APAR and FELEX

[Navy_Blue]

Is APAR out of the picture for the FELEX refits?  If so what are we planning to upgrade our radars with?  Seems like the program is cast in mud and everything is changing.  Just wondering what people think the CPF will look like in 2012?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

APAR was deemed as being too heavy for the CPF and it looks like we will get upgraded SPS49s and SG150s is the last I was told.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Some information for FELEX can be found here:

http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmepm/pmofelex/index_e.asp

 

[Navy_Blue]

So no real face lift   Oh well.  As long as we get new PG&D I'm happy really.  Is the 49 still a good system and can it do what the APAR would have done??

 

[Armymatters]

So no real face lift   Oh well.  As long as we get new PG&D I'm happy really.  Is the 49 still a good system and can it do what the APAR would have done??

Global Security has a good document on the SPS 49 VLR radar set:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/an-sps-49.htm
We are picking up the SPS-49(v)8 series radar, which can provide long range surveillance with better detection against severe clutter and has better ECCM capabilites. In short, with the new radar, the Halifaxes can pickup a fighter-sized airplane in excess of 225 nautical miles, against a backdrop of severe radar clutter and jamming. The radar is also AEGIS compatible as well, as a side note.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The 49 is a good radar however the APAR is a better system. Keeping the SPS49 is not a bad thing though as many swear by it. Good radar glad its staying.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Another (3) more years to define the project?
Then another (9) years to complete installations?
Project complete by 2017? 

I'll probably take some flak for this, but I find the speed at which NDHQ procures and upgrades things to be amazingly slow and am left wondering if timelines are designed to keep people employed as project managers as opposed to attempting to be as efficient as possible....

Seriously, that's just brutal.


M.  ???

 

[aesop081]

Another (3) more years to define the project?
Then another (9) years to complete installations?
Project complete by 2017? 

I'll probably take some flak for this, but I find the speed at which NDHQ procures and upgrades things to be amazingly slow and am left wondering if timelines are designed to keep people employed as project managers as opposed to attempting to be as efficient as possible....

Seriously, that's just brutal.


M.   ???

I dont think you are far from the truth.

Plans for upgrades to the CPFs should have started the day they left the shipyard.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Plans for upgrades to the CPFs should have started the day they left the shipyard.

What makes you so sure they haven't been? 

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

How's this for timely.... 


M.  ;D


- - - - -

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060406.wmili0406/BNStory/National/home
Military procurement bad for national security, study says
Canadian Press

Ottawa — The military's excruciatingly slow and complex procurement system is a threat to Canadian security and must be streamlined before the Defence Department can effectively replace its growing stockpile of aging equipment, a new study warns.

Noting that it can take 15 years or more to buy a major piece of gear, the paper assembled by the Conference of Defence Associations Institute says some badly needed equipment will be all but obsolete by the time it wends its way through the Byzantine acquisition process.

The series of essays by top defence experts, collectively titled Creating an Acquisition Model that Delivers, says the situation is urgent, and all the more because the military is challenged by a particularly “troubling and unstable world.”

“Some Canadians may not admit it, but our country is at war,” writes retired general Paul Manson, institute president. “We face an insidious terrorist enemy not bound by moral restraint or geographical limits.

“For the first time in almost 200 years, our own territory could become a battleground. Unless the Canadian Forces are properly equipped to join like-minded allies in meeting the threat, our nation can expect difficult times.”

The paper calls the election of the minority Conservative government a window of opportunity to fix an acquisition system that has become “quite dysfunctional.”

It notes that by the time the navy's new joint support ships are built, their predecessors will be 47 years old – 17 years older than their life expectancy. And it says technology may overtake some acquisition projects, rendering them virtually obsolete before the equipment is even used.

- - - - -

 

[Navy_Blue]

When you say AEGIS compatible do you mean we can tie in with another ship fitted with AEGIS or we could install it and use AEGIS??  My understanding of radars is quite limited.

