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”]
[/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”]
[/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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Thanks NaB, post corrected
The basic point is very simple, the two are military 3D medium range radars that will be used to provide information for a common missile
Am just failing to see why two systems are needed.
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.
I bang my head on the desk when I see things like this, defence is under funded, yeah, right
@ TD
How much would it have cost to use the ARTISAN instead of SAAB’s system, what would we have got for a £100m?
Topman, in all honesty I don’t know. Developing a vehicle based ARTISAN may have actually cost us more in the short term but we never seem able to maximise our investment in things like this because we fall at the last hurdle and then fritter away that investment and export potential by taking short term and narrow service centric decisions like Giraffe.
If we wrapped up ARTISAN and CAMM into a common land or sea based system not only do you achieve economies of scale and reduce in life costs through the elimination of duplication you present to the export market a mature, capable and very attractive system that can enable potential purchasers to make the same in life cost savings as us.
It is dispiriting
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?
@ 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.
Yep, going the other way, could have used Giraffe on RN vessels, there are naval variants of it, in fact, I think the US Navy use it on the LCS.
But if we are going to invest in technology we need to support that investment and not cut it off at the knees by purchasing a competitive product.
It is the height of stupidity
As for the break points, I think the purchase cost pales into insignificance compared to inlife costs so my gut feeling is always go for commonality, and be ruthless about it
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.
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
Are we really saying we cannot support a 700kg array on an elevated mast, really, or that the power requirements are so big we couldn’t specify a mobile generator to match. Are we really saying putting it into a container with a few extensible legs presents such a vast engineering challenge that this alone precludes it use and the discounting of in life commonality savings?
The land optimised Giraffe going to sea is good enough for many naval forces, including the US Navy, so why is the fundamental of going the other way with ARTISAN so outlandish?
Whichever is optimised for what environment the simple fact is there is duplication.
Duplication costs.
OK if you have loads of money, do we?
We could have just purchased Giraffe for both the Rn and RAF/Army, that is the other option I guess but if we are going to invest in developing something and supporting British industry and skills, maximise your investment.
It is a fairly simple principle
TAS, would you have Sea Giraffe on the T26?
In other news, the RAF announced that the Chain Home radio direction and ranging system has been augmented by the Chain Home Low system…
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, Saab seemed to have managed putting the same radar into two environments without incurring a cost equal to the GDP of Bolivia.
Costs reductions would be in life, not purchase, surely you can see the potential for costs savings by having one system rather than two in the support pipeline
Maybe we should have just purchased Giraffe for the RN then
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.
Which supports my argument of investing in hi tech and then maximising on that investment by reusing and adapting wherever and whenever possible.
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…..
>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.
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!
Fair enough NaB, others seem to be able to find some commonality between the land and sea domains for radar products but if that not a viable option for the UK, for whatever reason, OK
Best we both go and find that money tree to shake
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.
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.
TAS, am with you on investing in technology instead of being lured by the illusory charms of off the shelf as a default
But my fundamental point is that where you do go down the development road, you maximise your investment by reuse. If that means reusing components, creating different variants or repackaging the whole lot for different environments is neither here nor there. you are still making the most of our very scarce investment funding and not undermining it by buying comparable (even accepting some differences in optimisation) products. May just slapping ARTISAN on a truck is not the best idea, a bit too simplistic, but could we re-use some of the components, adapt the research and create a land optimised variant in the same way that Saab and Elta have done with their products? Aren’t some of the originally sea based radars now used for land based air defence purposes?
Saab have a neat way of showing how this reuse works, their X, C and S Band products (1x, AMB, 4xa) are optimised for different surface or air focus (they show it with a pie chart!) but whilst the antenna is different there is commonality in power, signal processing and cooling. A family of products that share common parts.
