Protecting the Fleet Integrated EW Expands the Virtual Battlespace

Protecting the Fleet
Integrated EW Expands the Virtual Battlespace
by Dr. David L. Rockwell
“USS Decatur damaged by Harpoon missile.” This unlikely headline was seen last May, when an unarmed AGM-84 Harpoon struck and easily holed the destroyer’s outer skin, causing fires, flooding and an estimated $14 million in damage — all without a warhead. Modern unarmored warships are remarkably vulnerable once a weapon — any weapon — evades the elaborate net of ship self-defenses. In the case of the Decatur (ex-DDG 31), a decommissioned Forrest Sherman-class destroyer now used by the US Navy (USN) to test ship self-defense weapons and sensors, two closely-spaced Harpoons flew similar courses. The Decatur acquired and engaged the first missile but failed to acquire the second. Two missiles, one hit. In an era where ships increasingly operate alone, often in littoral zones very close to antiship-cruise-missile (ASCM) launch sites, today’s increasingly integrated network-centric EW systems are being designed to prevent the Decatur’s plight.



NETWORK-CENTRIC WARFARE

In the US, integrated EW is developing according to the doctrine of network-centric warfare, aided by the size and depth of the US Navy. As put by CMDR Steve Strausser, “network-centric warfare enhances the ability to develop and maintain battlespace awareness and knowledge by marshaling capabilities for collecting, processing and discriminating available information.... The enabler for network-centric warfare is an infrastructure providing all battlegroup elements with assured access to high-quality information services.” In real terms, this means the platform and the individual ESM or ECM system are no longer as important as the integrated network which links them. The most modern platform EW equipment could not save the Decatur from only two missiles. Against dozens of supersonic ASCMs, only networked EW across the battlespace will be effective.


To help with battlegroup defense, the US Navy plans to deploy more than 80 Aegis cruisers and destroyers, such as the USS Arleigh Burke (shown here).
(US Navy photo)

The US has perhaps the only navy in the world with enough depth to fully recognize the benefits of network-centric EW, to expand the virtual battlespace beyond the platform. As such, programs like the Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) have received a large portion of ship self-defense and “EW” funding. Similarly, antimissile improvements to sensors such as the AN/SPY-1 Aegis radar and combat control systems like the Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS), which will be linked by CEC, have received much attention. “Pure” platform EW programs, such as the AN/SLY-2 Advanced Integrated EW System (AIEWS) have slipped into the background, with funding cuts and schedule delays. Prime program funding goes to build on the USN’s doctrines of Littoral Warfare, Theater Air Dominance, Land Attack and the Single Integrated Air Picture (SIAP). Only in the smaller international navies — including Europe — have platform-centric ESM and ECM systems remained in the spotlight.

CEC: BANDWIDTH PROBLEMS AS THE NETWORK GROWS

Raytheon’s (St. Petersburg, FL) CEC goal is to create a SIAP, which, according to the Joint Theater Air and Missile Defense Organization’s (JTAMDO) master plan, is “the product of fused, common, continuous, unambiguous tracks of all airborne objects in the surveillance area. Each object within the SIAP has one, and only one, track number and set of associated characteristics.” This will enable the best weapon with the highest probability of success — soft- or hard-kill — to be used against it. Today the CEC is installed on only a few platforms, but the goal is to include many ships and aircraft, to create a composite track picture from all sensors in the fleet and ashore. Much has been written on the CEC and its problems (see “Navy Working on Eliminating CEC ‘Self-Jamming,’” JED, July 1999; and “Protecting Future Navies,” JED, March 1999), but the program is going ahead full steam, with more than $160 million in contract awards in 1999, low-rate initial production (LRIP) today, and formal operational evaluation (the “final exam” before deployment) planned for May 2001.

