

You’re not going to like this, but (once again in this case) Maritime is different…..

SteveD
SteveD
April 13, 2015 1:50 pm

>My question, why no commonality between the land and maritime environments to eliminate duplication and drive down support costs?

Because it never does.

Seriously; this sounds great on blogs and in powerpoint presentations, but it’s an awful, awful idea in practise.

You can only have common systems where you have common requirements. Trying to build one system to cover two (or more) sets of requirements will either end up with massive fundamental compromises, or a horribly complex and expensive system which fails to fully satisfy either.

For example, how similar are the F35 A, B and C models now? Another great example would be (ironically enough) the CAMM missile itself!

Artisan was designed to sit on top of a ships structure with a good power supply, not on the back of a lorry with a deasil generator hooked up to it (note the thing on top of the pole shown on the CAMM truck is the missile uplink, not the search radar; there is also one of these on the T26).

The advantage of CAMM is you can link it up to a radar system that’s suitable to its application. Let’s not throw that away so quickly.

shark bait
shark bait
April 13, 2015 2:14 pm

One of my main problems with MOD procurement. Invest a fortune in a system for a unique role, then invest another small fortune in another unique system that duplicates the role almost entirely.

You have presented a good example; another would be brimstone being painfully close to FASGW(H)

These are the times they need to be squeezing out extra efficiencies by scoring some commonality points!

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 2:17 pm

Didn’t we have this argument before over SAMPSON, APAR, EMPAR and SPY? There is a lot of national, proprietary technology invested in these things, and the UK is right to protect it’s scientific expertise rather than just flog it to whoever will buy. I’m still unconvinced by the US’ continued dependence on the antiquated SPY-1 design and there is now a wealth of evidence to say that it is inferior to SAMPSON. So who was right there? And as for the COTS argument, AH64-E anyone?

My question remains – cost of adapting one system to a completely different requirement, compared to COTS purchase. The radars are different frequencies for a start, thus different antennas and different signal generation equipment = megabucks.

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 2:22 pm

Sharkbait, Sea Venom is double the weight, double the range and a different seeker to Brimstone. No comparison. Plus it evolved from a known maritime attack requirement.

Can we please stop playing top trumps with weapons and equipment? If it was that easy, wouldn’t we have done it by now? Not everyone in Defence is a self-gratifying grifter doing the least amount of work possible, or a secret shareholder in BAE.

S O
S O
April 13, 2015 2:50 pm

CAMM is the wrong concept for the army. An army needs air defences, but expensive million pound missiles are not the way to go. A few of them in between may be fine, but you need missiles to expend against cruise missiles, drones and targets that cost much less than a million apiece. The RBS.23 concept which dispensed with an expensive seeker could fit the bill, particularly if a radar-independent guidance with IIR tracking of missile and target was available (Rapier and Roland already had no-radar modes!).

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 2:50 pm

TD, if it was that simple then I’d agree with you wholeheartedly. But the two are simply too different to compare – these are apples and oranges. Arguably the way ahead would be to buy 2 MOTS systems that met 95% of the requirement. However, the maritime radar requirement is a long standing evolved capability supporting and supported by reams of tactical development, and producing a genuinely world-class capability that is entirely appropriate and necessary given our prime operating areas and the nature of the threat. The land requirement was shelved years ago when we decided it wasn’t important – well why is it important now? Had the two maintained their momentum they could have converged, but LEAPP (presumably) was the Army realising that this capability was one they wanted to recover, and as such, starting from a MOTS solution is sensible. As time goes by, the LEAPP could evolve and demand a bespoke splution but until then, MOTS is cheaper.

Beno
Beno
April 13, 2015 3:03 pm

Actually TD I don’t think your basic idea is totally mental, just a bit ahead of its time. AESA radar is basically software driven. I think in the future we are likely to develop a basic software package that can flex between arrays in terms of size ( number of elements and configuration) and frequency’s, and carry algorithms for the tricky tricks of removing interference off the top of waves and clouds and all that. Build up some generic SAR imaging recognition parameters and a generic moving target indication system + interface. It won’t be commonality because you still can’t stick the one array on a Lynx vs a Typhoon vs a Type 26 vs a Brimstone missile.
But it’s probably the way to go.
Will allow each software development to patch together to one whole greater solution. And to carry forward to future solutions.
Long way off tho, we are only just really getting our heads round the full potential of AESA.
Beno

MSR
MSR
April 13, 2015 3:07 pm

[Quote TD]
Agree on the timings and would add the UK has invested a lot of money into ARTISAN, we should maximise that investment by making more of them and using them in other environments.
[End Quote]

On the general principle of promoting commonality and maximising return on investment, I reminded of the single-face light weight version of SAMPSON that was proposed for frigates. Essentially, the UK could have turned SAMPSON and its siblings into its own version of Aegis by maximising the technical development potential (and amortisation of the costs!) of the hardware and CMS through adaption of different versions. The benefits of this approach were particularly obvious in light of the cut in Type 45 numbers but, of course, at that stage it could never happen for exactly the reasons T45 was cut in the first place.

