Aegis Air Defense System at Thirty

[adroth]

Aegis Air Defense System at Thirty
BY NORMAN FRIEDMAN   - APRIL 23, 2013

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/aegis-air-defense-system-at-thirty/

It has been 30 years since the missile cruiser Ticonderoga first took the Aegis system to sea. In 1982, Aegis was a vastly expensive anti-aircraft system entering a world in which much simpler ones had not worked entirely well. Critics saw it as several steps beyond what was practical or useful. The U.S. Navy saw it as an especially powerful system that would bind together its more numerous simpler ones in a fight against increasingly numerous and sophisticated missiles, particularly Soviet ones. Thirty years later, Aegis is the standard U.S. Navy air defense system. Nearly all of the simpler, cheaper ones are long gone. Aegis is accepted worldwide as the standard for air defense and five allied navies have adopted it: Australia, Korea, Japan, Norway, and Spain. Two others, Germany and the Netherlands, have adopted variants with other radars. Aegis has extended its reach beyond the atmosphere to deal with ballistic missiles, and it is being deployed ashore to support NATO. The main current Western alternative to Aegis, PAAMS (Principal Anti Air Missile System) incorporates much of the thinking that Aegis introduced.

All of this has happened so gradually that few realize how remarkable it is. Other countries that field naval air defense missiles have found themselves discarding system after system in hopes of developing entirely new successful ones. The U.S. Navy has been alone in pursuing what is now called spiral development: a step by step process in which each new version of a system incorporates a great deal of what has gone before. It might be imagined that the result would be mediocre – but Aegis shows that it is the opposite.

< Edited >

How many directors a ship could carry depended on the ship’s topside geography. A director had to illuminate a target all the way from launch to explosion – as a safety feature, Standard and other such semi-active missiles destroyed themselves if they did not sense reflected radar energy within a set time after launch (typically 30 seconds). That meant that illuminators had to be on the ship’s centerline. This space had to be shared with other fire control radars, such as those for guns (in some systems these radars had some missile control capability). The absolute limit seems to have been six such radars, and that was rarely reached.

< Edited >

=====

Defenseph.net from SF Fleet Week 2012

[adroth]

From same ship as above

[adroth]

Videos and animation

https://youtu.be/K1-_4tfWR4c

https://youtu.be/UfMYslk29R0

https://youtu.be/QcRRoAGyBhA

[adroth]

AEGIS Ashore

https://youtu.be/ITQSKOny5Fk

[adroth]

From: https://defencyclopedia.com/2015/07/10/the-ultimate-showdown-part-1-arleigh-burke-vs-daring-class-destroyers/

< Edited >

SPY-1D however doesn’t provide target illumination or fire control for the SAMs carried on board and it is up to the 3 mechanically scanning SPG-62 illuminators to provide them. This is an inherent drawback as it cannot guide a large number of SAMs at once, whereas an AESA fire control radar can guide up to 32 missiles at once. Though it has been upgraded,SPY-1D PESA still can’t compete against the modern AESA radars fielded by many navies. This is being rectified by the new AMDR which will be fitted on the Flight III Arleigh Burkes and will allow it to reclaim the top spot in naval radars. The X-band radar which will be added will allow high resolution scanning, thus enabling Flight III Burkes to detect stealthy sea skimming missiles from over 40 km away.

< Edited >

=======

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/

The Highly Capable, Truly Scalable Radar

The Air and Missile Defense Radar – AN/SPY-6(V) – is the Navy's next generation integrated air and missile defense radar. It is advancing through development and on track for the DDG-51 Flight III destroyer.

The radar significantly enhances the ships’ ability to detect air and surface targets as well as the ever-proliferating ballistic missile threats.

MEET THE NAVY'S AIR AND MISSILE DEFENSE RADAR

https://youtu.be/BWUTbaIRLWA

AMDR provides greater detection ranges, increased discrimination accuracy, higher reliability and sustainability, and lower total ownership cost as well as a host of other advantages when compared to the current AN/SPY-1D(V) radar onboard today’s destroyers.

