Register here

Author Topic: AMDR ships  (Read 17701 times)

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4280
AMDR ships
« on: April 06, 2011, 11:15:45 am »
I'm creating this topic to bring together any information that becomes available on AMDR, especially since it increasingly seems that the class that was originally intended to be equiped with the (downgraded, supposely lower cost version) system, the Burke Flight III is a developmental dead end that may not even make it off the drawning board, and a clean sheet design (cruiser? - quite likely to be nuclear powered) will have to be subsituted, assuming of course, that with the failure of Flight III, AMDR doesn't get cancelled like Typhoon was ultimately.


Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Something Isn't Quite Right With AMDR

If you haven't seen it, I encourage you to watch the video of the testimony given by Eric Labs and Ronald O'Rourke in front of the House Armed Services Committee Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee. There is an exchange in the middle of the hearing where the DDG-51 Flight IIIs and AMDR is discussed, and once again Ronald O'Rourke discusses the Cobra Judy program. This isn't the first time Ronald O'Rourke has brought up Cobra Judy in testimony, but it is important to note.

Below are the relevant discussion materials from the printed testimony. First Eric Labs of CBO to set the stage.


DDG-51 Flight III. The Navy’s strategy to meet combatant commanders’ demand for the increased capabilities of ballistic missile defense ships—as well as to replace Ticonderoga class cruisers when they retire in the 2020s—is to modify the DDG-51 destroyer substantially, creating a Flight III configuration. That configuration would incorporate the new Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR), now under development, which is larger and more powerful than the radars on earlier DDG-51s. Adding the AMDR would require increasing the amount of power and cooling available on a Flight III ship in order to operate the radar effectively.25 Those changes, and associated increases in the ship’s displacement, would make a DDG-51 Flight III at least $500 million, or about 30 percent, more expensive than a new Flight IIA, by CBO’s estimate.

However, there appears to be some question as to whether the hull of the DDG-51 will be able to accommodate the changes envisioned for Flight III. In particular, if the AMDR proved too large to fit inside the deckhouse (the main superstructure above the hull) of a DDG-51 without raising the ship’s center of gravity and destabilizing it, the Navy would need to lengthen the ship, further increasing its displacement and cost substantially. Overall, the Navy plans to buy 24 DDG-51 Flight III ships between 2016 and 2031. If the Navy does not need to lengthen the DDG-51’s hull, those Flight IIIs will cost an average of $2.4 billion, CBO estimates, compared with the Navy’s estimate of $2.0 billion.
Note, the $2.4 billion is for a DDG-51 Flight III destroyer where the hull is not increased to accommodate the AMDR. The Navy is estimating the cost at $2.0 billion, which I think is an optimistic figure even with a bulk purchase.

Below is the testimony by Ronald O'Rourke of CRS.

DDG-51 Program

Other risks for the DDG-51 program include cost and schedule risks associated with restarting Flight IIA DDG-51 production, technical risks associated with developing the Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) and other elements of the combat system for the Flight III DDG-51, and the previously mentioned risk of construction cost growth on Flight III DDG-51s. Some observers are concerned about the Navy’s ability to develop the AMDR on the schedule needed to begin procuring the first Flight III DDG-51 in FY2016 as currently planned. The Navy could manage this risk by deferring the procurement of the first Flight III ship to FY2017 or later, if necessary, and instead continue procuring Flight IIA ships.

An additional question relates to the fleet’s future air and missile defense capability. The version of the AMDR to be carried by the Flight III DDG-51 is to be considerably more capable than the SPY-1 radar carried by the Flight IIA DDG-51, but considerably less capable than the larger version of the AMDR that was to have been carried by the CG(X) cruiser. The Navy canceled the CG(X) program in favor of developing and procuring Flight III DDG-51s reportedly in part on the grounds that the Flight III destroyer would use data from off-board sensors to augment data collected by its AMDR. If those off-board sensors turn out to be less capable than the Navy assumed when it decided to cancel the CG(X) in favor of the Flight II DDG-51, the Navy may need to seek other means for augmenting the data collected by the Flight III DDG-51’s AMDR. One option for doing this would be to build a small number of adjunct radar ships equipped with a very powerful radar. Such a ship could be broadly similar to the Cobra Judy replacement ship. CRS presented the option of building an adjunct radar ship in testimony to this subcommittee in July 2008.

