Register here

Author Topic: AMDR ships  (Read 19880 times)

Offline sferrin

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 5352
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #30 on: March 04, 2013, 05:25:57 pm »
Triton, thanks for posting,

It is worthy of comment that after all the posturing and scheming throughout the 90s and early 2000s we are back to an Arleigh Burke with a improved AC, upgraded generators and new radars.
And how much wasted money?  How much more are these going to cost over the Flight IIAs?  Of course the answer is, "far more than the different configuration would merit".  Last I heard on of these Flight III Burkes will end up costing almost as much as a Zumwalt.  Which begs the question, "how much would a Zumwalt cost if we kept building them?"
"DARPA Hard"  It ain't what it use to be.

Offline JFC Fuller

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 2627
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #31 on: March 05, 2013, 01:44:14 am »
And how much wasted money?  How much more are these going to cost over the Flight IIAs?  Of course the answer is, "far more than the different configuration would merit".  Last I heard on of these Flight III Burkes will end up costing almost as much as a Zumwalt.  Which begs the question, "how much would a Zumwalt cost if we kept building them?"

Enormous amounts of wasted money, not to mention what has been squandered on the largely pointless LCS programme. However, my understanding of the reported Burke III numbers was that only the first 2-3 boats would come out as almost expensive as the DDG1000 but after that the costs would fall away sharply (more sharply than for additional DDG1000s) and I get the impression that with the recent cost savings made in the DDG51 line and the increasingly phased approach to Flight III development costs will fall further.

Also interesting is the comment about it being possible to retrofit the Flight III systems to earlier ships. 

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #32 on: March 27, 2013, 05:13:35 pm »
AMDR reminds me of the late 1960's SABMIS concept:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,8305.0.html

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
« Last Edit: March 31, 2013, 10:39:55 am by Triton »

Offline Grey Havoc

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 4646
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #34 on: April 06, 2013, 04:21:16 am »
NavWeek: Radar Shove (Ares blog)

Quote
However, the lower costs carry some caveats. For example, the first radar suites will be cheaper because they won’t have as much capability.
 
“The X-band portion of AMDR will be comprised of an upgraded version of an existing rotating radar (SPQ-9B), instead of the new design initially planned,” GAO notes. “The new radar will instead be developed as a separate program at a later date and integrated with the 13th AMDR unit.” There are 22 planned AMDRs.
 
“According to the Navy, the SPQ-9B radar fits better within the Flight-III DDG 51's sea frame and expected power and cooling,” GAO says. “While program officials state that the upgraded SPQ-9B radar will have capabilities equal to the new design for current anti-air warfare threats, it will not perform as well against future threats.”
 
That last line is no small matter. The Navy has been saying for years that it needs AMDR to address those “future threats” and the service says it needs that radar sooner rather than later. Either those threats are not as big a deal as some have suggested or the nation could be taking an awfully big risk with these early versions of AMDR-Lite.
 
GAO also notes additional software development will be required to integrate the S-band and SPQ-9B radars – and for other areas, too. “According to program officials, software development for AMDR will require a significant effort,” GAO says. “A series of software builds are expected to deliver approximately 1 million lines of code, with additional testing assets also being developed. Software will be designed to apply open system approaches to commercial, off-the-shelf hardware. Integration with the SPQ-9B radar, and later the AMDR-X radar, will require further software development.”
 
Okay, so for the lower costs of AMDR-Lite, we also face cost risk associated with more software development. Anything else?
 
“The Navy plans to install a 14-foot variant of AMDR on Flight III DDG-51s starting in 2019,” GAO says. “According to draft AMDR documents, a 14-foot radar is needed to meet threshold requirements, but an over 20-foot radar is required to fully meet the Navy's desired integrated air and missile defense needs. However, the shipyards and the Navy have determined that a 14-foot active radar is the largest that can be accommodated within the existing DDG-51 deckhouse.”
 
GAO reports that Navy officials say AMDR is being developed as a scalable design, but a new ship would be required to host a larger version.
 