The system is built with individual ‘building blocks’ called Radar Modular Assemblies. Each RMA is a self-contained radar in a 2’x2’x2’ box. These individual radar RMAs can stack together to form any size array to fit the mission requirements of any ship, making AMDR the Navy’s first truly scalable radar.

The inherent scalability could allow for new instantiations, such as back-fit on existing DDG 51 destroyers and installation on aircraft carriers, amphibious warfare ships, frigates, Littoral Combat Ship and DDG 1000 classes, without significant new radar development costs.

For the DDG 51 Flight III destroyer, the SPY-6(V) AMDR will feature:

37 RMAs – which is equivalent to SPY-1D(V) +15 dB
Meaning, SPY-6 can see a target of half the size at twice the distance of today’s radar
4 array faces to provide full-time, 360° situational awareness
Each face is 14’ x 14’ – which is roughly the same dimension as today’s SPY-1D(V) radar

AMDR Advantages

Scalable to suit any size aperture or mission requirement
Over 30 times more sensitive than AN/SPY-1D(V) in the Flight III configuration
Designed to counter large and complex raids

Adaptive digital beamforming and radar signal/data processing functionality provides exceptional capability in adverse conditions, such as high-clutter and jamming environments. It is also reprogrammable to adapt to new missions or emerging threats.
All cooling, power, command logic and software are scalable

http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/rtnwcm/groups/public/documents/image/amdr-infographic-pdf.pdf

RELIABILITY AND AFFORDABILITY

Designed for high availability and reliability, AMDR provides exceptional capability and performance compared to SPY-1 – and at a comparable price and significantly lower total ownership cost.

AMDR’s performance and reliability are a direct result of more than 10 years of investment in core technologies, leveraging development, testing and production of high-powered Gallium Nitride (GaN) semiconductors, distributed receiver exciters, and adaptive digital beamforming. AMDR’s GaN components cost 34% less than Gallium Arsenide alternatives, deliver higher power density and efficiency, and have demonstrated meantime between failures at an impressive 100 million hours.

AMDR has a fully programmable, back-end radar controller built out of commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) x86 processors. This programmability allows the system to adapt to emerging threats. The commercial nature of the x86 processors simplifies obsolescence replacement – as opposed to costly technical refresh/upgrades and associated downtime – savings that lower radar sustainment costs over each ship’s service life.

AMDR has an extremely high predicted operational availability due to the reliable GaN transmit/receive modules, the low mean-time-to-repair rate, and a very low number of Line Replaceable Units. Designed for maintainability, standard LRU replacement in the RMA can be accomplished in under six minutes – requiring only two tools.

This new S-band radar will be coupled with:

X-band radar – a horizon-search radar based on existing technology
The Radar Suite Controller (RSC) – a new component to manage radar resources and integrate with the ship’s combat management system

SCALABLE. CAPABLE. RELIABLE. AFFORDABLE.

The Air and Missile Defense Radar is expected to meet the Navy’s current and future mission requirements – and will be ready to protect against the threats of today and tomorrow.

[r3mu511]

from defencyclopedia.com link in above post:

... SPY-1D however doesn’t provide target illumination or fire control for the SAMs carried on board and it is up to the 3 mechanically scanning SPG-62 illuminators to provide them. This is an inherent drawback as it cannot guide a large number of SAMs at once...

although the SPG-62 illuminators do indeed provide the guidance during the terminal phase of the missile flight, the defencyclopedia webpage does not mention that it is the SPY-1D(V) which provides command guidance during the midcourse phase of the missile's flight (ie. performs uplink/downlink to the missile to provide updated trajectory path commands during the middle phase of it's flight prior to the terminal phase)...

also worth noting is that the SPG-62 illuminators are only needed for the terminal phase of semi-active/SARH seeker based missiles (ie. ESSM Blk-1 and SM-2 Blk-3 & -4), and are not used for the active/ARH seeker based missiles if the ARH seeker is active (ie. upcoming ESSM Blk-2 and currently fielding SM-6)... thus for these ARH missiles it would be the SPY-1D(V) which provides fire control command guidance during the midcourse phase of the missile's flight...