 

[aesop081]

When you say AEGIS compatible do you mean we can tie in with another ship fitted with AEGIS or we could install it and use AEGIS??  My understanding of radars is quite limited.

That's Ok.......so is armymatters understanding of radar

 

[Mortar guy]

There was a good article in the latest Jane's Navy International about the Aussies upgrading their ANZACs with CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT active phase array radar. It got me to thinking that perhaps CEAFAR would be better than APAR as IIRC it is lighter than APAR. Anyway, just an opinion based on a Jane's article...

MG

 

[Armymatters]

When you say AEGIS compatible do you mean we can tie in with another ship fitted with AEGIS or we could install it and use AEGIS??  My understanding of radars is quite limited.

It means we can tie the radar in with another ship that is fully AEGIS equipped. Of note is the Australia's use of this radar on their Anzac class frigates, which will work with the future Australian AEGIS equipped destroyers. If you want our warships to be AEGIS equipped, you need at least the SPY-1 series radar, and the full combat system.

 

[Mortar guy]

It means we can tie the radar in with another ship that is fully AEGIS equipped.

Are you refering to Cooperative Engagement Capability? Just so you know (because it is clear that you don't actually know) CEC is not sensor dependent. What I mean by that is it doesn't matter what kind of radar is on the ship, if you have the CEC AN/USG-2(v) CETPS you can share radar data with any other ship, aircraft or land based system also equipped with CEC. So, there isn't really such a thing as Aegis compatable, but there is such a thing as CEC-enabled.

Here's the link:http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/cec.htm

Of note is the Australia's use of this radar on their Anzac class frigates, which will work with the future Australian AEGIS equipped destroyers.

When you say "this radar" I am assuming you mean the SPS-49 you were on about earlier? As explained above, having an SPS-49 radar doesn't allow you to "work" with an Aegis-equipped ship. You need CEC or, at a minimum, Link 11 to "work" with any ship in the manner I assume you were thinking.

If you want our warships to be AEGIS equipped, you need at least the SPY-1 series radar, and the full combat system.

Wow. Way to display your ignorance in one succinct sentence. Aegis is the name of the system that includes the SPY-1 radar and the combat system. Saying that you "at least" need SPY-1 and the combat system to be Aegis-equipped is amazing as that happens to be "the most" you need to me Aegis-equipped too! My guess is that you don't really understand what the US Navy's Mk 7 Aegis System is and you don't realize that it is different from APAR, CEAFAR and other phased array radars. Here's a quote that will help:

The Aegis system was designed as a total weapon system, from detection to kill. The heart of the AEGIS systems is an advanced, automatic detect and track, multi-functional phased-array radar, the AN/SPY-1. This high-powered (four megawatt) radar is able to perform search, track and missile guidance functions simultaneously with a capability of over 100 targets. The first Engineering Development Model (EDM-1) was installed in the test ship, USS Norton Sound (AVM 1) in 1973.

The system's computer- based command and decision element is the core of the Aegis combat system. This interface makes the Aegis combat system capable of simultaneous operation against a multi-mission threat: anti-air, anti-surface and anti-submarine warfare.

Here's where it came from: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/systems/aegis.htm

Ever heard the expression "stay in your lane"? Actually, don't answer that as I have seen your antics before and I know that you get beaten back into your lane on a regular basis.

Have a lovely day!

MG

P.S. I am no expert on naval systems either but I think you'll find that I only post when I have at least a slight clue about the topic at hand. You should give it a try some time.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Enough with the "stay in your lane" shiiit. 

The whole point of message boards is to debate, to bounce around information and for those that are the experts in their field to clarify things on behalf of those who are trying to put the pieces together. 

There is absolutely no need to insult those that are trying to learn by positing different theories and models based on their understanding of how things work.  If they're wrong, all you need to do is provide the corrective information and leave it at that.

