ANZAC Class commentary

[buglerbilly]

Anti-Ship Missile Defence Upgrade Commences On First ANZAC Frigate

(Source: BAE Systems; issued Jan. 28, 2010)

BAE Systems has begun modifying the first of the Royal Australian Navy’s ANZAC Class frigates to be upgraded under the Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) Upgrade Project.

HMAS Perth entered the Henderson dockyard in Western Australia on 18 January on schedule.

The ASMD Upgrade project is being managed by the Defence Materiel Organisation supported by BAE Systems and Saab Systems under an alliance contracting arrangement. The upgrade will significantly improve the anti-ship self-defence capabilities of the ANZAC Class by integrating:

--The leading edge CEA Phased Array Radar (PAR)
--The Vampir NG Infrared Search & Track (IRST) system
--The Sharpeye Navigation Radar Systems (NRS), and
--An upgraded Combat Management System (CMS) including an improved Operations Room layout.

Jason Beer, BAE Systems Maritime Through-Life Support General Manager, said today that the platform integration of these systems required significant structural modifications.

“This includes replacement of both the frigate’s forward and aft masts, which has required us to develop innovative design solutions to minimise the impact on the ship’s weight and stability,” he said.

Mr Beer said that BAE Systems work during the installation phase in HMAS Perth would create more than 150 highly skilled jobs at its Henderson base in WA.

“The experience gained over the past five years of designing and developing this project has enabled BAE Systems Maritime Business Unit to enhance critical skills in complex maritime combat systems integration and platform systems integration.

“These skills are crucial to maintaining the capability that will be needed for next generation naval programs such as the Future Frigate and the Offshore Combatant Vessel projects,” Mr Beer said.

BAE Systems is the premier global defence, security and aerospace company delivering a full range of products and services for air, land and naval forces, as well as advanced electronics, security, information technology solutions and customer support services. With approximately 105,000 employees worldwide, BAE Systems' sales exceeded £18.5 billion (US $34.4 billion) in 2008

-ends-

[Milne Bay]

This should be a very exciting improvement to the Anzac class.
Are there any final design pictures of the modifications to be made?
I know that CEA had a series of images on their website. Were these the final solution or simply a suggested solution?
MB

[Unicorn]

There were a number of models on show at Pacific 2010, however I haven't yet posted shots to my Photobucket account.

Check out this site, which is the company that built the models for defence from the builders plans

http://defencemodels.com.au/Projects/ANZACasmd.asp

[Milne Bay]

Thanks Unicorn.
If the model is correct and the final design, then it is nearly identical with the cgi on CEA's website.
They must have solved the topweight and metacentre issues.
Good to see.
Thanks
again
MB

[Gubler, A.]

If the model is correct and the final design, then it is nearly identical with the cgi on CEA's website.
They must have solved the topweight and metacentre issues.

The CGI model and plastic model in question with the "one big mast" configuration was released by CEA after the design review of the ASMD upgrade. I remember talking to the CEA people after they first unvieled a CEA-FAR top mast (four years ago) which had a new fore mast and keeping the VSR seperate and they said the "final design might not be so elegant". Well this is it. I notice a slight change from the CGI in which the CEA MOUNT X Band illuminators appear to be a bit bigger and moved to the top element of the big hexagon type structure on the main mast. Which would enable a zenith engagement.

Also nice to see all the HF MOD antennas, the big SATCOM dish and the two big surface search radars on the new foremast.

[Gubler, A.]

Some information from AMT about changes to the Anzac class port and starboard RAS and boat decks to lower RCS:


AMT has been engaged to project-manage and prepare the design for integration of radar cross section screens to resolve a contract specification requirement for MEKO 200 ANZAC frigates. The shape of the frigates, specified in the baseline platform design, was considered inconsistent with the RCS specification requirements. DSTO had previously tested the ANZAC frigates and found the RCS signature significantly above the specification requirements.

RCS screens have been planned for fitting to 1 Deck waist area and 2 deck quarterdeck cutouts after review of contract specifications with the RAN to verify contemporary needs.

AMT worked closely with the RAN's system matter expert for RCS in DSTO, to complete the design using woven stainless steel ring mesh sliding screens, similar to successful installations for the South African Navy (SAN) and Royal Malaysian Navy (RMN).