ARTISAN may be good but it still feels like last year’s solution when a 21st century option was already on the shelf. Type 26 is going to start looking a little dated in the radar department before very long.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
April 13, 2015 3:09 pm

What TAS said. Again.

Don’t forget that there’s a large proportion of the khaki persuasion who believe that there is no such thing as an air threat, or if there is, that’s it’s “Someone Else’s Problem” to deal with. In terms of their operational employment in the last twenty years, they’re probably correct. However, the RN (and the RAF) have had to be prepared to go places where there are very capable air threats – even if the intent to use them may not be an immediate issue.

I suspect that this is another one of those cases where courtesy of capability stovepiping, separate requirements have evolved, with one accorded a much higher priority than the other. When it came to the question – could you adapt the 997 system to a mobile land-based configuration, the answer – by the time the question was asked – was too expensive.

You won’t necessarily see this stop for several more years (if at all) because the capability management structures were not necessarily set up to catch all the potential cross-overs. Levene and the single service capability budgets may actually make it worse in that sense.

Don’t forget that the poster-boy for “commonality” is the much loved model programme called F35……

Rocket Banana
April 13, 2015 3:21 pm

Although I accept the argument TAS and NaB are giving I do wonder why we’ve spent loads on SAMPSON and then loads more on ARTISAN.

MSR mentions a single face SAMPSON? Why the hell wasn’t that progressed?

Are the RN going to have a £multi-million dedicated maritime radar for their OPVs too? Are they going to want yet another radar for Crowsnest or are they going to take some common parts.

Lastly I’d also like to understand why Artisan and SAMPSON don’t share the same processing cabinets. I’m sure they share the same power generating systems???

I do think a 700kg+ radar on a truck is a little wacky :-)

monkey
monkey
April 13, 2015 3:35 pm

The US have been having fun with their new AMDR replacement for the SPY-1 series. The Flight III Arleigh Burke are due to have the first version fitted but the power and cooling requirements ate so much greater the Arleigh Burke ‘s are going to get bigger still to fit it all in or something has to go . Raytheon used elements from their land based system for high altitude ballistic missile intercepts . The Arleigh Burke versions will have 14′ diameter panels causing top weight issues to and the Navy wants another vessel mounting 20’ diameter panels to mimic the land based system capabilities. A reworked Zummwalt or even LSD with a host of strike length VSL tubes , shades of the Arsenal ship proposed years ago.
http://www.google.co.uk/url?q=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/amdr-competition-the-usas-next-dual-band-radar-05682/&sa=U&ei=49wrVYqJHuaC7gacvYDQBA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNG_SIW2Po1DM1IeqC1FY-XQh0TFmQ
Each 14′ sized system is touted at $300m alone !!!!! That’s the Radar system and you need a floaty thing underneath it too :-)

Steved
Steved
April 13, 2015 3:39 pm

>But my fundamental point is that where you do go down the development road, you maximise your investment by reuse.

TD, you say that if there isn’t an entire team of people at BAE desperately trying to flog this junk at anyone with a few coppers in their back pocket. I can almost promise you this was considered by someone at some point.

This blog isn’t serving the wider discussion by assuming everyone who works in defence procurement (particularly naval procurement) is out to waste huge ammounts of money.

Not a Boffin
Not a Boffin
April 13, 2015 3:44 pm

No need to get all chippy. Just because Percy doesn’t realise that AD is a multi-layered game that needs all to play a part is no excuse to start dripping about how unfair the funding lines have been. All the assets you mention will help provide that defence in depth, but at some stage you have to provide for leakers / absence of assumed cover. There was a reason Rapier (and more pertinently tracked Rapier) were developed. It’s also why the RN are adamant that maritime fixed-wing air cover (FJ and AEW) are not things that can just be left to land-based air.

You know I tend to agree with the commonality argument, provided that little things like being able to be used at sea/onboard ships are taken into consideration. If you re-read the post above you’ll note the more serious question as to whether Levene, while streamlining budget control and decision making may have some less favourable effects….