Perhaps the greatest problem facing the CEC is the limited communications bandwidth available to pass data between and within platforms. The CEC was envisioned to combat a Soviet threat in the open ocean, with a limited number of USN fleet and fleet-air CEC nodes. With littoral warfare, nodes are now planned to include US Marine Corps, Army and Air Force sensors and weapons ashore. In November 1999, the CEC was designated an acquisition-category-1D program by Jaques Gansler, Pentagon acquisition chief, and the CEC will now extend at least to AWACS aircraft and Patriot-missile sites. NATO ship- development programs are also being conducted with eventual integration into CEC planned. The communications-bandwidth requirement goes up by the square of the number of users. One suggested solution is the Tactical Component Network (TCN) proposed by Solipsys (Laurel, MD), which teamed with Lockheed Martin in January 2000. Solipsys employees, including president Warren Citrin, contributed to the development of the CEC processor now used by Raytheon. The TCN is a software-based, collaborative sensor-netting architecture in which each CEC node does its own signal processing and sends limited “data packets” to contribute to the SIAP. Only data needed is sent, reducing necessary bandwidth. A revolutionary change will be needed to maintain near-instantaneous data updating with an ever-increasing number of sensor/shooter nodes.

CEC SENSORS: AEGIS LEADS TO NEW DEVELOPMENTS

Ship radars, especially the AN/SPY-1 Aegis, are currently the most important CEC nodes, and perhaps the most crucial element for protecting the fleet. Following the Navy’s abortive and much-criticized Surface Navy Radar Roadmap developed in mid-1999, industry has been waiting for a revised and final version. The Navy has delayed for months, but AEGIS upgrades will feature prominently. Joe Antucci, president of Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems (Moorestown, NJ), recently described $350-million worth of upgrades to Aegis’s theater-missile- defense (TMD) capability during the past decade, and even more money is being invested to develop an open-architecture system for Aegis. These improvements are a part of Baseline 7.1, which will be fielded in 2004. The open-architecture Baseline 7.1 will provide a continuously upgradeable system which will serve for decades. By 2010, the USN will deploy more than 80 Aegis cruisers and destroyers, representing an investment of more than $100 billion, according to a Navy paper on Aegis. The next step will be a Common Command and Decision system, which will further integrate the common functions in Aegis and other combat systems.

But with DDG-51 SPY-1 production soon to wind down, Lockheed Martin has sought international partnerships to market the Aegis abroad. This has already yielded considerable success, with the first four ships of the Spanish F-100 Aegis-class scheduled to enter service between 2002 and 2006. Each ship is on budget to cost only $400 million, about half the price of an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. Norway has also chosen a Bazan/Lockheed Martin-built Aegis small frigate, and after much budget wrangling finally agreed, in February 2000, to a $1.2-billion contract for five ships, likely to be delivered between 2005-2009. The contract should be worth $540 million to Lockheed Martin. Since the Royal Australian Navy’s Warfighting Improvement Program (WIP) was scaled back at the end of 1999 (see “Rising Stakes Focus Asia-Pacific Powers on EW,” JED, January 2000), an Anzac phased-array-radar upgrade may not be funded, but Lockheed Martin is targeting several other countries for Aegis sales, including Saudi Arabia, the Republic of (South) Korea, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and Turkey. According to Lockheed Martin, a next-generation Aegis follow-on could also be developed in concert with a foreign navy, perhaps with Japan or Australia for the latter’s next- generation Project C140.


The AIEWS program finally appears to be back on track. (Ingalls Shipbuilding photo)

New radar programs funded in 1999 include two $120-million four-year development contracts to Raytheon (Sudbury, MA) and Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems for research into a high-power-discriminator (HPD) radar to complement Aegis for theater missile defense. Raytheon is proposing an X-band system based on its successful Ground-Based Radar for THAAD, while Lockheed Martin is looking at a new S/C-band radar. A Navy official seemed to confirm in late 1999 that dual S/C-band technology was the way to go, at least for the far-term future following DD-21. According to some Navy officials, S-band provides more power for long-range detection, while C-band is better for detection of low-altitude threats, and multiple missions can be accomplished with a single antenna. To this end, the Navy may provide additional funding to Lockheed Martin to conduct research into what could eventually become the AN/SPY-2 for a CG-21, or 21st-Century cruiser. A crucial technology hurdle is the move from today’s gallium-arsenide amplifier chips to gallium-nitride and silicon-carbon amplifier chips thought to be necessary for S/C-band performance.