One particular challenge was to ensure no loss of operational capability amongst the more than seventy (70) separate platform systems which interfaced with RCS screens, eg RAS (replenishment at sea), SLT (ship launched torpedoes), mooring and towing, gangways and boat handling, etc.




http://www.ausmarinetech.com.au/projects/rcs.htm

Looks like that model is going to need an update…

[Unicorn]

Not just that one, there are a number of Anzacs in Task Force 72, Anzac, Parramatta, Ballarat, Perth and Arunta that I am aware of.

[geof]

Have the Kiwi's shown any interest in this for there ANZAC's ...?

[Unicorn]

Don't be silly, that would require the NZ Government to consider planning for future contingencies and stumping up money for capabilities which are not required for showing the flag missions or symbolic deployments.

That sort of forward thinking may still smoulder inside the NZDF but the wherewithal and political will is sadly lacking.

[ADMk2]

Some nice new pics of HMAS Perth's upgrade circa March 2010 are available now at DMO's webste, but for convenience sake, I'll put them here...

the overall design we've seen before:



and the new operations room that we haven't:



HMAS Perth in her current state:



and the first new mast under construction...




The updated project information is available here:

http://www.defence.gov.au/dmo/msd/sea1448/sea1448.cfm

She is expected to be completed and put to see in October 2010 for sea trials through until April 2011.

Cheers

AD

[battlensign]

My God! It's like the "Bridge" on Star Trek - The Original Series......are they setting aside some space for the 'ATAC' system? :P

As a contrast, does any one know what the current ops room layout look like?

Also, capability enhancement aside, does anyone else think that the new mast is going to be an eyesore? (seems stranger in the actual photo than on the model)

Brett.

[Milne Bay]

Is it customary to remove the 5 inch barrel during refit?
I realise that HMAS Perth was the last to receive its gun, and that it was the original gun supplied before all the others were fitted with theirs, so is it in need of re-furbishment or is a different calibre to be fitted?
Interested
MB

[Gubler, A.]

The barrel is designed to be easily removed so it can be replaced every 8,000 rounds which is the life of the barrel. The rest of the gun remains more or less intact and the entire mount would have to be replaced (above and below decks) if there was any change in the calibre.

I would imagine the barrel has been removed so to get it out of the way during the refit. This would allow more free space up forward to crane things through or pile stuff up. Or so to not expose it to unnecessary corrosion. Of course it could have been removed because it’s life is up…

As to the source of the five inch guns for the Anzac class the original plan when the gun was upgraded from a three inch was to source them all second hand from the USN (to save money). However not all of the available surplus guns were up to the RAN’s standard. So most of the ships acquired new build Mk 45s which can be seen by their low RCS gun houses common to the longer barreled Mod 4 gun.

[Gubler, A.]

Even though no new photos have emerged of HMAS Perth with the new masts fitted (apparantly done so earlier this week according to Senate Estimates) CEA have a few new CGI marketting images:


Surface search and track.


Firing ESSM.


Before and after.


International MEKO 200s.

[Milne Bay]

Funny that the Meko 200 can get away with the Harpoon launchers amidships and a CIWS but the Anzacs have a topweight problem so the Harpoons are foreward and no CIWS.
And I don't believe that mini-Typhoons are suitable CIWS substitute for a dedicated system.

Grumph!
Grumph!
Grumph!

[ADMk2]

Few of those International Meko 200's carry 32x ESSM's on-board, nor an S-70B-2 helo... Ours stack up very well, actually...

How do our ANZAC's compare with International MEKO-200's?

Australia's MEK-200 (ANZAC Class frigates) - 1x 127mm gun, 8x Harpoon ASM's, 32x ESSM SAM's, 2x "triple" torpedo launchers (MU-90), 2x Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm guns, 4x 12.7mm flex guns, 1x S-70B2 Helo.

New Zealand's ANZAC MEKO-200 - 1x 127mm gun, 8x Sea Sparrow SAM's, 2x triple torpedo launchers (Mk 46), 1x Phalanx 20mm, 6x 12.7mm "flex" guns, 1x Kaman SH-2F Seasprite medium helo with Maverick ASM's.

South Africa Valour Class - 1x 76mm gun, 1x 35mm "twin barrelled" multi-purpose gun, 8x Exocet ASM's, 16x Umkhonto SAM's, 2x "double" torpedo launchers, 2x 20mm guns, 2x 12.7mm guns, 2x Lynx Helicopter.

Turkish Yavuz Class MEKO-200, 1x 127mm gun, 8x Sea Sparrow SAM's, 8x Harpoon ASM, 3x 25mm CIWS, 3x triple torpedo tubes, 1x helo.

