The Enterprise Air
Surveillance Radar (EASR) is the radar system that is replacing the
ill-conceived Dual Band Radar (DBR).
EASR is intended to replace the DBR on the Ford class carriers and the
older rotating SPS-48/49 systems on a variety of ships. It appears that the Navy intends the EASR to
become the standard for non-Aegis ships such as amphibious ships, carriers, LX(R),
and others. Aegis SPY-x will remain the
primary anti-air radar system for Burke class destroyers.
Unfortunately, information
on the EASR is scarce but naval-technology.com website offers a glimpse of the
system (1).
Raytheon is developing the
EASR and the Navy has conducted a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) of the
system.
As with any new system,
Raytheon/Navy claims that the new radar will perform better, be easier to
maintain, require fewer personnel to operate, be more reliable, and cost
less. Of course, history assures us that
most of these claims will turn out to be marginal improvements or totally false
but at this stage of development, claims are typically unlimited and bordering
on magical so this is nothing new or noteworthy.
The interesting aspect of
this radar system is that it will be modular and scalable.
“The new air surveillance radar is designed on Radar
Modular Assembly (RMA) technology, which has been matured through development
and recent test successes of the US Navy’s AN / SPY-6 air and missile defence
3D radar for the DDG 51 Flight III destroyers.
Each RMA is a self-contained radar housed in a
2ft by 2ft by 2ft box, and the systems can be linked together to form
radar chains of various sizes.
The EASR will be offered to the US
The concept of a rotating
version is fascinating and leads one to wonder how and why it will be a
significant improvement over the older rotating SPS-48/49 units?
 |
| EASR Variant 1 - Rotating |
The system is, apparently,
derived from the SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) (2). In fact, Raytheon claims that the AMDR and
EASR are built with the identical AMDR cubical 2 ft. building blocks which
leads one to wonder how and why the two systems are different and why we’re
spending more money on an AMDR with a different name?
According to Raytheon, the
difference between the systems is simply the number of RMAs, with the AMDR
having 37 and the EASR having 9 (2). As
Raytheon describes it (2),
AMDR is
comprised of 37 RMAs – which is equivalent to SPY-1D(V) +15 dB in terms of
sensitivity. To give this perspective, it means that SPY-6 can see a target of
half the size at twice the distance of today’s radars.
EASR is a 9
RMA configuration – which is equivalent to the sensitivity of the current
SPY-1D(V) radar on today’s destroyers, and at only 20% of the size of the
legacy SPS-48. These are considerable enhancements over the radars in service
on current (and future) EASR-designated ship classes.
Raytheon stresses the
reliability and maintainability of the system, citing the commonality between
the AMDR and EASR due to the identical radar modules.
Raytheon also claims that
the system will be more affordable due to having only a single radar type
across the entire fleet. They claim that
training, logistics, spares, etc. will be streamlined and cheaper.
Of course, what new system
in history hasn’t made those exact claims?
Some pan out, to a degree, many don’t.
So, if the AMDR and EASR are
identical, differing only in the number of RMAs, why are we paying for an EASR
“development” program? From USNI News
website,
“Radar maker Raytheon has been awarded a $92 million
contract to develop a new Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar for
the U.S. Navy’s new Ford-class carrier fleet and big deck amphibious warships,
company officials told USNI News on a Monday conference call.
Based on Raytheon’s
SPY-6 S-band Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) planned for
the services Arleigh Burke-class (DDG-51) guided missile destroyers, the
Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar (EASR) will be the volume air search radar
for most of the Gerald R. Ford-class carrier (CVN-78) — starting with John
F. Kennedy (CVN-79) and the planned LHA-8 amphibious warship.
“It’s using identical hardware, identical signal processing software, data processing software. It’s as near identical as possible. The goal of the program to drive affordability and commonality,” Tad Dickenson [Raytheon company spokesman] told reporters.”
Again, if it’s identical,
why are we paying for a new developmental program? It seems like $92M is a lot of money to
simply change the number of RMAs. But
wait, there’s more money coming!
“Following the EMD phase, there are up to $723 million
in contract options to support 16 ship sets of the radar – 6 fixed face for the
Fords and 10 for amphibious ships.” (3)
And, of course, there’s
always the actual construction/purchase funds still to be had!
Interestingly, the EASR does
not completely meet the Navy’s radar requirements.
“The service also plans to procure a separate X-band
radar to compliment the EASR for both the future carriers and the amphibs.” (3)
I believe the separate
X-band radar is intended to cover the low level, short range (horizon) region,
meaning sea-skimming anti-ship missiles.
Currently, the SPQ-9B performs this function.
Raytheon has a nice little
gig going for itself. They’ve managed to
direct the Navy into a single radar, sole supplier situation in which they can
dictate unlimited prices and exorbitant “developmental” costs. That’s nice work if you can get it! The Navy now has no choice but to keep
shipping barges of money to Raytheon.
There’s always the more
mundane aspects of this arrangement to consider, as well. If Raytheon’s facilities should suffer a
major catastrophe like a fire or sabotage, the Navy will have no source for
radars for, potentially, years while Raytheon rebuilds. A prime target for sabotage at the start of a
war with China
In summary, the EASR seems
to be just a renaming and repackaging of the already developed AMDR. That leads to questioning the need for
additional developmental funding.
Raytheon can’t have it both ways.
They claim the EASR is identical to the AMDR and, therefore, offers all
kinds of commonality benefits and yet they want barge loads of money to
“develop” the EASR. Which is it? Are the two systems identical or not? I think the Navy is being gouged and has,
through mismanagement, backed themselves into a no-choice corner.
__________________________________
(1)naval-technology.com
website, retrieved 8-May-2017 ,
(2)Raytheon website,
retrieved 8-May-2017 ,
(3)USNI News website,
“Raytheon Awarded $92M Navy Contract for Future Carrier, Big Deck AESA Radars”,
Sam LaGrone, 22-Aug-2016 ,