The Navy in FY2012 intends to conduct preliminary design work for the Flight III DDG-51. Since the Navy intends to procure Flight III DDG-51s through FY2031, a potential oversight issue is whether the Navy is designing the Flight III DDG-51 to accommodate an electromagnetic rail gun (particularly in light of that weapon’s newly identified potential for being an air and missile defense weapon) and/or a higher-power (i.e., 200 kW to 300 kW) solid state laser.
It is interesting to me that both Eric Labs and Ronald O'Rourke are expressing concerns regarding the AMDR even while the radar is in the very early stages of program development. Something else is interesting... when the Navy discusses the AMDR, I've noticed the radar is always discussed as part of a sensor system in the context of a network. Now, for the second year in a row, Ronald O'Rourke has raised the issue of Cobra Judy to Congress.

Something isn't quite right here.

As I understand it, the AMDR is still in the requirements development process, so why is there so much concern while the requirements are being developed? I think Eric Labs and Ronald O'Rourke know something the rest of us don't.

When Ronald O'Rourke talks about Cobra Judy, I think it is because he is sending a big warning to Congress that they need to be paying attention. If I was guessing, I think it means he knows that in order for the Navy to fit the AMDR into an unmodified DDG-51 Flight III, the specification that will be stated in the upcoming requirement for the AMDR will be reduced, and because of that there is a capability gap that needs a solution like Cobra Judy.

Go back and listen to any testimony, speech, or public discussion of a Navy official discussing the AMDR and you'll find it is always discussed in the context of a networked platform with the E-2D and other offboard sensors. Navy leaders pick their words carefully, so I think what the Navy is trying to do is settle on a radar that is good, but can only really do the job when it is networked with everything else.

Why? I think the Navy has done a study and realized the DDG-51 can't support the bigger radar needed to do the job without a plug, and based on Eric Labs estimates provided by the Navy - no plug is planned. The DDG-51 without a plug doesn't have the size and it doesn't have the power for the AMDR capability that would be able to independently meet all the requirements alone. I believe Ronald O'Rourke has somehow realized this along the way, and is suggesting to Congress to give serious thought to building a bunch of Cobra Judy type platforms because without those big sea radars (or DDG-1000s that have enough power and space to carry the better radar), the future fleet has a blind spot. Even with the Cobra Judy option though, the reliance on data networking in the future Navy is an obvious single point of failure that our enemies must be salivating at.

Ronald O'Rourke is one of the smartest guys I've ever met when it comes to naval affairs. I refuse to believe that his discussion related to the suggestion for Congress to think about the Cobra Judy is rooted in a parochial issue - rather it is a warning about some legitimate unspoken issue with the AMDR the Navy is thinking about under current plans.

I think this goes back to the decision to truncate the DDG-1000, because the DDG-1000 has both the size and power to take on a bigger AMDR than an unmodified Burke which has very little room for growth left. The Navy must force the AMDR into the Burke hull in order to justify that decision by Admiral Roughead, so a lot of sacrifices will be made along the way to avoid second guessing the truncate decision.

The House and Senate need to pay attention, because rail guns and solid state lasers are coming faster than people think. A Flight III Burke without significant engineering modifications that includes significantly more power or integrated power is going to be a lemon class of capital ships built unable to field the latest technology at the time they are being fielded - much less 20 years later, half way through their expected life.


Posted by Galrahn at 1:00 AM
Labels: AMDR, Force Structure, Navy Tech



http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/04/something-isnt-quite-right-with-amdr.html
« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 11:17:39 am by Grey Havoc »

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #1 on: April 06, 2011, 01:07:38 pm »
Does this really belong here, perhaps the bar would be better?

« Last Edit: April 06, 2011, 01:09:16 pm by sealordlawrence »

Offline pometablava

  • Global Moderator
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ****
  • Posts: 2986
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #2 on: April 06, 2011, 01:14:58 pm »
"Military" is the right place.

Moved.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4280
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #3 on: April 07, 2011, 02:35:28 am »
Right, sorry about that.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4280
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2011, 06:11:57 am »
AMDR Competition Heats Up


Apr 14, 2011


 
By Michael Fabey
 
 

Northrop Grumman has proven the increased duration of gallium nitride-based high-power transmit/receive (T/R) modules — a development that could pay dividends in the company’s efforts to secure major military radar-related contracts, including the U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR).

AMDR is considered the brass ring of U.S. military sensor contracts, a next-generation radar system designed to provide ballistic missile defense, air defense and surface warfare capabilities. AMDR will consist of an S-band radar for ballistic missile defense and air defense, X-band radar for horizon search, and a radar suite controller that controls and integrates the two radars.

The Navy expects AMDR to provide the foundation for a scalable radar architecture to defeat advanced threats, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes in its report on Pentagon acquisition programs released earlier this year.

GAO estimates the cost of the AMDR program at about $15.7 billion — a price tag that has many shaking their heads, including contractors vying for the program. GAO reports $2.3 billion for research and development and another $13.4 billion to buy the radar systems.