Turkish Barbaros Class MEKO-200, 1x 127mm gun, 16x ESSM, 8x Harpoon, 3x 25mm CIWS, 3x torpedo tubes - Mk 46 torpedos, 1x helo.

Greek Hydra Class MEKO-200, 1x 127mm gun, 16x ESSM, 2x Phalanx CIWS, 8x Harpoon ASM, 2x triple torpedos for Mk 46 torpedo, 1x S-70B2 helo.

Portugese Vasco De Gama Class MEKO-200, 1x 100mm gun, 8x Sea Sparrow SAM's, 1x Phalanx CIWS, 8x Harpoon ASM, 2x triple torpedo tubes for Mk 46 torpedo, 2x Super Lynz helos.

[Milne Bay]

There is a reasonable photo of the modifications to HMAS Perth in the latest editition of Navy News online.
I have tried and failed to upload it here.
Perhaps someone with a little more tech-savvy can do this for us.
Cheers
MB

[ARH v.3.1]

If you email it to me I can attach it.

[Gubler, A.]

The Leader in front has a good work-life balance...

[ARH v.3.1]

Beat me to it.

[ADMk2]

There are a couple more Perth upgrade shots at DMO's website.



and

[ADMk2]

Here are a few nice and new pics of HMAS Perth, courtesy of ThePuss at DT. Perth has nearly finished her upgrade, with some interior fitout to be finished soon and sea trials to get underway shortly thereafter...


[/URL]

and

(http://img718.imageshack.us/i/perth4b.jpg/)

and



and

[URL=http://img812.imageshack.us/i/perth1.jpg/] (http://img692.imageshack.us/i/perth2.jpg/)

[tiddles]

Nice pics AD, I suppose the new radars tend to make the ship look a bit top heavy but I imagine they know what they are doing,lets hope it all works as well as we have hoped for some time.
Tiddles

[Unicorn]

I had the chance to chat to someone involved in some of the design work. As many people here know I have always been a little suspicious of the top weight issues associated with this new mast arrangement and the relocation of the SPS-49 much higher up.

He stated that the top weight was manageable, given that the Harpoons are located on 01 deck and the Nulka launchers on the hangar roof weigh considerably less than a Phalanx, ensuring stability in bad weather involving extreme beam seas leading to excessive rolling motion.

This is the reason that Australia, unlike just about every other Meko 200 operator does not have a CIWS located on the hangar roof. To ensure stability in the storm swell conditions encountered during Pacific Ocean storms, which have a different amplitude than those in the Atlantic and Mediterranean, ie. the waves come further apart and generally higher.

The Kiwi's don't operate Harpoon and Nulka, and therefore ship the Phalanx on the hangar roof. They have also indicated that they have neither the inclination nor the money to participate in the Anzac class upgrades the RAN is implementing.

This is just one of a number of differences between the ANZAC class and other Meko's, the RAN / RNZN engine combo of two diesels and one LM2500 gas turbine is optimised for long range, which is why they are the slowest of the type, but also the longest ranged. Everyone else went for 2 LM 2500s and are good for 31-32 knots while ours are only good for 27 knots. The difference is that the Turkish, Greek and Portuguese Meko 200s are good for 4100 nautical miles at 16 knots, while the ANZAC Mekos can do 6,000 nautical miles at 18 knots.

[Gubler, A.]

One thing about that new mast and cupola that belies its top heavy appearance is it is basically empty. The 10 CEAPAR radar faces have very little back end, just cables running down to the main superstructure. The same for the SPS-49. The later is a pretty heavy antenna structure but it only weighes 1.3 tonnes.

[tiddles]

Glad to see from the above posts that the new radar fixture is not the top heavy beast that it tends to look in some pics.As for CIWS,well from what I read above, weight issues seem to be the crueling factor in its non appearance on the RAN Anzacs. Pity- some type of intermediate size "economic" canon could not be fitted on either side to deal with the type of threats that might face a Frigate on basic patrol duties that these ships are in general use for eg. Gulf, Pirate Patrol,whatever. Some villain in a fast boat with a light cannon ,MG
or some portable missile,RPG etc having a go at you. Harpoon $$$ is a bit of overkill as is 127mm .Also ESSM is a bit much for shooting down a Cessna from which some nutcase armed with a high powered rifle is taking pot shots at you.A machine gun may not be enough in some hypothetical cases Anyhow weight issues seem to rule cannons out anyhow.
Tiddles

[Exsandgroper]

One thing about that new mast and cupola that belies its top heavy appearance is it is basically empty. The 10 CEAPAR radar faces have very little back end, just cables running down to the main superstructure. The same for the SPS-49. The later is a pretty heavy antenna structure but it only weighes 1.3 tonnes.