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
April 13, 2015 3:45 pm

‘I can almost promise you this was considered by someone at some point’.

You’re probably right, the Artisan site linked, states the radar is

‘Designed to be extremely modular and highly configurable’

The question was probably never asked by the army.

Do we need to create a department whose sole task is to identify where common requirements in programmes meet at an early stage and have the power to act?

Something for all those who say ‘won’t be able to place it on a mast’

http://www.nationwideplatforms.co.uk/Hire/Boom-Lifts/TITAN-60-20m-Diesel-Boom-Lift/

Platform or Deck Size: 6.7 x 2.28 m

Safe Working Load: 1,350.0 kg

Platform Height: 18.30 m

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
April 13, 2015 3:54 pm

TD

I don’t think Sky sports is worth all that effort! :-)

mike
mike
April 13, 2015 3:58 pm

@TD
“The multi Billion investment in E3”
… what investment? ;)

@ Simon

“Are they going to want yet another radar for Crowsnest ”
Atm its 50/50 whether they head that way!

TAS
TAS
April 13, 2015 4:25 pm

‘Designed to be extremely modular and highly configurable’

Yes, in its intended role as a maritime radar. Modular parts that can be easily swapped out for upgrades as the signal processing software is refined and improved, not modular as in ‘stick it in a container’. Different terminology people – you can’t modular-quad-pack everything into a mission bay full of ISO containers!

wf
wf
April 13, 2015 4:41 pm

@SO: we certainly could do with a cheap and cheerful SHORAD solution, for both naval CIWS roles and land based C / RAM / UAV / cruise missile defence: something like Raytheon’s AI3 or Iron Dome looks good. But defence against manned aircraft and helicopters at ranges that overmatch LGB’s and short range missiles is something we’re going to need too.

@Thread: since Giraffe AMB has half the range of Artisan, I’m not sure the two are comparable. Even more to the point, the C-RAM requirements say to me it will sometimes need to be deployed down to battalion level, where a radar of Artisan’s size would seem to be an acute embarrassment…

DavidNiven
DavidNiven
April 13, 2015 5:04 pm

‘not modular as in ‘stick it in a container’’

I didn’t think it was, I was considering that as it was designed to be modular and configurable it would not be too difficult to use systems and components for a family of radars or as a common C2 system such as SAAB have done with their Giraffe information system.

Vincent
Vincent
April 13, 2015 5:25 pm

It’s not that it would be difficult to do, I think the reason is that the UK has no requirement for a land based Artisan.

I’m sure that BAE would love to have the public gift them with the money to expand their product line, but if they want to do that they’ll need to pay for the development themselves.

as
as
April 13, 2015 6:46 pm

How useful would the S1850M long range passive electronically scanned array radar for wide area search be for the RAF or its improved version the SMART-L-EWC (Early Warning Capability) Radar.

How much range and weight difference is there between the Type 997 Artisan 3D and SAMPSON?

Type 997 Artisan 3D for the army if it is light enough.

The RAF could have radar station like the one like built to test the Type 45s systems on the hill outside Portsmouth. So each station would have a S1850M and a SAMPSON. Basically a Concrete Destroyer.

Rocket Banana
April 13, 2015 6:48 pm

I feel as though I should ratify my “…is a little wacky” statement with a few extra words.

I do think a 700kg+ radar on a truck is a little wacky when raised to the 12m height (12.4km horizon) of Giraffe AMB.

I accept you can probably get one to rotate on the back of an articulated trailer, but that will give you a radar horizon of zero if the grass is too long – not much use for detecting the supersonic tennis ball at 25km which Artisan can (allegedly) do ;-)

Rocket Banana
April 13, 2015 6:59 pm

It’s also why the RN are adamant that maritime fixed-wing air cover (FJ and AEW) are not things that can just be left to land-based air.

Shame they’ve opted for a short-range, low-endurance, bomb truck and let their AEW assets get rather old in the tooth.

As an aside, and part of the AD onion: How do the RN intend to defeat a missile/jet defended enemy AWACS?

Repulse
April 13, 2015 8:10 pm

Searchwater radar has shown that moving a sea based radar and using it on land is possible – I’m just not sure of the priority of a portable land based “high-end” Artisan based radar outside of the UK or Europe where more permanent structures could be built.

Ron
Ron
April 14, 2015 5:28 am

Did anyone think of using the latest Typhoon radar for Crowsnest? In one of those ugly LM pods? Brochure says there’s a sea search mode.

