Pages

Friday, April 19, 2019

Australian ESSM Test

Be still my beating heart!  Someone has finally conducted live fire missile testing that wasn’t completely useless and, to the shame of the US Navy, it was the Australian Navy that did it.  HMAS Perth (FFH-157) conducted several live fire exercises for the ESSM and CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT sensor systems at the US Navy's Pacific test range and the testing apparently included multiple targets and supersonic targets.

HMAS Perth is an Anzac class (MEKO 200 variant) frigate with an 8-cell Mk41 VLS, single 5” gun, and two triple torpedo launchers.  Sensors include the CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT S and X band radars.  Wiki has a good description of the ship.

HMAS Perth


To be sure, the tests were still highly scripted, staged events with all the attendant unreality imposed by US Navy safety regulations.  Consider the following quotes extracted from Robert Macklin's report describing the Anzac program and the live fire testing that was conducted.

Now the targets being fired at Perth included two supersonic Coyote missiles—each costing $4  million—which would come screaming out of the blue, cutting a path across Perth’s station as the combined radar and combat system on board responded with the ship’s own relatively slow ESSMs in the hope of intercepting the incoming target. In addition, Perth would track at least seven subsonic missiles, some of which would be in combination with supersonics. (1)

This statement is a bit misleading as it suggests that Perth faced seven or more missiles, some of which were supersonic, at the same time.  That would be a major challenge, indeed!  The reality, as best I can tell, is that the Perth faced a total of seven missiles over four or so separate tests (referred to in the quotes as “profiles”).  There is a YouTube video that shows three missiles being fired from Perth simultaneously so three seems to be the maximum number of simultaneous threats faced in the exercise.

As indicated in the next quote, a subsonic and a supersonic were paired in a single test.  Whether the two missile types appeared in the engagement window at the same time or whether they arrived separately is not clear.

First up, he says, they did the seven subsonics but on occasion they were mixed with supersonic interference. The test, he says, ‘was designed so you could potentially be attracted to the subsonic target at the expense of the supersonic. And in fact I can assure you each of them was a success—in fact probably more successful than we thought possible.’  (1)

Note is made of the difficulty of intercepting a crossing missile as opposed to a head-on target.  The write up suggests that Perth did test a crossing missile and, if this was the case, this is a degree of difficulty and reality that the US does not test.

The ESSM missile has traditionally been a point defence system designed for a weapon coming in directly, which is easy [to take out]. But once it starts crossing—heading for a highvalue unit, especially if it’s doing mach 3—then it becomes exponentially more difficult.

We’d simulate being a short distance from a highvalue unit on its quarter, so when we’d take out the incoming supersonic mach 3 missile with the ESSM, they’d never seen it done before. (1)

If the US Navy had never seen a supersonic missile being intercepted by an ESSM before (referring to a crossing missile?), that speaks volumes about the lack of realistic testing by the Navy.

On one occasion—I think in profile three—we actually lost the target momentarily—and that happens sometimes in the fog of war—and when it came up again a young operator, a sailor who was literally in front of me in the Operations Room—saw it and intuitively pressed a ‘hostile’ and a missile went and took it out at the minimum engagement range. So at the last moment we were able to save the [highvalue unit]. (1)

The next quote illustrates the point that we’ve made repeatedly and that is that the engagement window against a supersonic threat is very short.

They saved the last two profiles for the supersonic Coyotes. The first one, Goddard says, came at them skimming at its minimum safe height. ‘You probably have 10 to 11 seconds to react, and as soon as you’ve made it “hostile” the system just automatically does it and of course it’s just “hands off.”’

In fact, when that first Coyote came at them the system fired two missiles. The first smashed into the target and the second took out the debris. ‘The Americans said “We’ve never seen that. You’ve actually taken out the target and we thought the second missile would just disappear. But all of a sudden it turned and actually took out the debris on the way through.”’  (1)

In the next quote, note the reference to a ‘ghost’ radar image and the resultant wasted defensive missiles.  We recently noted a ‘ghost’ image of sorts being part of the reason why a US Aegis cruiser was hit by an out of control drone.  Also, in terms of overall system efficiency and performance, the unintended and unnecessary expenditure of extra defensive missiles is a problem.  To be fair, if the main target(s) is destroyed, no Captain is going to begrudge a few wasted missiles.