During this upgrade 36 tonnes of equipment was taken off and replaced with 14 tonnes, leaving the ship 22 tonnes lighter.

Cheers

[Gubler, A.]

Pity- some type of intermediate size "economic" canon could not be fitted on either side to deal with the type of threats that might face a Frigate on basic patrol duties that these ships are in general use for eg. Gulf, Pirate Patrol,whatever. Some villain in a fast boat with a light cannon ,MG
or some portable missile,RPG etc having a go at you. Harpoon $$$ is a bit of overkill as is 127mm .Also ESSM is a bit much for shooting down a Cessna from which some nutcase armed with a high powered rifle is taking pot shots at you.A machine gun may not be enough in some hypothetical cases Anyhow weight issues seem to rule cannons out anyhow.

The Anzacs have the Mini Typhoon system with highly accurate stabilised 12.7mm HMGs. Also ESSM has an anti-surface capability.

As long as the fast boat/Cessna is identified as hostile and a reasonable threat there is no reason why ESSM can’t be used to ruin its day. These cost based missile vs threat tradeoffs beloved of commentators do not take into account potential sufferable damage by not using the appropriate weapon in self defence. Sure a Boghammer with some RPGs and a HMG may have a minimal capital cost but it can kill people on our frigate so is deserving of an ESSM. The missiles are already paid for and have to be expended or are written off after their life expires. Plinking the odd angry asymmetric threat is hardly going to make a huge dint in the ADF’s warstock. Especially when the alternative is having a shower of projectiles hitting our frigate and its precious crew.

[tiddles]

The Anzacs have the Mini Typhoon system with highly accurate stabilised 12.7mm HMGs. Also ESSM has an anti-surface capability.

As long as the fast boat/Cessna is identified as hostile and a reasonable threat there is no reason why ESSM can’t be used to ruin its day. These cost based missile vs threat tradeoffs beloved of commentators do not take into account potential sufferable damage by not using the appropriate weapon in self defence. Sure a Boghammer with some RPGs and a HMG may have a minimal capital cost but it can kill people on our frigate so is deserving of an ESSM. The missiles are already paid for and have to be expended or are written off after their life expires. Plinking the odd angry asymmetric threat is hardly going to make a huge dint in the ADF’s warstock. Especially when the alternative is having a shower of projectiles hitting our frigate and its precious crew.
Fair enough,you make many good points, I was not aware that the RAN ESSM had the targetting ability to hit surface targets,and as you say the cost of using it is better than suffering casualities ourselves.I will now consign my "economic" cannon idea into the round file which is getting a bit full.
Tiddles

[Gubler, A.]

I was not aware that the RAN ESSM had the targetting ability to hit surface targets,and as you say the cost of using it is better than suffering casualities ourselves.



You can just make out in red a bit of the boat being owned by ESSM. All that being said it would still be nice to have a medium calibre gun on the ANZACs or some form of VSRAD. But got to keep them upright in the ocean first before loading on bling.

[JimWH]

If the target is identified as hostile, is there any reason that a 5" shell with a pre-timed air burst fuse can't be used? Might not actually 'destroy' a small target, but the shrapnel should pretty much incapacitate anything.

[ADMk2]

Glad to see from the above posts that the new radar fixture is not the top heavy beast that it tends to look in some pics.As for CIWS,well from what I read above, weight issues seem to be the crueling factor in its non appearance on the RAN Anzacs. Pity- some type of intermediate size "economic" canon could not be fitted on either side to deal with the type of threats that might face a Frigate on basic patrol duties that these ships are in general use for eg. Gulf, Pirate Patrol,whatever. Some villain in a fast boat with a light cannon ,MG
or some portable missile,RPG etc having a go at you. Harpoon $$$ is a bit of overkill as is 127mm .Also ESSM is a bit much for shooting down a Cessna from which some nutcase armed with a high powered rifle is taking pot shots at you.A machine gun may not be enough in some hypothetical cases Anyhow weight issues seem to rule cannons out anyhow.
Tiddles


Rafael Mini-Typhoon 12.7mm guns are a bit more capable than machine gun a small fast attack boat is likely to be carrying. It'd be nice if they could fit a 25mm Typhoon or 2 aboard the ANZAC's, but I suppose they would have, if they could...