Answer to AWACS riddle above: Meteor + F-35B which will be a formidable AA asset. No it’s not just a bomb truck, no it’s not particularly short ranged unless you think Typhoons/Rafales/F-18’s/F-16’s are short ranged and yes, it does and will continue to have a very high degree of commonality with the other F-35 variants. How much that commonality cost and whether it’s worth it, is a totally different question.

And CAMM missiles will be a lot less than a million each, 100k has been mentioned. On the other hand, I don’t know if FLAADS it will be much more than a cruise missile/drone/helicopter deterrent. It’s no way a Patriot or S-300/400 system.

One thought on commonality/cost saving I heard many years ago come to mind. I don’t remember it exactly but the gist is that the main idea is to make it harder for the other guy. Yes, it’s great to make it easier/cheaper for yourself but if you also make it easier/cheaper for the other guy, WTF would you do it?

The Other Chris
April 14, 2015 7:51 am

There’s a weight limit for the pods and we probably don’t want to pay for the attack modes of CAPTOR-E.

As an aside, interesting to note performance of both competing sets were satisfactory considering the Elta was a demo set of 320 T/R modules and the final array will be 1,024 T/R’s.

Obsvr
Obsvr
April 14, 2015 8:40 am

I’m fairly sure that track data from LEAPP is not sent to Rapier/Starstreak fire units, although I suspect it is used to issue verbal alerts. The key role of LEAPP is airspace management, in particular to better coordinate friendly a/c movement with artillery firing.

Rocket Banana
April 14, 2015 9:04 am

ToC,

Wasn’t the Elta set considered “satisfactory” only in terms of its cooling and thermal characteristics?

mickp
mickp
April 14, 2015 9:07 am

A wider question but does the UK need a long range integrated air defence system, like a number of our adversaries have had, Yugoslavia, Iraq etc. Should we be thinking about some form of ABM defence, on land or at sea? FLAADS / CAMM sound very good for what they are but they are not a long range Patriot or similar system. Whilst QRA is the only solution, at present, for going up and having a look at those pushing the boundaries, shouldn’t it be backed up by missile based layered defence, at least around key installations?

Having visited Portsmouth last week, I note that its a few silos / Asters and a bit of concrete away from having a highly capable long range land based air defence umbrella.

The answer is possibly in an ideal world yes, but lack of money and immediate threat means we can ‘gap’ it, like MPA, as ‘other assets’ cover it?

MikeKiloPapa
MikeKiloPapa
April 14, 2015 9:40 am

@TD

“The OPV’s are getting Kelvin Hughes SharpEye radars”

Yes, as navigation radar. Their air search radar will be a new version of HMS Clyde’s SCANTER 4100 .

http://www.janes.com/article/44325/work-begins-on-first-new-opv-for-uk-royal-navy

http://www.terma.com/press/news-2014/terma-scanter-radars-for-royal-navy/

The Other Chris
April 14, 2015 9:52 am

@Simon

Both sets had to pass detection testing to progress to selection.

LM/Elta had to demonstrate the results from their 737 testing to get the go ahead to use the smaller array for the Merlin trials.

They then had a further hurdle in that by using a smaller array for those tests, less heat would be generated. Their thermal load and ability of the cooling system to handle that had to leave enough growth to handle the larger array.

I like to think of it as the “you can’t get away with not putting an internal weapons bay on your YF-35 prototype this time” rule ;)

All aspects considered, if the 320 TRM array competes with the Searchwater (we know a 1,024 array is an improvement), the EL/M-2052 has to be worth the extra £200m over the lifetime of the sets.

With the IP rights included in the deal (my guess as to why the AGP-81 wasn’t selected), the MOD can earn that investment back in exports to be attached to various platforms. The USMC are obvious choices. Japan and India are almost certain to be interested. Italy, Spain and Australia are potentials.

We just need LM to hire some product designers and get the look and feel of the pods closer to the original “concept art” appearance!

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/pictures/649xAny/6/2/2/2039622_merlin.jpg

Rocket Banana
April 14, 2015 10:28 am

ToC,

Okay, thanks. However, if LM had to prove on the 737 in order to put the smaller (320 TRM) on Merlin then doesn’t it tend to indicate that the one on the 737 was actually the 1024 TRM?

I also struggle to believe that a 10KW radar (1024 module EL/M-2052) can compete with a 65KW radar (Searchwater) even if it is AESA. What’s your take?

The Other Chris
April 14, 2015 12:00 pm

No, the 320 array was tested on the 737 extensively and the data presented to the MOD.