an indication of the capability of the original SPY-1D in terms of it's fire control bandwidth during the midcourse phase is given by Friedman in his book "US Destroyer History (Rev Ed)" where in Ch.16 "New Technology For A New Destroyer" he mentions that the SPY-1D would have an intercept capability twice that of a Kidd upgraded with NTU (New Threat Upgrade), this would mean the original SPY-1D would have a fire control bandwidth of around 12 concurrent intercepts... note also that Friedman is talking of the original 1991-era SPY-1D as opposed to the current SPY-1D(V)...

----------

(moving on to more modern developments, ie. the AMDR, aka SPY-6)

from Raytheon AMDR webpage link in previous post:

... which is equivalent to SPY-1D(V) +15 dB
Meaning, SPY-6 can see a target of half the size at twice the distance of today’s radar...

note that the "half the size at twice the range" description actually stems directly from the math behind the +15 dB performance improvement being cited... an increase of +15 dB in equates to a performance increase of approximately 32 times in terms of radar sensitivity...

using the standard radar range equation relationship and holding all other factors constant (ie. transmit power, antenna gain, aperture area, etc.), we can see the the radar range is directly proportional to the fourth root of the radar cross section size:

range ~ rcs ^ 1/4

again holding all other factors constant... now if we introduce a performance boost of +15 dB, hence a 32 times sensitivity improvement:

range ~ (32 * rcs) ^ 1/4

if we then say the new rcs is half the size, then:

range ~ (32 * rcs / 2) ^ 1/4

and working the math we get:

range ~ (32 / 2 * rcs) ^ 1/4

range ~ (16 * rcs) ^ 1/4

range ~ (16 ^ 1/4) * (rcs ^ 1/4)

thus:

range ~ 2 * (rcs ^ 1/4)

so the above 2x factor shows that the range is now twice that of the original range for an rcs size half the original, hence the "can see a target of half the size at twice the distance" statement given above by Raytheon...

----------

and now for some Raytheon eye candy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWUTbaIRLWA

and more on the AMDR for the DDG-51 Flight III here:

http://defenseph.net/drp/index.php?topic=170.0

[adroth]

from defencyclopedia.com link in above post:

... SPY-1D however doesn’t provide target illumination or fire control for the SAMs carried on board and it is up to the 3 mechanically scanning SPG-62 illuminators to provide them. This is an inherent drawback as it cannot guide a large number of SAMs at once...

although the SPG-62 illuminators do indeed provide the guidance during the terminal phase of the missile flight, the defencyclopedia webpage does not mention that it is the SPY-1D(V) which provides command guidance during the midcourse phase of the missile's flight (ie. performs uplink/downlink to the missile to provide updated trajectory path commands during the middle phase of it's flight prior to the terminal phase)...

also worth noting is that the SPG-62 illuminators are only needed for the terminal phase of semi-active/SARH seeker based missiles (ie. ESSM Blk-1 and SM-2 Blk-3 & -4), and are not used for the active/ARH seeker based missiles if the ARH seeker is active (ie. upcoming ESSM Blk-2 and currently fielding SM-6)... thus for these ARH missiles it would be the SPY-1D(V) which provides fire control command guidance during the midcourse phase of the missile's flight...

an indication of the capability of the original SPY-1D in terms of it's fire control bandwidth during the midcourse phase is given by Friedman in his book "US Destroyer History (Rev Ed)" where in Ch.16 "New Technology For A New Destroyer" he mentions that the SPY-1D would have an intercept capability twice that of a Kidd upgraded with NTU (New Threat Upgrade), this would mean the original SPY-1D would have a fire control bandwidth of around 12 concurrent intercepts... note also that Friedman is talking of the original 1991-era SPY-1D as opposed to the current SPY-1D(V)...

Indeed.

