AMDR Competition: The USA’s Next Dual-Band Radar
Related Stories: Americas - USA, Contracts - Awards, Design Innovations, Lockheed Martin, New Systems Tech, Northrop-Grumman, Official Reports, Other Corporation, R&D - Contracted, Radars, Raytheon, Surface Ships - Combat, Think Tanks
(click to view full)
The US Navy’s Dual-Band Radar that equips its forthcoming 14,500t Zumwalt class “destroyers” and Gerald R. Ford class super-carriers replaces several different radars with a single back-end. Pairing Raytheon’s X-band SPY-3 with Lockheed Martin’s S-band VSR in this way allows fewer radar antennas, faster response time, faster adaptation to new situations, one-step upgrades to the radar suite as a whole, and better utilization of the ship’s power, electronics, and bandwidth. Read “The US Navy’s Dual Band Radars” for more.
Rather than using the existing Dual-Band Radar design in new ships, the “Air and Missile Defense Radar” (AMDR) aims to fulfill future CG (X) cruiser needs through a new competition. The winner will actually have 2 deployment opportunities, one of which could be far bigger than the DBR’s…
- AMDR: Opportunities and Challenges
- AMDR: The Contenders
- AMDR: Contracts and Key Events
- Additional Readings
- US Congressional Research Services’ “Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress. Also explains the Future Surface Combatant option.
- Military & Aerospace Electronics (June 29/09) – Next-generation missile defense radar systems for Navy warships is goal of new study contracts
- Defense News (Feb 2/09) – New Destroyer Emerges in U.S. Plans: Options Mulled As DDG 1000 Hits $6 Billion. Includes AMDR coverage.
- DID Spotlight – The US Navy’s Dual Band Radars. Covers the SPY-3/VSR combination aboard the new DDG-1000 Zumwalt class destroyers and CVN-78 Gerald R. Ford class aircraft carriers.
AMDR: Opportunities and Challenges
(click to view full)
As the DDG-1000 platform ends at 3 ships, the US Navy confronts a need for more dual-band naval radars on 2 fronts. One is the follow-on CG (X) cruiser, which has no concept design in place and has now been delayed even further by recent Pentagon decisions. The other is something called the “Future Surface Combatant.” These ships were inserted into the DDG-1000 program, in order to prevent numbers cuts from triggering cost-related Nunn-McCurdy laws that might have stopped existing construction in its tracks. FSC was deliberately left undefined, and could be either a DDG-51 Arleigh Burke “Flight III” upgrade, some variant of the DDG-1000 Zumwalt class, or something else.
Rather than extending or modifying the existing Dual Band Radar combination, the “Air and Missile Defense Radar” (AMDR) aims to fulfill CG (X) needs through a new competition. The AMDR-X radar will provide horizon search, precision tracing, missile communication and terminal illumination. The AMDR-S radar will provide volume search, tracking, Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) discrimination and missile communications. While CG (X) is seen as a “blue water” ship, requirements do call for defense against very low observable/very low flyer (VLO/VLF) threats in heavy land, sea, and rain clutter. The back-end Radar Suite Controller (RSC) will perform all coordination.
The contractors are designing radar systems with hardware and software modularity, future technology, insertion, and open architectures. The lack of a CG (X) design forces some flexibility all by itself, and the initial specification adds that it’s “designed to be scalable to accommodate current and future mission requirements for multiple platforms.”
That requirement for adjustable size is the key to AMDR’s larger opportunity. With CG (X) pushed back to 2017 or later, AMDR Increment 1 is now scheduled to make its debut in the “Future Surface Combatant” some time around 2015. There are reasonable odds that FSC will be filled by a new DDG-51 variant, and if the adjustments can be taken far enough, it could give the Navy an opportunity to add or retrofit AMDR to some of its 60+ serving Arleigh Burke class ships as well.
(click to view full)
The bad news is that any retrofit, or even installation in new “DDG-51 Flight III” variants, will be more complicated than it appears.
The visible face of a naval radar is only the tip of the iceberg. Most of its weight and space comes from its need for 2 things: power, and cooling. More powerful radars usually need more power to drive them, which can tax the limited 7.5 MW capacity an older ship like the DDG-51 Flight I/II/IIAs. More power also means more cooling much of the time. Power storage, power conversion, and cooling require weight and space. All of which are usually in short supply on a warship. Even if that space exists, the additional equipment and antennas must be installed without unduly affecting the ship’s balance and center of gravity, and hence its seakeeping abilities.
The US Congressional Research Services’ “Navy DDG-1000 and DDG-51 Destroyer Programs: Background, Oversight Issues, and Options for Congress” report (#RL32109) explains the potential impact:
“Multiple industry sources have briefed CRS on their proposals for modifying the DDG-51 design to include an active-array radar with greater capability than the SPY-1. If the DDG-51 hull is not lengthened, then modifying the DDG-51 design to include an improved radar would require removing the 5-inch gun to make space and weight available for additional equipment needed to support operations with the improved radar. Lengthening the hull might provide enough additional space and weight capacity to permit the 5-inch gun to be retained.75 Supporting equipment to be installed would include an additional electrical generator and additional cooling equipment.76 The best location for the generator might be in one of the ship’s two helicopter hangar spots, which would reduce the ship’s helicopter hangar capacity from two helicopters to one.”