It is all about degrees I guess. If we said lets look at an ARTISAN for both environments and it meant, for arguments sake, being 110% of requirements in the land domain and 90% of requirements in the maritime domain, are those trade off’s worth the through life savings
In a world of unlimited budgets, no way on this planet would it be worth it and we should have systems optimised to provide 100% in each
In a world where every single person who reads this blog says defence doesn’t have enough money, then my suggestion is just maybe, a slight compromise might not be an altogether piss poor idea
Actually, Brimstone is another example of spending a fortune but just falling short at the last moment and in doing so, creating an export failure
And as we know, Sea Venom is as much about defence industrial issues as anything else, but that is another argument :)
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!).
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.
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
ha ha, been called many things but ahead of my time has never been one of them :)
Although I see the defence world is coming around the benefits of containerisation!!!
[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.
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……
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 :-)
I suppose the Khaki view that air defence is someone else’s problem is not wholly unreasonable given
1. The multi Billion investment in Typhoon
2. The multi Billion investment in E3, Meteor, ASRAAM and assorted ECM projects
3. The multi Billion investment in SAMPSON, T45 and ASTER (which is supposed to be able to protect the near shore bubble)
4. The multi Billion investment in QE and F35 that will project power (and control of the air) onto shore from the seabase
Seems fairly reasonable to me in fact
Now the Army is thinking about a return to ‘contingency ops’ no doubt medium to high altitude air defence is back on the agenda because perhaps they have no confidence in the investment in items 1 to 4 above might actually prevent aircraft, cruise missiles and UAV’s getting through and creating mayhem on the ground.
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.
NaB, my concern with single service budgets is right there, lots of capability stovepipes because getting a common view was just too difficult, so instead of trying to fix what should be done, lets just sack all that and get into our comfort blankets of single service requirements again.
I think your point is, what I am suggesting is fundamentally correct, but timing, a lack of single strategic view of things and single service capability stovepipe means that on thsi paryicular topic, the opportunity has passed.
Simon, yeah, crazy innit
http://meads-amd.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/MEADS-MFCR-German-3.jpg
http://www.eurosam.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/18.jpg
http://www.armyrecognition.com/images/stories/east_europe/russia/missile_vehicle/s-400/S-400_Triumph_triumf_5P85TE2_SA-21_Growler_surface_to_air_SAM_long_range_missile_defense_system_Russia_Russian_amy_details_001.jpg
PS
The OPV’s are getting Kelvin Hughes SharpEye radars
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 :-)
>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.
Steve, are you saying ARTISAN is junk then?
Who said anything about people in procurement being out to waste money, I would say the problem lies at a higher strategic level
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….
‘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
DN, or this, 45m and 1 tonne
Operated a by a ladeee no less
:)
NaB, don’t think I was being chippy at all, just illustrating where the mindset might have been in the last 20 years of operations
And I agree, lets see where single service budgets take us
As for complex weapons and ships, we should find the capability manager career stream and beat them over the head with that requirement, repeatedly, until they get it. Wasn’t this a fundamental lesson learned from 1982?
TD
I don’t think Sky sports is worth all that effort! :-)
@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!
Fair one Mike :)
DN, like it !
‘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!
you can’t modular-quad-pack everything into a mission bay full of ISO containers!
BURN THE WITCH
@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…
‘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.
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.
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.
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 ;-)
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
ToC,
Wasn’t the Elta set considered “satisfactory” only in terms of its cooling and thermal characteristics?
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?
@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/
@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
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?
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:
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.
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.
Much as I like THAAD (and I do), always thought the acronym itself was more suited to describing erectile dysfunction.
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.
@TOC thanks for all the info on radars. Most interesting.
@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”.
Thank you.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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.
@mike
http://www.army.mod.uk/signals/25216.aspx
14th Signal Regiment (Electronic Warfare).
They use Odette and SCARUS systems.
“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.
Ohhh, Yes you can!
http://www.fhf-gmbh.com/en/container/offshore_containers/marine_technology_equipment/radar_container?PHPSESSID=33596df06f21509a9c0bdaff9eb82488
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.