But AFAIK, this is more a function of the kinetic component of the Aegis system: the Standard 2 missile which didn't require target designation throughout its flight the way the older SAM systems, and even the Standard 1 missile did. AFAIK the original flight profile was for the SM2 to use inertial guidance to fly to an optimal location relative to the target then be guided in by the illuminators.

Later generations of the missile, however, have since included more capable terminal guidance capabilities

http://www.defensemedianetwork.com/stories/u-s-navy-missile-defense-evolution-of-the-standard-missile/

The Navy, however, needed faster reaction times, longer range, greater jamming resistance, and more reliability in its primary air defense missile. Building upon the SM-1, development of the improved SM-2 began in the early 1970s. Designed to function in a demanding tactical environment, the SM-2 models feature an inertial mid-course guidance package that receives command updates from the shipboard fire control system. Several versions also have a jam-resistant monopulse receiver for semi-active radar terminal homing. The initial version of the SM-2 became operational in 1978, and an upgraded SM-2MR Block II entered service in 1983. That missile was used in conjunction with the Mk. 26 twin-arm launchers on board the early Ticonderoga-class cruisers.

[r3mu511]

^@chief, SM-2 (all blocks, and SM-6) use command midcourse guidance in conjunction with Aegis, you can trace the techinical details of the guidance flight profile development from the 3T missiles (Talos, Terrier, Tartar) to the Standard family in the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (JHUAPL) archives: http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/views/prior_issues.html...

they (JHUAPL) provide numerous tech digest issues where they trace their technical development of Aegis and the SM family... for those who like engineering details, this archive is the definitive source for technicals on Aegis and 3T/Standard development since JHUAPL was the US Navy tasked resource for AAW development... it's as close as you can get to getting it straight from the horse's mouth, lol... all hail Merle Tuvre and Bumblebee!

---

cookie points for those who like to sift through the archives and can answer the following question: what's the technical difference between inertial guidance with uplink update in the SM-2-NTU missile used in a Kidd class versus command inertial guidance in the SM-2-Aegis missile used in the Tico/Burke class? note these are both SM-2 missiles... a couple of the archive tech digest issues have the details for those who like perusing tech stuff on Aegis...

[mamiyapis]

Layman's version of AEGIS capabilities, sort of a primer before the heavy stuff:

https://youtu.be/ZcwDfaY4OW4

[r3mu511]

^noooo!!! I don't believe it!! Kermit The Frog from Sesame Street, who I've watched for years during my childhood, has turned out to be a red commie bastard!! lol...

---

seriously, Komrade Kermit needs to consider that the upcoming ESSM Block-2 and the currently fielding SM-6 feature active/ARH seeker heads which gives them an active-mode capability during the terminal phase of interception... this means this will remove the first bottleneck mentioned, ie. the limitation in concurrent terminal phase intercepts based on the no. of illuminators installed on a Burke (3x SPG-62)...

so if a Burke has N missile intercept guidance channels (eg. 12 for the 1991-era SPY-1D from Friedman, or 24 for a modern Burke as mentioned in Komrade Kermit's video), then it is no longer limited to having 3 missiles in terminal phase at a time with N-3 missiles in midcourse phase... so whereas previously with semi-active/SARH seeker missiles, intercepts would occur in batches of 3 at a time (ie. staggered in threes to give time for the SPG-62 illuminators to point to the next batch of 3 intercepts after the previous batched interception completes), now with active/ARH seeker missiles up to N missiles can enter terminal phase at the same time...

then factor in that the effective radar horizon will be much greater due to CEC/NIFCCA with integration of airborne radar assets (ie. E-2D and F-35) to increase the horizon at which incoming targets can be first detected and intercepts performed beyond the nominal ~25 km distance (ie. as based on a a 5m anti-ship missile flight height and a 15m radar height as shown in Komrade Kermit's vid)...

so for example, an SM-6 assuming a range just equivalent to the current SM-2-BLK-4 at ~370 km (ref: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1200&ct=2) would need an airborne asset (eg. E-2D) flying at ~7700 meters altitude in order for an incoming anti-ship missile flying at 5 m height to be spotted at the maximum effective range of ~370 km (assuming the E-2D sensor is capable, for comparison the older E-2C's aps-145 radar is rated at ~650 km per Friedman's "World Naval Weapon Systems")...