On the second attack, only one ESSM was needed—the Coyote was pulverised. However, a ‘ghost’ image had appeared briefly on the screen and Lee Goddard actually fired three ESSMs, two of which weren’t needed. ‘So it was all very positive,’ he says. (1)


In summary, Perth’s testing was far more extensive and realistic than anything I’ve read about the US Navy conducting.  Is this enough?  Not by a long shot!  They should conduct similar tests ten times over to get a feel for long term reliability and success rates.  They should use different approach angles.  They should conduct the test under adverse weather conditions.  They should try the test with a ship that wasn’t ‘tweaked’ for the test and didn’t have tech reps helping out.  Still, for whatever drawbacks, limitations, and flaws the test might have had, it was still leaps and bounds beyond what the US Navy does and the Australians are to be commended. 



________________________________

(1)Australian Strategic Policy Institute, “Rearming the Anzacs”, Robert Macklin,
https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2017-12/Rearming%20the%20ANZACs_3.pdf?ttG8fYqc_iQGzyArk.LvSIL_1xo4rIpj

20 comments:

  1. I did not realise that you did not know about this test. It was done about 5 years ago. The Ceafar radar stimulated an interest in radar for me. It was the first scalable Aesa radar developed in the world. It uses 16 tiles on each face on the Anzac class but can be any size you want. I have seen the radar mounted on a greek missile boat while visiting the Aegean.
    The us dod was so impressed with the performance that they have been involved with cea and i think raytheon for about 10 years to develop scallable radars for US use.

    The ceafar 2 has been selected for use on the type 26 frigate that will replace the Anzacs.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It wa lockheed martin not raytheon.

      Delete
    2. I am pretty sure that the tpy-x is based on ceafar auspar radar architecture. This is an L band radar that provides tracking quality good enough for targeting. Being an L band radar it will likely detect stealthy targets quite easily due to radar resonance.

      Delete
    3. "I did not realise that you did not know about this test."

      I know readers have come to believe that ComNavOps knows all, sees all, and tells all but, occasionally, something sneaks by me.

      Delete
  2. Reassuringly, this test showed that with an alert, trained crew the ESSM works close to advertised. In combat it will probably still be closer to 70% or less but still reassuring. Emphasis on “alert”. Even the otherwise combat ready Israelis let their guard down a few years back and left the CIWS off on a corvette which was promptly hit with an anti ship missile for its complacency

    This digresses a bit from the topic, but You mentioned the Anzac’s weapons suite. To me that sounds like a better fit for an ASW frigate than the one the US is demanding on the FFG(x). We are talking about 32 cells and 2.2 inch gun for the (x), while the older Anzacs has 8 cells and a 5 inch.
    32 cells to me means we are talking mini-Burke.
    we don’t need up to 132 ESSM for defense and unless we plan on having 8 or more ASROC (doubtful) anything else in those cells is a distraction from the primary mission. And 57mm isn’t heavy enough for shore fire support or close range ship engagement.
    8 quad packed cells gives 32 missiles which should be enough for defense, and 5” can lend some close in punch without distracting too much from the ASW mission.
    If the navy isn’t interested in putting a 5” on the frigate, they would be better off with a SeaRAM in place of the 57mm, which at least adds some useful close range AAW.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "ESSM works close to advertised."

      With some caveats, yes. The report stated that the targets were destroyed but it didn't say how many missiles were fired to achieve that. It could have been only a 20% success rate. It just doesn't say although it does mention that at least three wasted missiles were launched. It also notes that one live track was lost at a critical moment which is very concerning although that's a radar system issue rather than an ESSM issue.

      Let's also understand that this was still a highly scripted exercise with complete foreknowledge by the crew of the events. Let's also note that this was an extremely tweaked up ship with everything triple checked and contractor support on board. None of that would happen in combat. Let's also note that the US Navy target drones are not good simulators of the threats. They contain no on-board ECM, penetration aids, and have no terminal evasion maneuvers, as far as I know. All of this combines to suggest that, yes, under absolutely ideal conditions the ESSM works reasonably as intended. Now, let's see a random ship, with no foreknowledge and no tweaking, try the exercise against more realistic target drones (which, admittedly don't exist because the Navy won't pay for them) and with a degree of weather thrown in which degrades seeker performance against sea-skimming targets. If ESSM still performs well then we have something we can hang our hats on!