An October 2008 report from the right-wing Heritage Foundation draws on other sources to note that weight shifts can also create issues:
”...SPY-1E [active array] radar could affect the stability of the upgraded Arleigh Burkes because the radar’s phased-array panels weigh more than the panels of the earlier SPY-1 radar, which it will replace. While the SPY-1E’s weight is concentrated more in the panels, freeing more space below deck,[78] this greater weight would be added to the ship’s superstructure. Combined with the DDG-51’s relatively narrow hull width and short length, this could cause stability problems, particularly when sailing in rough weather.”
Obviously, those kinds of trades are less than ideal, but they may be necessary. Whether, how many, and which trades end being necessary, may well depend on which contender’s design is chosen for AMDR.
AMDR: The Contenders
(click to view full)
Lockheed Martin steps into the competition with several strengths to draw on. Their AN/SPY-1 S-band radar is the main radar used by the US Navy’s current high-end ships, the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke class destroyers and CG-47 Ticonderoga class cruisers. Lockheed Martin also makes the AEGIS combat systems that equips these ships, and supplies the advanced VSR S-band radar used in the new Dual Band Radar installations on board Zumwalt and Ford class ships. This strong S-band experience, and status as the supplier of the combat system that any DDG-51 fitting would have to integrate with, gives them leverage at multiple points.
Nor are they devoid of X-band or ballistic missile defense experience. Their L-Band AN/TPS-59 long range radar has been used in missile intercept tests, and is the only long range 3D Radar in the Marine Air-Ground Task Force. It’s related to the AN/TPS-117, which is in widespread service with over 16 countries. The Patriot missile’s successor MEADS system’s MFCR radar will integrate an active array dual-band set of X-band and UHF modules via a common processor for data and signal processing.
(click to view full)
Raytheon goes into AMDR with experience developing the existing Dual-Band Radar’s Radar Suite Controller and SPY-3 X-band radar, along with the dual X/S band system that will equip the Cobra Judy (USNS Observation Island) Replacement vessel used to track missile launches and tests around the world. Phased array radars for wide-area air and ballistic missile defense are another strong point. Raytheon builds the AN/TPY-2 X-band radar used by the land-based THAAD missile system, the 280 foot high X-band array on the floating SBX missile defense radar, and the large land-based ballistic missile Upgraded Early Warning Systems like the AN/FPS-108 Cobra Dane and AN/FPS-115 PAVE PAWS. On the S-band side, the firm builds the S-band transmitters for Lockheed’s SPY-1 radar. Unsurprisingly, Raytheon personnel who talked to us said that:
”... leveraging concepts, hardware, algorithms and software from our family of radars provides a level of effectiveness, reliability and affordability to our proposed AMDR solution…. The challenge for all the competitors will be to deliver a modular design. The requirements demand that the design be scalable without significant redesign…. A high power active radar system requires significant space not only for the arrays themselves but also for the power and cooling equipment needed to support its operation. Finding space for additional generators and HVAC plants can be quite challenging for a backfit application. That is why power efficiency is a premium for these systems.”
(click to enlarge)
Northrop Grumman was a less obvious contender, despite its enviable record making advanced AESA and phased array radars for use on aircraft of all types and sizes, and land-based systems like the US Marines’ Ground/Air Task Oriented Radar (G/ATOR).
In subsequent discussions, he stressed that Northrop Grumman has shipboard radar experience, too. They’re the prime contractor for the AN/SPQ-9B track-while-scan X-band radar, the SPS-74 used to detect submarine periscopes, and navigation radars. On a less visible note, the firm has been working under several CRAD programs from 2005 to the present, targeted at technology demonstrations, system risk reduction, and advanced integration techniques for advanced S-band shipboard radars. They also have a partnership with Australia’s CEA Technologies, which is developing an advanced X-band (CEAMOUNT) and S-band (CEAFAR) radar set for Australia’s ANZAC class frigate upgrade.
What does this team see as important?
“The ability to scale up to a potential future cruiser or down to a DDG-51 variant is fundamental to the Northrop Grumman radar architecture. Size, weight and power (SWaP) of the radar system are the key drivers…. Minimizing the radar impact is key to an affordable surface combatant solution. We are focused on not just the radar technology, but to minimize the ship impact while allowing for scalable growth in the future. We are working closely with various elements in the Navy to address the ship impact of large AESA radars on the entire ship.”
AMDR: Contracts and Key Events
(click to view full)
June 26/09: The Naval Sea Systems Command in Washington, DC issues 3 firm fixed-price contracts, covering initial concept studies for the (AMDR) S-band and Radar Suite Controller (RSC) only. Deliverables will include the S-band and radar suite controller conceptual design, systems engineering studies and analyses, and a technology development plan. This contract was competitively procured via the Federal Business Opportunities and Navy Electronic Commerce Online websites, with 3 offers received.
Northrop Grumman receives a $10 million contract. Work will be performed in Linthicum Heights, MD, and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5398). See also NGC’s July 28/09 release.
Lockheed Martin Maritime Systems and Sensors in Moorestown, NJ, receives a $10 million contract. Work will be performed in Moorestown, NJ, and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5312). See also Lockheed Martin’s July 14/09 release.
Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems in Sudbury, MA receives a $9.9 million contract. Work will be performed in Sudbury, MA (94%); Fairfax, VA (4%); Bath, ME (3%); Andover, MA (3%); Tewksbury, MA (3%); and East Syracuse, NY (2%), and is expected to be complete by December 2009 (N00024-09-C-5313). See also Raytheon’s Aug 3/09 release.
Additional Readings