Further along in development is the radar suite for the DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer and other next-generation, non-Aegis ships. The Multi-Function Radar (MFR) will provide horizon search, fire control and target illumination, with reduced manning and life-cycle costs compared to the multiple systems that provide these functions today. Raytheon won the development contract in June 1999, but first-unit production isn’t likely to occur until at least 2006. Lockheed Martin is not taking its loss lying down and, in January 2000, announced it was teaming with Alenia Marconi Systems SpA (Rome, Italy) to consider development of a multifunction radar for small ships.

The MFR’s complementary Volume Search Radar (VSR) will provide over-the-horizon surveillance, detection and tracking, and will cue the MFR. VSR development is still in competition and is not yet funded. Sources have suggested the value of the MFR/VSR radar suite could run to $25 billion for the 32-ship DD-21 procurement alone.

SHIP SELF-DEFENSE INTEGRATION

The Navy’s Ship Self-Defense System (SSDS) for non-Aegis ships is finally in production after years of delays. The SSDS Mk 1 integrates and automates sensors, electronic warfare (e.g., the AN/SLQ-32) and anti-air weapon systems aboard each platform, optimized for close ranges and cluttered littoral environments where reaction times are extremely short. It is now being fitted to the Whidbey Island-class (LSD-41/49) of dock-landing ships. The SSDS Mk 2 will integrate with the CEC for offboard cueing and is planned for all CVs and CVNs, as well as LHD-1 and LPD-17 classes. Despite a ten-month delay of the first LPD-17, slipping perhaps to 2002, builds of between four and eight SSDS systems each year for the next decade are likely. Constant upgrades and incorporation of new systems (to include the AIEWS, the MFR and the VSR) will continue, as will builds for DD-21 and other non-Aegis ships, with consistent funding of nearly $100 million per year. The Navy’s follow-on system, announced in 1999 as the Common Combat Direction System (CCDS), is planned to begin replacing the SSDS around 2012.

Another hot ship self-defense integration program is the Area Air Defense Commander (AADC), intended for the Navy’s $4.5 billion Ticonderoga-class (CG-47) Cruiser Conversion Program (CCP). The Ticonderogas mount Aegis but are older than the Arleigh Burkes, and the CCP is intended to both modernize and refocus their role from blue-water air defense and antisubmarine warfare to littoral land attack and TMD. The 22 cruisers with the Vertical Launch System (VLS) will be upgraded, and at least twelve of these will receive the AADC. The AADC is essentially a very large application node of the CEC, but, according to USAF Maj Gen Lee Downer, “what makes [the AADC] different is the absolutely huge display panel with very recognizable icons.” A wall-sized display panel will have icons that look like the ships, planes or missiles they represent, instead of blips or lines that must be interpreted by a specialist — sort of an executive summary to allow instant interpretation of the battlespace by the air-defense commander. AADC prototypes, developed by the Johns Hopkins University/Applied Physics Laboratory (Laurel, MD), were demonstrated at sea in 1999. A three-year engineering-and-manufacturing-development contract is planned for FY00 (critics say, simply to re-develop it); three teams — led by Litton, Boeing (Seattle, WA) and the partnership of General Dynamics and Raytheon — are currently working on concept studies. Finally, all 27 Ticonderogas are also slated to receive “Smart Ship” core control-systems technology, which will decrease crew size, decrease life-cycle costs and improve survivability. In early 2000, the Navy and Litton Integrated Systems Co. (Signal Hill, CA) agreed to slip Smart Ship installations by one year, now planned to begin in late 2000.

Further evidence of the increased importance of integration is the selection of one Electronic Systems Integrator for CVN-77. In the past, the Navy selected all subsystems, with the shipyard simply installing them. For CVN-77, seen as the first step in the evolution toward a more revolutionary CVN-X, Newport News selected Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems over Raytheon’s Naval and Maritime Integrated Systems (Portsmouth, RI) to design and build an integrated CVN combat system for an estimated $500 million. The integrated radar suite for CVN-77 will include major components planned for the DD-21 Land Attack Destroyer. In February 2000, Lockheed Martin Naval Electronics and Surveillance Systems also joined Thomson-CSF for the assessment phase of the UK’s future aircraft carrier program. The “Thomson Team” is competing with BAE Systems (Stevenage, Hertfordshire, UK).