thus from an effective radar horizon (ie. first detect, first opportunity to intercept) of ~25 km using shipboard radar, we now have an effective radar horizon of ~370 km using an E-2D in conjunction with CEC/NIFCCA... so the video's 36 seconds delay till anti-ship missile impact (for the ~25 km distance) now becomes a nearly 9 min delay before impact due to the much larger radar horizon thus allowing more intercept attempts (to be rigorous, we should reduce the range effectiveness of the E-2D sensor as it will be attempting to detect an rcs which is much smaller than what is probably used to rate it's maximum range, ie. the anti-ship missile will present an off-broadside/angled cylindrical cross section to the E-2D sensor and the longer wavelength of UHF used will reduce the rcs of a cylindrical cross section, so we can't say for sure it can achieve the entire 370 km range on such a target, eg. if a 1000 sq-m target was used to achieve the max ~650 km sensor range, then if the missile off-broadside cylindrical cross section presents a 1 sq-m* target then the effective horizon would drop to around ~115 km, but this would still be nearly a 5x improvement over the 25 km detect range using just shipboard sensors)...

*for comparison a metal cylindrical body of 9 m long and 1 m in diameter (something a bit larger than a P-800 Yakhont body) at a frequency of 425 MHz (E-2C sensor UHF) would have a broadside (ie. non-angled) rcs of about 360 sq-m (ref: from rcs formula given in eq.14-4, ch.14, "Radar Cross Section", E.Knott), we drop this by a factor of around 0.003 to represent the fact that the cross section is being viewed at a very shallow angle

---

so all in all, I think Miss Piggy would like a word with you Komrade Kermit, I sense a karate chop from her on the way*, lol...

*only those of you who grew up on sesame street will get that reference

[adroth]

About AEGIS Baselines

===

U.S. Navy Won’t Upgrade USS Fitzgerald to Baseline 9 Aegis Combat System

By: Sam LaGrone
October 16, 2017 5:31 PM

https://news.usni.org/2017/10/16/u-s-navy-wont-upgrade-uss-fitzgerald-baseline-9-aegis-combat-system

< Edited >

USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) won’t be upgraded to the latest version of the Aegis Combat System when it completes its repairs following a collision with a merchant ship off of Japan, according to Naval Sea Systems Command.

Instead of upgrading the combat system of the destroyer to the new Baseline 9 standard, which allows the ship to simultaneously take on ballistic missile and traditional air warfare threats, Fitzgerald will retain a legacy version of Aegis when the destroyer returns to the fleet after its planned repair at Ingalls Shipbuilding in Pascagoula, Miss, NAVSEA said in a statement to USNI News.

Fitzgerald was already scheduled to undergo a midlife upgrade in Fiscal Year 2019, though the Navy intended to conduct a scaled-down availability that would cover hull, mechanical and electrical (HM&E) improvements but not a combat system upgrade to Baseline 9. Following the collision, despite the need to replace portions of the ship’s combat system, radar and electronics, the Navy decided to go along with its original decision to keep the ship in a legacy configuration instead of upgrading to Baseline 9.

“There are no additional DDG-51 Flight I ships planned to receive Baseline 9 upgrades. The USS Fitzgerald (DDG-62) is capable of performing Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) operations and is planned to receive all FY19 scheduled alterations to include HM&E, [command, control, communications, computers, cyber and intelligence] and BMD upgrades during the restoration availability,” reads the statement.

< Edited >

====

New South Korean Destroyers to Have Ballistic Missile Defense Capability

By: Sam LaGrone
September 6, 2016 11:38 AM

From: https://news.usni.org/2016/09/06/new-south-korean-destroyers-ballistic-missile-defense-capability

< Edited >

Officials with Aegis combat system developer Lockheed Martin told USNI News the new Korean ships would have an “integrated air and missile defense” (IAMD) capability installed aboard but would not elaborate on any other details of the combat system.