      Delete
    2. "means we are talking mini-Burke."

      Spot on with all your frigate comments!

      Delete
    3. Why not spent money to remote up a Perry if one is still around slap on better sensors and fire a real salvo of NSMs at it and the supersonic drone or two. Again unrealistic but possibly useful data.

      Delete
    4. " remote up a Perry"

      No need. We already have a fully remoted ship dedicated to exactly that. The USS Paul Foster (former Spruance class) is the Navy's dedicated, unmanned, remote controlled, self-defense test ship. We have the ship but the Navy simply refuses to conduct realistic testing.

      Delete
    5. The subsonic missiles were the penetration aids. Clever use of subsonic, try for a time on target effect using supersonic & subsonic missiles. Harpoons new role = decoy(with warhead).

      Delete
    6. In some ways the coyote is a more difficult target than a anti ship cruise missile. It has a radio cross section less than a quarter of a Brahmos based on size. It has no targeting radar which can be detected. The ecm is unlikely to affect an AESA radar. I think an s maneuvre gives you more time to hit it with a missile. It makes it a harder target for a gun.

      Delete
  3. They should conduct similar tests ten times over to get a feel for long term reliability and success rates.

    Concur completely. If we had done this with our torpedoes priro to WW2, them maybe it would not have taken years to get the problem solved.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Take note that an Austrailian sailor fired a live weapon without any hesitation. No asking for confirmation from another statio, no double checking, and no asking for orders. The US Navy needs to meet this standard and it is as far from it as it's possible to be.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be fair, his orders were to shoot down the incoming drones. That track was lost, momentarily, didn't change or negate those orders. He merely, and correctly, continued to execute those orders, albeit after a momentary pause to regain track.

      This also illustrates another interesting aspect and that is that Aegis is designed to operate in full auto mode. No orders needed - the computer launches the instant a valid track is established. Far more efficient than even the best sailor. Either the Perth's combat system doesn't have a full auto mode or, if it does, they weren't using it for some reason.

      Delete
  5. Australia uses a domestic version of SAAB 9LV. Its page says it has a fully auto mode https://saab.com/naval/decision-superiority/combat-management-systems/9lv-cms/ (last paragraph). All Australian ships have this combat system. SAAB is working on an interface to AEGIS for the future frigates (http://www.navy.gov.au/fleet/ships-boats-craft/future/ffg). In one of the lost ships in Falklands the lookout did his job reporting exactly what was happening - but the bridge crew froze until after they were hit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "SAAB 9LV. Its page says it has a fully auto mode"

      Hmm … I wonder why they apparently didn't use it in this test since, presumably, it's what would be used in combat?

      Delete
  6. The Phalanx gun doesn't do to well on auto. It shoots other ships. Imagine a US ship near China on auto and an airliner flies over and gets 2 x SM2s.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Phalanx works very well in auto. What doesn't work well is other ships being deployed in the field of fire. That's what tactics are for - to work out how to deploy assets so that each can maximize their weapons without harming each other. That's why training the way you intend to fight is so necessary.

      "Imagine a US ship near China on auto and an airliner flies over and gets 2 x SM2s."

      ????? Are you suggesting that an airliner is going to fly over a US warship during a war? If so, it deserves to be shot down and should be shot down intentionally. Commercial airlines don't fly through war zones.

      I suspect you're referencing, inappropriately, the Vincennes incident. What you may not appreciate is that the Vincennes acted manually, in contradiction to the sensor data. Had the system been in full auto, IT WOULD NOT HAVE FIRED ON THE AIRLINER since the data showed it to be climbing, not descending in an attack profile.

      Delete
    2. While Vincennes was in my mind I was thinking more about the consequences of doing so and I had MH17 and Ukraine in mind. They were earning foreign currency by allowing airliners to fly over their country. While the Russians thought it was a lawful target my point was that situations will occur where neutral airliners may be around.

      Delete
    3. No one would operate an Aegis or CIWS in full auto during peacetime for the very reason you note and no one suggested otherwise. Full auto is a wartime mode and in war no airliner is going to be flying through a war zone.

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.