AIEWS, NULKA AND SOFT-KILL EW

Electronic-support-measures (ESM) equipment serves much the same function in naval warfare as do radar warning receivers (RWRs) in air warfare — and gets about as much respect. It seems that anything which doesn’t blow up doesn’t get funded. For instance, Lockheed Martin’s AN/SLY-2 AIEWS finally seemed to be on track, when Navy acquisition chief Lee Buchanan threatened to cancel the program last year, immediately after a successful Preliminary Design Review and Critical Design Review (see “AIEWS Threatened With Cancellation Despite Passing CDR,” JED, October 1999). Buchanan claimed the system was behind schedule (less than 25-percent complete and six months behind schedule, according to industry sources) and over cost. The AIEWS will integrate all soft-kill elements of a ship’s anti-air-warfare (AAW) system, including decoys and jammers. Increment I, to be fielded in October 2003, will provide precision ESM, developed by Litton Amecom (College Park, MD), SenSyTech (Newington, VA) and Lockheed Martin, and will integrate the Nulka decoy. Increment II, not to be fielded until around 2006, would add electronic attack (EA) with Lockheed Martin Tactical Defense Systems’ IR subsystem and Northrop Grumman’s RF subsystem, given the present acquisition plans.

According to Dr. Pete Costello, Director of Electronic Warfare Systems at Lockheed Martin, the AIEWS program is back on track yet again. CDR 2 was completed in December 1999, with Navy officers exclaiming, “we want it now!” After a briefing from Lockheed Martin in December, Buchanan gave permission to proceed in January of this year. The last detailed hardware review was passed in late February. So, despite all the hoopla, the AIEWS program remains on the schedule in place for the past 16 months. The System Design Certification — essentially the last lab testing — is planned for October 2001, with an LRIP decision in June 2002, DT/OT complete in August 2002 and the first LRIP delivery in August 2003. The first system will be delivered for DDG-91 PDA in October 2003. Technical competence has never been the problem, and Lockheed Martin will be working hard to stick to its schedule.


The Nulka decoy will be integrated with AN/ALQ-35, AIEWS and SSDS systems on US, Australian and Canadian vessels.
(file photo)

Naval chaff and IR decoys have been in service for many years, but the Nulka/Mk-53 active seduction decoy will bring electronic deception to a dispensable deck-launched hovering decoy. The Nulka will be integrated with AN/SLQ-32, AIEWS and SSDS systems on US, Australian, and Canadian warships. The Nulka’s Mk-234 EW payload — produced by Sippican, Inc. (Marion, MA) — mimics a ship’s radar and radio signatures to lure incoming anti-ship missiles away from their targets. The Mk 53 is the dedicated launcher, with the launcher, launcher interface and rocket provided by British Aerospace Australia (Elizabeth, Australia). The Nulka deployed on active service for the first time in 1999 aboard the Royal Australian Navy’s HMAS Melbourne in the Persian Gulf. Despite problems in testing with the US Navy, including an early “not recommended” result in operational test and evaluation, the service’s production is likely to exceed the planned 254-466 decoys. For example, other ships which may get the Nulka include the 25 active and reserve Oliver Hazard Perry-class (FFG-7) frigates slated to remain in service after 2010. Speaking in June 1999, VADM Hank Griffin, commander of the Atlantic Fleet’s surface forces, said the ships are seriously deficient in self-defense against cruise missiles. In January 2000, the Navy proposed a $730-million frigate-modernization plan for FY02.

Condor Systems is a US company which has had better success selling EW systems abroad, where platform ESM and electronic countermeasures (ECM) are perhaps more central to naval policy. In 1998 Condor was selected to provide a development of its CS-3701 ESM system for Sweden’s Visby-class stealth corvettes, with AIL Systems (Deer Park, NY) as a subcontractor. In 1999 Condor Systems acquired ARGOSystems from Boeing (see “Condor to Buy ARGOSystems,” JED, April 1999). ARGOSystems has also been a major exporter of naval EW, having sold more than 400 surface-ship systems in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s. Condor/ARGOSystems’ AR-900 ESM system is now being installed on Belgian Wielingen-class frigates, to replace Thomson-CSF’s DR 2000. At least 22 Advanced Programmable Warfare System (APECS) II ESM/ECM suites have been sold to Greece, the Netherlands, Pakistan, Portugal and the Republic of (South) Korea, and the APECS III is being offered with the AR-900.