IAMD is a term used widely by the U.S. Navy to describe the ability of an Aegis-equipped guided missile destroyer to perform the traditional air warfare and BMD missions at the same time using the Baseline 9 combat system.

The first three Sejong the Great destroyers are fitted with Aegis Baseline 7, which is based on older proprietary computers, that aren’t able to carry out IAMD operations.

In addition to the South Korean Navy, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force (JMSDF) is upgrading their Aegis destroyers with a Baseline 9 capability and is developing a new BMD interceptor with the U.S.

< Edited >


====

AEGIS Weapon System

From: http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2100&tid=200&ct=2

< Edited >

The USS Michael Murphy (DDG 112), commissioned in October 2012, completed the original DDG 51 acquisition program. DDG 112 is fitted with AEGIS Weapon System Baseline 7.2B7, which incorporates Cooperative Engagement Capability, Evolved Sea sparrow Missile, improved SPY-1D(V) radar, and an open architecture combat system using commercially developed processors and display equipment. The DDG 51 line was restarted in FY 2010 to continue production of this highly capable platform. Contracts for four Flight IIA ships were awarded from FY 2010 through FY 2012. In June 2013, the Navy awarded a multi-year contract for Flight IIA DDG 51s in FY 2013 through FY 2017. In late 2014, the Navy was modifying these contracts via Engineering Change Proposals to the DDG Flight III configuration starting with the second ship procured in FY 2016. The Flight III configuration will include the SPY-6 AMDR, power and cooling enhancements to support AMDR, and additional technology insertions to improve capability and life cycle costs in other warfare area missions. Initial operational capability is scheduled for FY 2023 after delivery of the first ship in FY 2021. An updated AEGIS Weapon System, Baseline 10, is being developed to integrate the new SPY-6 radar and provide improved warfighting capabilities across mission areas. Baseline 10 will certify in FY 2023 to support ship delivery.

< Edited >

[adroth]

Japan to expand ballistic missile defense with ground-based Aegis batteries
Reuters
Posted at Dec 19 2017 10:47 AM

http://news.abs-cbn.com/overseas/12/19/17/japan-to-expand-ballistic-missile-defense-with-ground-based-aegis-batteries

TOKYO - Japan formally decided on Tuesday it would expand its ballistic missile defense system with U.S.-made ground-based Aegis radar stations and interceptors in response to a growing threat from North Korean rockets.

A proposal to build two Aegis Ashore batteries was approved by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's Cabinet.

The sites without the missiles will likely cost at least $2 billion and are not likely to be operational until 2023 at the earliest, sources familiar with the plan told Reuters earlier.

"The threat posed to our country by North Korea's nuclear and missile development has reached a new stage," the defence ministry said in a statement.

The decision to acquire the ground version of the Aegis missile-defence system, which is already deployed on Japanese warships, was widely expected.

< Edited >

[Ayoshi]

Japan to buy Aegis Ashore missile defense systems | Defense news

The approval will allow the Defense Ministry to buy two Aegis Ashore systems to add to Japan’s current two-step missile defense consisting of Patriot batteries and Aegis-equipped destroyers.

“North Korea’s nuclear and missile development has become a greater and more imminent threat for Japan’s national security, and we need to drastically improve our ballistic missile defense capability to protect Japan continuously and sustainably,” a statement issued by the Cabinet said.

The deployment will add to growing defense costs in Japan as Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government pushes to allow the military a greater international role and boost its missile combat capability.

Defense officials say two Aegis Ashore units can cover Japan entirely by using advanced missile interceptors such as the SM-3 Block IIA, which was jointly developed by Japan and the U.S. and would cost about 200 billion yen (U.S. $1.8 billion), though they have not released exact figures.

Officials say they hope the systems are ready for operation by 2023.

The U.S. anti-missile station Aegis Ashore is pictured at the military base in Deveselu, Romania, on May 12, 2016. (Daniel Mihailescu/AFP via Getty Images)