Here is RAN's webpage on the Mini-Typhoon.

http://www.navy.gov.au/Mini-Typhoon

And the obligatory pic...

[tiddles]

Yes, nice pics of ESSM in action & Mini Typhoon.Thanks.
Tiddles

[Milne Bay]

During this upgrade 36 tonnes of equipment was taken off and replaced with 14 tonnes, leaving the ship 22 tonnes lighter.

Cheers

This is interesting. It is also interesting that the Rafael 25mm typhoon was still not fitted even though the weight would likely be of little consequence.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Weapon_System
The first Typhoon, the Mk-23, was released in 1997. The weapon is mounted on a stabilized deck mounting which allows it to remain on target as the platform beneath it moves. The stabilizer has an accuracy of 0.25 mrad, allowing it to keep the weapon aimed to within 250 millimetres (9.8 in) on a target 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) away.

The mounting does not penetrate the platform, making it relatively simple to fit the weapon to ships. Typhoon can use sights attached to the weapon mount or it can receive inputs from an independent Electro-Optical Detector (EOD) or Fire Control Radar (FCR). Using its own sight the Typhoon system can provide firing solutions entirely without outside assistance, allowing it to function fully independently.

The cannon system mounted can be either an ATK, Oerlikon, Mauser or Giat model in the 20–30 mm caliber range. Between 160 and 210 rounds are carried on the mounting, depending on the caliber. The mount can traverse 120° to either side and elevate between -12.5° and 40.5°. The weight of a complete system is between 690 and 750 kilograms (1,500 and 1,700 lb) without ammunition, depending on the guns and sensors mounted.

Take off the 170 kg of the mini typhoon and the additional weight is 700 kg plus ammunition.

Sounds more like bean counters at work to me rather than a weight issue.

[ADMk2]

Sounds more like bean counters at work to me rather than a weight issue.

Perhaps, but weight isn't the only issue. Space, available fields of fire, rate of fire etc all have to be taken into account.

The AWD for instance will have 25mm Typhoons on each side of the ship, midway along the vessels, with mini-typhoon at the rear and a Phalanx Block 1B. A pretty substantial light anti-surface capability IMHO, but the ANZAC's by their design don't appear to be able to accomodate the 25mm's in the same place and perhaps the 12.7mm's at the rear are required for their higher rate of fire (especially in the absence of Phalanx)...

[Tim]

Abe, re the ESSM use versus surface targets, I take it this is a relatively common thing amongst Naval SAMs? I know Standard can do it and have seen footage of a Rolling Airframe Missile handily engaging a small surface target, is it that the type of targeting systems and processes used aren't overly particular about whether something's in the air or on the surface, so long as it produces a signature appropriate to the weapon's guidance?

Sorry, that's probably a rookie question but it's something that I've been curious about ever since reading about the use of Standard against Iranian surface targets in 1988.

[Gubler, A.]

Standard and ESSM are semi active radar homing (SARH) missiles which means they home in on the reflected radar transmissions of their target illuminator. As long as the target illumination radar can point at it the missile will home in on it. The key thing for such SAMs in engaging surface targets is fusing. Missiles like Standard and ESSM have fuse settings that enable them to be successfully used against surface targets. RAM on the other hand is IR guided so would need to recognoise and track the IR signature of the surface target. The advantage of using a SAM against a surface target unlike 127mm guns is they can successfully engage fast moving targets.

[Tim]

Ahh right, thanks for that. Interesting about the fuse settings, I hadn't thought about that. Incidentally if anyone wants to see a RAM engagement of a surface target there's footage of such at about 2:09 in this video, only a few seconds footage and it's clearly a target vessel set up to test the missile (so would be purposefully emitting IR), but for curiosity's sake:

[ADMk2]

Standard and ESSM are semi active radar homing (SARH) missiles which means they home in on the reflected radar transmissions of their target illuminator. As long as the target illumination radar can point at it the missile will home in on it. The key thing for such SAMs in engaging surface targets is fusing. Missiles like Standard and ESSM have fuse settings that enable them to be successfully used against surface targets. RAM on the other hand is IR guided so would need to recognoise and track the IR signature of the surface target. The advantage of using a SAM against a surface target unlike 127mm guns is they can successfully engage fast moving targets.

A Mk 182 5 inch 'shotgun' round wouldn't do a small attack craft much good...

Does RAN operate this munition?

[Gubler, A.]