The major competitors for AMDR include Lockheed Martin, which developed and deployed the stalwart Aegis defense system; Raytheon, which developed a dual-band radar system for the truncated DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program; and Northrop, also a major radar-program player that reportedly has been looking to leverage the technology honed for active, electronically scanned array (AESA) systems developed for U.S. combat aircraft.

The recent successful tests of the gallium nitride-based high-power T/R modules “prove that the AESA is capable of reliable operation while producing much greater radar sensitivity, at higher efficiency and lower cost,” Northrop says in a statement.

The T/R modules were tested by using high-stressing operational long-pulse waveforms, which operated on the modules nonstop for more than six months in tests conducted by the company’s Advanced Concepts and Technology Div.

The modules operated more than 180 days during continuous high-power testing, essentially proving they can last six months, or 4,000 hr.

“This new level of maturity also supports technology readiness for the next generation of Northrop Grumman’s high-performance, low-cost AESA radars, and opportunities for cost reduction and performance upgrades to our current AESA product line,” says Steve McCoy, vice president of the Advanced Concepts business unit within the company’s Electronic Systems sector.
 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/04/14/02.xml&headline=AMDR

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4280
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #5 on: April 22, 2011, 12:37:48 pm »
Testing Proves Advanced Technology For AMDR

Apr 22, 2011

By Michael Fabey


WALLOPS ISLAND, Va.—As competition heats up for the U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) program, the focus will be on developing the S-band digital beamforming technology on a shipboard platform in time for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyer Flight III upgrades planned for later this decade.

Digital beamforming is an approach to phased-array antenna pattern control that provides performance advantages over conventional analog beamforming techniques, including improved operations in environmental clutter, according to Lockheed Martin.

S-band digital beamforming technology was demonstrated last year and earlier this year during testing at the Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea) testing site at Wallops Island on the Virginia Eastern Shore, Navsea and contractor officials have confirmed.

A joint U.S. and U.K. effort spearheaded by Lockheed and BAE Systems demonstrated the S-band digital beamforming for full radar operations in a littoral and maritime environment, tracking targets in both a sea and “land-clutter” environment, Navsea officials say.

The tests were part of the Advanced Radar Technology Integrated System Test-bed (Artist), which uses two advanced, multifunction S-band active phased array radars —one for each nation—“to develop technology and assess techniques for defeating emerging threats, such as smaller, faster targets in dense clutter,” according to Lockheed.

The tests also used reflectors located on Wallops and Department of Interior land north and south of the Navsea island facility, Navsea says.

The testing measured environmental data to provide evaporation ducts information and signal propagation estimates, taking advantage of NASA environmental radars and sensors, as well as Navy sea and wave buoys.

Allan Croly, director of Lockheed Martin’s naval radar programs, says Artist “leverages our combined technology experience and the open architecture inherent in our radar designs to jointly evolve capabilities, avoid duplication of efforts, and reduce cost and risk for future radar development.”

The future of radar development—at least on the U.S. Navy side—resides with AMDR. The AMDR is designed to provide ballistic missile defense, air defense, and surface warfare capabilities. It will consist of an S-band radar for ballistic missile defense and air defense, X-band radar for horizon search, and a radar suite controller that integrates the two radars.

The Navy expects AMDR to provide the foundation for a scalable radar architecture to defeat advanced threats, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) notes in its recent report on Pentagon acquisition programs released earlier this year.

The GAO estimates the cost of the AMDR program at about $15.7 billion—a price tag that has many shaking their heads, including contractors vying for the program. GAO says it would cost about $2.3 billion for research and development and another $13.4 billion to buy the AMDR radar systems.

The major competitors for AMDR include Lockheed, which developed and deployed the stalwart Aegis defense system; Raytheon, which developed a dual-band radar system for the truncated DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program; and Northrop Grumman, also a major radar-program player that reportedly has been looking to leverage the technology honed for its active, electronically scanned array radar systems aboard many Pentagon aircraft.

 
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/04/22/02.xml&headline=Testing

Offline Racer

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 63

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #7 on: April 22, 2011, 02:42:23 pm »
The really interesting bit (for me at least) is not visible in that picture- the rest of the ship, that might give s some idea where the power is going to come from!?

Offline Racer

  • CLEARANCE: Confidential
  • *
  • Posts: 63
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #8 on: April 24, 2011, 10:45:30 am »
You can install 4 mighty gasturbines (LM 2500 G4+, or RR MT30), that's enough.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #9 on: April 25, 2011, 04:22:21 am »
You can install 4 mighty gasturbines (LM 2500 G4+, or RR MT30), that's enough.