Power wise, the AESA would be rated higher. It’s difficult to compare between radar technology generations these days. You need to think more in terms of how that kW rating of energy is being used.

This quote from f-16.net covers what’s going on well, because you don’t have to take my word for it:

“Theoretically it’s possible that each T/R module acts as an own radar, so that each one uses different frequency and works independently from other T/R modules. This would result in radar that forms huge amount of beams (as many as there are modules), but the effective range would be very small. That kind of radar would not work. So the AESA radar works as others have described and uses all or number of T/R modules in co-operation to create radar beam(s). Beam shape is created controlling the phase of each module so that radar signals created by each module either constructively or destructively affect the beam. Basically the constructive effect is used to create the main beam by most of the modules and some modules “sharpen” the beam by destructive effect. This very precise control of the radar beam is also is why AESA radars have very extremely [small] sidelobes compared to MSA and even PESA radars.

AESA radars have much better range compared to other radar systems as they have much smaller transmission and receiving losses. For example if both AESA and PESA/MSA radar have the transmitter power of 10kW, then the actual transmitted power (in the radar beam) in the AESA radar will be about twice the power in PESA/MSA radar. This is because the transmitter is in the antenna with very little in between in AESA radar. In PESA/MSA radar the transmitter itself is in the back end of the radar and there is a lot more lossy equipment in between it and the antenna. AESA also enjoys similar advantage in receiving the radar signals as the receiving element Low Noise Amplifier is again in the antenna (in T/R modules). In MSA/PESA radars it’s located in the back and there are lossy equipment between it and the antenna. AESA radars can usually work with signals that are half the strength required by MSA/PESA radars. Another factor is that AESA radars usually have higher duty factors than MSA/PESA radars. This means that their average power is higher compared to their peak power than in MSA/PESA radars. Average power is the power that affects radar performance, peak power really does not. Other thing is that modern AESA radars can have very high power levels as T/R module technology has improved a lot. I bet APG-81 has higher peak power compared to for example APG-68 or APG-65/73 or even MSA APG-63 or APG-71. It most likely has several times the average power.

All this means that AESA radars have operating ranges that are much better than in MSA or PESA radars. What’s more that they can achieve a very large FOV without sacrificing target update times or even range that much. While MSA or PESA fighter radars can search only few hundred square degrees of the sky while tracking targets, AESA radars can search for thousands of square degrees while tracking targets. The net increase in performance potential is huge, but the downside of AESA technology is that they require a lot of software and computing power to work effectively. This is why they are more expensive and development takes quite a lot of time.”

In summary peak power not as important as average/transmitted power, much less power lost between signal generator and the point of leaving the antenna, energy is directed in a more tightly focused beam meaning higher peak/average power energy is illuminating the scene and ability to detect much lower levels of energy.

We then add in all the advantages such as ability to scan more of the sky at once, track more targets more accurately, low probability of intercept, tighter beam focus to achieve burn through, can add multiple modes via software updates that can be operating simultaneously (strip/spotlight SAR, ISAR, detect, GMTI, MMTI, scan, track, illuminate…), etc, all from one set.

Hope they can get it all working, lots of Jam if it can be delivered.

John Hartley
John Hartley
April 14, 2015 2:19 pm

Mickp. Yup, 30 Dec 2011, UAE became first export customer for THAAD. They ordered 2 fire units. Chemring in the UK makes bits for THAAD. If there was any money down of the back of the sofa, I would like the UK to have 2 THAAD fire units. Handy when facing down dictators armed with ballistic missiles. Yes I do mean Russia, Iran, N. Korea, etc.

The Other Chris
April 14, 2015 8:03 pm

Much as I like THAAD (and I do), always thought the acronym itself was more suited to describing erectile dysfunction.

“The results are in and it’s OK, you’re just suffering from a mild case of THAAD. Suggest you lay off the Bushmills, take two of these each day for a week… and you’ll be keeping Mrs RT* happy again in no time.”

Something akin to THAAD though, alongside PAAMS and/or SAMP/T with Aster Block 1NT (and later 2), would provide that desirable complementary coverage with redundancy against single countermeasure defeat.

*All characters appearing in this work are fictitious. Any resemblance to real commenters on Think Defence, active or not having posted for a while, is purely coincidental.

Ron
Ron
April 15, 2015 3:38 am

@TOC thanks for all the info on radars. Most interesting.