Canister rounds are only good for short range engagements (~500m) in which case you're well within getting shot at by whatever these boats are carrying. The key is to get them a bit further out. 25mm Typhoon mounts are highly accurate in the 1-2km range bracket. Beyond that unless they are maintaining a steady course a single Mk 45 127mm can't cover enough sea to score a sink. Guided shells like the Italian 76mm DART round are needed for a hit. Or a forward and aft Mk 66 twin barrel 127mm mounting each pumping out 50 rounds per minute would do it…



Otherwise its missiles.

[Exsandgroper]

New radar allows 'channels of fire'
Gregor Ferguson From: The Australian October 23, 2010 12:00AM

SPECIAL REPORT

A LITTLE bit of history was made this month in Western Australia when an Anzac-class frigate, HMAS Perth, slipped her moorings and sailed into Cockburn Sound for the first time with an all-new Australian radar system fitted.
The ship has been moored at the Australian Marine Complex in Henderson, just south of Fremantle, being fitted with solid-state radars designed and manufactured by Canberra-based firm CEA Technologies. These are mounted atop a sleek, futuristic-looking new lightweight mast built by BAE Systems Australia.

The Ceafar and Ceamount radars will transform the ship's ability to protect itself against enemy aircraft and missiles. The six-face Ceafar radar will detect and track incoming aircraft and anti-ship missiles; the four-face Ceamount radar is an "illuminator" -- its radar energy will bounce off the incoming target to guide the ship's Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) all the way to impact.

As well as being extremely accurate, this combination allows the ship to deal with multiple incoming missiles at once -- sufficient, says Defence, to stay ahead of any foreseeable threats until the Anzac frigates retire in about 2033.

Defence sources told The Australian HMAS Perth will be tied up at the naval base at HMAS Stirling while the new radars and heavily upgraded Saab Australia combat system undergo Harbour Acceptance Trials. The new radars will be set to work for the first time next month, according to a source in the project, but the ship won't start its formal sea trials until late February.

The Ceafar and Ceamount radars have been under development for a decade. Ceafar consists of 30cm by 30cm "tiles" each made up of 64 miniature, solid-state transmitters and receivers -- a so-called electronically scanned Phased Array Radar with no moving parts. Each of its six antenna faces is made up of a 4x4 array of these tiles. The smaller Ceamount consists of 20cm x 20cm tiles with 256 elements, and its four antenna faces consist of 2 x 2 arrays of tiles.

Both radars are similar to the Aegis system on the RAN's new Air Warfare Destroyers, and siblings (in a technology sense) of the electronically scanned antenna on the RAAF's Wedgetail early warning aircraft.

But the Australian radars represent the fourth generation of this sensor technology: they are lighter and smaller so can be mounted high on the masthead of a ship instead of on the superstructure. Nevertheless, shipbuilder BAE Systems Australia has had to design new lightweight masts to reduce "top weight" on the frigate while carrying the necessary cables, cooling elements and other equipment.

The development program has involved, first, the testing of single tiles on land then on a test rig at sea. In 2008 a full-scale prototype was installed on HMAS Perth to demonstrate that the radar's beam could be switched from one radar face to the next without losing the target. Meanwhile Saab Systems has been upgrading its proven 9LV Mk3 combat system to cope with the increase in radar, weapons and communications data which the upgraded Anzac frigates will generate.

The sea trials next year will test the Ceafar radar's ability to detect and track a mass of incoming targets. The Ceamount "illuminator" faces an even tougher challenge: its PAR technology means its beam can skip rapidly between multiple targets to provide continuous guidance for ESSMs being launched in different directions.

This ability to achieve multiple so-called "channels of fire" from a single illuminating radar is a unique feature of Ceamount. Traditional illuminators with their dish-type antennas can't do this because they can point in only a single direction at a time. As a result ships with only a single illuminator can engage only one target at a time, which means a mass attack can easily saturate their defence.

It's this vulnerability that has driven the RAN's Anzac frigate Anti-Ship Missile Defence (ASMD) project, Sea 1448. The Ceafar and Ceamount element in Phase 2B (which includes a minor navigation radar upgrade) is worth $459 million.

In next year's sea trials, ships, aircraft and carefully simulated missiles will put Ceafar and Ceamount to the test. If all goes well the RAN and CEA Technologies will know by April if they're working properly. If they are, the federal government is expected to give the green light for a similar upgrade to the remaining seven Anzac-class frigates as early as the third quarter of next year.

Cheers