AB class already has 4 LM2500 and it is widely accepted that they are not enough.

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 898
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #10 on: April 25, 2011, 08:03:41 am »
AB class already has 4 LM2500 and it is widely accepted that they are not enough.

Right, but the LM2500+G4 is a fairly radical departure: 47,000 shp in basically the same footprint as the current 26,000 shp LM 2500.   Fuel consumption would be higher, of course, and the existing drivetrain would never take it, but you'd be redoing that as a GT-electric system anyway. 

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2011, 02:14:53 am »
And of course it is really easy to redesign a warships machinery spaces....oh wait...

Offline TomS

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 898
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2011, 04:32:29 am »
And of course it is really easy to redesign a warships machinery spaces....oh wait...

They're already discussion switching to IPS for Flight III -- that can be done more or less in the footprint of the existing machinery (generators and propulsion motors in place of the reduction gears) though that isn't the best way to do things.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2604
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2011, 07:56:15 am »
I know what is in discussion, I also know it is not easy.

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4280
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #14 on: May 19, 2011, 06:42:26 am »
AMDR Opens Up Competition For U.S. Navy Radar

May 19, 2011

By Michael Fabey


Northrop Grumman and Raytheon are embracing the U.S. Navy’s Air and Missile Defense Radar (AMDR) program as a way to break the Lockheed Martin Aegis system’s lock on naval integrated ship and ballistic missile defense (BMD).

But Lockheed officials point to their more than 40 years of experience developing and deploying Aegis as a reason the company should be favored for AMDR work.

While the recent Aegis Advanced Capability Build (ACB) 12 upgrade with its multimission signal processor has added some limited integrated air and missile defense capability, AMDR is the first Navy radar that will be “purpose-built” for those simultaneous functions, notes Capt. Doug Small, AMDR program official at Naval Sea Systems Command (Navsea).

“The AMDR is more sensitive than SPY radar,” Small says. “Ballistic-missile-defense targets drive radar sensitivity. There’s no substitute for having detect-and-track at a long distance.”

But, Small says, “to do simultaneous air defense [with BMD], you have to spend less time doing air defense. It’s a radar resource issue.”

AMDR is solving that issue with digital beamforming, which will allow the radar to form and use a series of beams to locate and track targets. “The ability to create multiple beams digitally means you spend less time doing other certain functions,” Small says.

Lockheed says it demonstrated S-band digital phased-array antenna beamforming during recent trials at the Navsea testing site at Wallops Island, Va., through a joint U.S./U.K. radar effort as part of the Advanced Radar Technology Integrated System Testbed (Artist), which combines advanced, multifunction, S-band, active, phased-array radars (Aerospace DAILY, April 22).

“The technology is matured and ready to enter full engineering development for fielding on the Navy’s Flight III DDG,” says Brad Hicks, Lockheed Martin vice president of naval radar programs.

Leveraging its work and experience with active, electronically scanned array (AESA) radars for aircraft, Northrop has its own U.S. digital beamforming program — the U.S. Marine Corps’ Ground/Air Task-Oriented Radar (G/ATOR), which features an 8 X 10.5-ft. panel of several hundred multichannel transmit-receive modules with distributed receivers and exciters for anti-air warfare modes.

“We don’t see another way around this [AMDR] except with an AESA, “ says Arun Palusamy, Northrop’s director of integrated air and missile defense and naval strategy.

Northrop Grumman has an equity stake in an Australian company, CEA Technologies, which is delivering an advanced AESA S-band radar and X-Band illuminators for the Royal Australian Navy’s Anzac-class anti-ship missile defense upgrade program.

Further, the company touts its past shipbuilding participation in the DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer program, which initially was planned to mate X- and S-band radars in an AMDR-like suite atop a composite deckhouse structure. A similar radar suite is being developed for the CVN-78 Ford-class aircraft carriers.

The DDG-1000 radar suite since has been scaled back, but Navy officials acknowledge that the vessel’s Dual-Band Radar was a stepping-stone to AMDR.

The prime contractor for the DDG-1000 radar system is Raytheon, which also teamed with Northrop on the Cobra Judy Replacement program that marries a shipboard S-band phased array with an X-band dish to collect BMD data.

“AMDR is similar to the work [on] Zumwalt, CVN-78 and Cobra Judy,” says Denis Donohue, Raytheon’s director of above-water sensors.

“The program is very, very important to us,” adds Jim Barry, Raytheon’s technical director for seapower capabilities. “It’s right at our sweet spot.”

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/asd/2011/05/19/02.xml&headline=AMDR