So again, to get the AMDR the Navy really wants, the nation has some new designing and building to do. Many defense analysts say the modifications that could be required on the Flight III Burke to accommodate AMDR, other systems or weapon advancements the Navy has been considering for several years could be cost-prohibitive.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #35 on: April 18, 2013, 11:49:07 am »
I presume that the Huntington Ingalls Industries LPD Flight II Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) ship proposal would use the new AMDR.

Source:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,18872.msg184499.html#msg184499

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 390
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #36 on: April 18, 2013, 12:43:58 pm »
Most likely, but AMDR-S is still three different projects, only one of which has a partial demonstrator and only then because its using entirely new AESA technology. As of now, any notional company proposal for a BMD ship is only going to be able to design on the basis of weight/power/cooling requirements for desired power-aperture.


The LPD-17 for BMD concept though is rather old, it goes back at least to the early years of the new century and appeared in the analysis of alternatives for CG(X) and other BMD related studies. This was well before AMDR existed at all.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #37 on: April 18, 2013, 01:29:58 pm »
Most likely, but AMDR-S is still three different projects, only one of which has a partial demonstrator and only then because its using entirely new AESA technology. As of now, any notional company proposal for a BMD ship is only going to be able to design on the basis of weight/power/cooling requirements for desired power-aperture.


The LPD-17 for BMD concept though is rather old, it goes back at least to the early years of the new century and appeared in the analysis of alternatives for CG(X) and other BMD related studies. This was well before AMDR existed at all.

Though you have to wonder about the timing of the unveiling of the model of the Huntington Ingalls Industries LPD Flight II BMD at the Navy League's Sea-Air-Space Exposition 2013 earlier this month, the video, and HII's marketing push for LPD Flight II. We also know that last year Vice Admiral Tom Copeman, commander of U.S. Surface Forces, sent out a series of memos as part of his “Vision for the 2025 Surface Fleet” in which he advocates cancelling DDG-51 Flight III.

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2013, 08:45:47 pm »
This proposal is a bit different from earlier studies to use the LPD-17 hull. Those like CG(X) which intended to produce a large missile defense ship usually assumed a rather dramatic re-design of the deckhouse and machinery spaces compared to the San Antonio class as-built, and some even included nuclear power. Here, HII is trying to sell their LPD-17 Flight II concept by pointing out how they believe the Flight II design could be adapted to other missions the Navy is trying to address.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 390
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #39 on: April 19, 2013, 08:49:58 am »
My understanding is the original LPD-17 BMD concept was actually two main concepts with subvariants that did as you say, include nuclear power at times. The first main one was sort of like this with large fixed radars covering the entire horizon, and the other main concept would have mounted one or two large steering radars similar to those mounted on USNS Howard O. Lorenzen. The advantage of the later concept would have been considerably greater range and above all discrimination capability for the amount of money the radar cost via fewer but much larger antennas, but of course at the price of only sector scanning. This was attractive in the context of sea based KEI, since the odds of simultaneous threats requiring KEI engagement appearing multiple sectors would be rather low. Such a ship could stand off at very long range, at which point a 90 degree scanning sector becomes enough to cover the width of a nation the size of time. 


Around the same time it was also just proposed to build a few more units of what became Howard O. Lorenzen with some level of improved capability but possibly no self defense what so ever in ordered to keep them as cheap as possible. That ship cost about 1.5 billion and an LPD-17 without BMD capability is already around 1.8 billion.
« Last Edit: April 19, 2013, 08:56:28 am by Sea Skimmer »

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #40 on: April 22, 2013, 08:01:23 pm »
Yes the idea returning to large steering radars for a dedicated BMD ship has been kicked around in several forms, you could even call SBX-1 a cousin of that concept, but most SWOs I've met loathe the idea so I don't know how much traction it ever got.