S O
S O
April 15, 2015 6:45 pm

@WH:
“defence against manned aircraft and helicopters at ranges that overmatch LGB’s and short range missiles is something we’re going to need too. ”

That’s what fighters do.

ShoRAD reduces attacks’ effectiveness (ground-based air defence have never blocked attacks perfectly).
The attrition of hostile air power can be left to the air campaign (or to AFVs rolling onto runways).

Long-range air defence systems are exceedingly expensive. We’re speaking of more than a million pound per missile, with a practical pk of maybe 0.05 to 0.20 – and many missiles will be destroyed on the ground or malfunction. To almost equal the cost of the prey without adding the prey’s offensive punch to the contest is an inefficient proposition.

@Ron:

If that stuff is interesting to you, you should look up the books “EW 101” and “EW 102”.

Ron
Ron
April 16, 2015 3:34 am

Thank you.

Red Trousers
Red Trousers
April 16, 2015 10:04 pm

The last thing the Land Component wants is random lighting up of bits of the spectrum controlled by the sodding Gunners, all of whom are stupid.

Anyway, there’s bugger all threat that this sort of nonsense would address. Really. The big issue is in commercial UAVs, and for that a jammer suffices. That and the yet to be invented fuck off 12.7 MG slaved to a 3D DF capability.

Rocket Banana
April 17, 2015 7:33 am

RT,

Are you serious? Do you not set up a FOB? Is there no such thing as a satellite base to this? Both of these are probably cluster munition cruise or ballistic missile targets to cause mass casualties and/or catch a few copters (and their fuel) on the ground.

Love the sound of your 3D .50cal though – do you mean something like this but on a land vehicle?

mike
mike
April 17, 2015 7:37 am

RT touches on an interesting point, I am aware of RAF jamming abilities and that of the US, but does the Army have any heavy jamming equipment? The likes of we saw roam Crimea and Eastern Ukraine? Jamming TV, mobiles and – I assume – able to jam off the shelf UAV’s?

The Russian Army quietly deployed vehicle based jammers that roamed around Crimea and Ukraine, blocking TV, Mobile, and radio (so I assume civvie drones would have been affected?) that proved to be effective in making the picture there even more confused.

Obsvr
Obsvr
April 17, 2015 8:36 am

EW is the responsibility of R Sigs, it includes active and passive measures. However, AFAIK they are only interested in communications. RA did trial radar jamming equipment (‘non-communications EW’) in the 1960s but it did not enter service and there has been no subsequent interest. Dealing with assorted battlefield radars notably the counter-battery and counter-mortar type is an issue, but you can argue that jamming is a poor substitute for HE and damage, providing you can locate they accurately, which UAVs should be able to do although cueing UAVs may be problematic, depending on R Sigs RDF capabilities.

It’s useful to remember that there are no electronic countermeasures for a true ‘drone’, ie one that flies a programmed course and records its imagery, this is what Midge did, the problem is timeliness of information and the inability to explore something interesting immediately, not to mention the inspiration needed to plan the sortie.

ArmChairCivvy
ArmChairCivvy
April 24, 2015 4:23 pm

catching up, from far behind

“That said, am with Sven to some degree in thinking that what the Army should be thinking about low level air defence against loitering munitions, small UAV’s, rockets and attack helicopters but that is maybe another post”
– a good post, indeed

as
as
April 24, 2015 5:36 pm

The range at which aerial target are aloud to be fired up on will depend on the rules of engagement for the event. Most recent conflicts have needed to target to be with in visual range before it can be fired up on.
So long range systems are just used for warnings. You do not want to shoot down an airliner by mistake.
The same goes for aerial warfare, 90% of fighter kill since the introduction of Air to air missiles have been using short range missiles like the sidewinder. Most rules of engagement require visual so you can not use medium or long range missiles.

as
as
April 24, 2015 5:44 pm

@mike
http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/25216.aspx
14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare).
They use Odette and SCARUS systems.

DaveWolfy
DaveWolfy
May 2, 2015 8:49 pm

“The ARTISAN antenna weighs in at about 700kg and was developed at a cost of over £100m,”
a bit expensive for an antenna what ?
More port.

barbarossa
barbarossa
May 10, 2015 10:55 am
Reply to  Barbarossa

In the civvie world, fixed radar is soooo, last century…
Generally a civvie airport will lease it’s radar on a lease and maintain basis…the only thing the airport provides is a hard-standing, comms link and power supply (generally mains ‘leccie’ with a UPS gennie, next to the radar container…If the radar goes sick- the supplier puts another container there plugs it in, and the world’s your crustacean.