In short, regardless of the inaccuracies presented by specific individuals, it does not in any way reduce the responsibiltiy of each of us as men to act with class and decorum.


Many thanks,

Matthew Baldwin - London, Ontario.   

 

[Mortar guy]

Give me a break! Is this the Unfounded Rumours and Unsubstantiated Facts Club now? I respectfully direct your attention to the Conduct Guidlines:

That is, if you didn't witness it first hand or read it in the CFAO's, state that it's an opinion, rumour or best guess. We won't think any less of you for not "knowing" the information. In fact, we'll all appreciate the honesty, and it'll likely save readers heartache later on, when they find out (the hard way) that it wasn't exactly bang on. If you do know the source, please reference it with a link or include the related information in your post. If the source information is large or takes the discussion off topic you may want to consider making use of a footnote1 to provide references and sources that back up your claims.

There are lots of discussions which take place on this forum in which either none or all of us are "experts" in some way (politics, rifles, etc).  It's great that we can all discuss the daily news and have civil debate on contentious matters, however these boards are no different than the real world, and if you provide information to back up your claim, you better be willing to give us some proof.  If you base your opinions off of hearsay and rumor, be prepared to be called to task when you use up bandwidth on this board to tell us about it.

The only other alternative is to treat every bit of information posted here as heresay, which essentially makes the forums useless.

So please, make it very clear when you're posting the degree to which your information is confirmed. Opinions and best guesses are OK, just don't present them as being the DS solution.

I usually don't bite with people posting shite on these boards that they clearly don't know anything about, but Armymatters seems to do this on a fairly regular basis. Posting something incorrect as if it were fact is a mistake that I'm sure we've all made but some things are just too blatant to let lie. Perhaps he needs to take a different tack in his postings. For example...

It means we can tie the radar in with another ship that is fully AEGIS equipped. Of note is the Australia's use of this radar on their Anzac class frigates, which will work with the future Australian AEGIS equipped destroyers. If you want our warships to be AEGIS equipped, you need at least the SPY-1 series radar, and the full combat system.

...contains two statements that are presented as fact with assertions that would lead one to believe they are "the answer". As I think my earlier post showed, neither of those 'facts' are accurate and it is quite clear to anyone with a passing knowledge of Aegis that they are pure rectal extraction. I'm all for people stating their opinions and debating those opinions. I am less willing to accept people who spout off supposed 'facts' about subjects they really don't know too much about.

Does that help?

MG

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thank you Mortar Guy....could not have put it better myself.

Matthew the problem is when people like armymatters continously passes themselves off as all knowing and quickly dismiss what people that do have a clue about what they are talking about.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I guess I just read Army Matters posts differently.  To me, it just seems like he is trying to feel his way through this stuff that admittedly I think he would admit he's not an expert in.  Therefore, I think he's looking for correction and redirection and I don't think I've read at any time anything to the effect that he thought he was smarter or knew more than the guys serving in the specific roles or with the specific equipment he was talking about.

That's just my take....

Now, I'll get get back in my lane....


Matthew.  ;D

 

[Armymatters]

I guess I just read Army Matters posts differently.  To me, it just seems like he is trying to feel his way through this stuff that admittedly I think he would admit he's not an expert in.  Therefore, I think he's looking for correction and redirection and I don't think I've read at any time anything to the effect that he thought he was smarter or knew more than the guys serving in the specific roles or with the specific equipment he was talking about.

That's just my take....

Now, I'll get get back in my lane....


Matthew.  ;D

I am more than willing to be corrected by people who are more knowledgeable. I do admit that I am not a expert in ship-borne radar, and as such, would love to be corrected, but not in a degrading manner. There is a point where correcting someone becomes something more nasty, and frankly, some people have crossed that point, not that everytime is totally anyone other than my own fault. There have been instances in the past where I was being arrogant, but once realizing it, I have apologized either in public or in private.

Thanks.