Offline Sea Skimmer

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 390
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #41 on: April 23, 2013, 01:00:52 pm »
They might come around when Flight III Burkespam is canceled and any possible deployment of a AMDR hull is then put back to ~2030 by which time a clean sheet destroyer will easily be well over four billion dollars and in direct competition with the SSBN(X) program which remains an enormous black pit of unfunded construction. Our Dutch friends, one of only three fleets in the world with a functional tested ABM capability, made it work just fine with a steering SMART-L radar meanwhile.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #42 on: April 26, 2013, 04:07:38 pm »
 NavWeek: AMDR -- Pulse Check
Posted by Michael Fabey 2:22 PM on Apr 26, 2013

Source:
http://www.aviationweek.com/Blogs.aspx?plckBlogId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3ac2cfa34f-aa15-4f07-a14e-aede420f3e0c

Quote
For years now, the discussion revolving around the U.S. Navy’s vaunted proposed air-and-missile-defense radar (AMDR) – as it related to the Navy’s even-more vaunted, and proven, Aegis combat system – has been how much better and even different AMDR would be than the existing ship shield.

But now, Navy officials are saying, folks should be looking at that AMDR-Aegis relationship in a whole new light. They are not competing systems at all – AMDR is an evolution of Aegis.

“We’ll be adding a new proven radar to the Aegis combat system,” says Capt. Doug Small, AMDR program manager.

True, the Navy’s Aegis combat system remains the current gold standard for missile defense and the system’s planned improvements will make an even more effective missile shield.

But AMDR’s technology will allow ships to provide greatly improved simultaneous ballistic and air missile defense for only slightly more weight, coolant and power needs, which all translates to less acquisition cost and about the same maintenance costs as existing Aegis systems, Small says.

The three contractor teams vying for AMDR – led by Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon – have all already proven necessary technologies for AMDR, he says.

And AMDR will be able to operate with only a fraction of the resources needed to run all of dual-band radar (DBR) or even existing Aegis SPY radars to conduct similar missions, he says.

As initially proposed, AMDR will consist of an S-band radar for BMD and air defense, an X-band radar for horizon search, and a radar suite controller that controls and integrates the two radars.

But there have been some recent changes to that plan.

“The X-band portion of AMDR will be comprised of an upgraded version of an existing rotating radar (SPQ-9B), instead of the new design initially planned,” GAO notes. “The new radar will instead be developed as a separate program at a later date and integrated with the 13th AMDR unit.”

There are 22 planned AMDRs.

AMDR-S with the SPQ-9Bs – also called “spook nines” – will provide every bit of anti-air Warfare (AAW) coverage and protection that AMDR would have offered with the AMDR X-band radar, despite some analysts’ assertions to the contrary, Small says.

Technology advancements, Small says, have not only made the AMDR just as – or even more – capable as hoped, but at a much more affordable price tag, Small says.

The AMDR’s total price tag will be about $5.8 billion, says a recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, compared to the $15.2 billion projected last year.

That kind of cost reduction – coupled with the association with the Aegis mystique – will certainly make AMDR much easier to accept throughout Navy circles, especially the surface-ship crowd.

Going forward, though, the Navy will have to take great pains to ensure the competitiveness of the AMDR program. The service can ill afford to have this effort be seen as just an extension of the “Aegis Mafia,” often seen as a stumbling block to competitiveness.

AMDR cannot be seen as just another baseline improvement for Aegis – and therefore the automatic property of Lockheed, the combat system’s creator and prime contractor throughout the decades.

The Navy has taken great pains thus far to make sure AMDR is a separate competitive effort. It needs to stick to that course.


Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 151
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #43 on: April 27, 2013, 09:00:47 pm »
In other words, they're dialing the program back drastically in order to make it work on DDG-51 Flight III. To the point where it's become an overpriced marginal upgrade rather than the generational upgrade it was sold to Congress as.

Offline Triton

  • Senior Member
  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • **
  • Posts: 7379
  • Donald McKelvy
    • Deep Blue to Wild Blue
Re: AMDR ships
« Reply #44 on: May 15, 2013, 02:18:16 pm »
Northrop Grumman promotional video for AMDR:

Quote
Published on Apr 11, 2013

Northrop Grumman is leveraging its extensive history of military S-band radar development along with modular, open architecture approach to provide a solution for AMDR that will scale to multiple ship classes and help protect the U.S. Navy fleet for the next forty years.