HORIZON AND TYPE 45: EUROPE’S FUTURE

The British/French/Italian Common New-Generation Frigate (CNGF) had developed out of the cancelled eight-nation NATO-wide NFR-90 program for a common AAW escort. NFR-90 collapsed in 1990 with the end of the cold war, and the CNGF was born in 1992. CNGF, usually just called “Horizon,” included the Principle Anti-Air Missile System (PAAMS) and Project Horizon, which covered the ship itself and all combat systems besides PAAMS. Horizon has been plagued by continuing delays and cost increases, and the UK finally pulled out in 1999 to develop their own Type-45 destroyer (see “Horizon Program to be Replaced by National Effort,” JED, June 1999). The UK plans to build twelve Type 45s under a Ј6-million program, as a replacement for eleven Type-42 destroyers in service since 1978. BAE Systems (formerly Marconi Electronic Systems) is prime contractor. France and Italy require four and six Horizons but committed to only two each in September 1999. Nonetheless, now that the Netherlands and Germany have developed their own new frigates (with four LCFs and three F-124s planned), Horizon and Type 45 will provide the biggest European naval EW programs of the next decade. Initial operating capability (IOC) is unlikely before 2007.

The PAAMS will compose the primary missile system and controlling radar for Horizon and is the one aspect the UK chose to keep for its Type 45. However, BAE may opt for Lockheed Martin’s Mk-41 Vertical Launch System over Horizon’s Sylver launcher. Prime contractor for the PAAMS program is EUROPAAMS SAS, consisting of EUROSAM (Thomson-CSF and Aerospatiale-Matra in France, along with Alenia Marconi Systems in the UK) and UKAMS (Matra BAe Dynamics, UK). The Type 45 will use BAE Systems’ E/F-band Sampson active phased-array radar (see “UK Signs up for Sampson Radar,” JED, December 1999), reconfigured in early 2000 to produce a near-spherical design. Sampson will be the first radar in the world to use digital adaptive beam forming, which is claimed to make it virtually immune to electronic jamming. The French and Italian Horizons will mount Alenia Marconi’s G-band EMPAR (European Multifunction Phased Array Radar). Both Horizon and Type 45 will use Alenia Marconi’s S1850M long-range volume search/surveillance radar, developed from Signaal’s SMART-L. Bruno Petre, the French representative on the PAAMS coordinating committee, claims the PAAMS is ahead of anything the Americans have, in part because the Aster missile switches to fire-and-forget mode well before reaching its target.

The German F-124 and Dutch LCF frigates are now building and will both mount Signaal’s Active Phased Array Radar (APAR) for air/surface search. The APAR began land-based testing at Den Elder in the Netherlands in December 1999. Testing and series production are running in parallel, with testing to be completed by the end of this year. Long-range volume search will be provided by Signaal’s SMART-L radar.

EUROPE: LOOKING TO A STANDARDIZED FUTURE

Racal Defence Electronics (Crawley, West Sussex, UK) is the sole supplier of ESM systems to the UK Royal Navy (RN) surface-ship and submarine fleet. If Thomson-CSF’s acquisition of Racal goes through, this will present the interesting situation of the French becoming the RN’s sole supplier. In addition to making Wellington spin in his grave, Racal will remain the favorite to provide the electronic-warfare system (EWS) for the Type-45 destroyer and will become a strong favorite for Horizon itself. Racal already builds the Outfit UAT, the ESM system chosen by the UK in 1997 as essentially the standardized upgrade for RN surface platforms, including the latest Type-23 frigates. The Outfit UAT system warns of radar threats from 2-18 GHz (extendable to 0.5-40 GHz), with a bearing accuracy of either ±4.5 or ±2°. Under the name Sceptre, versions serve aboard Anzac frigates of the Australian and New Zealand navies, as well as Swedish Goteburg-class frigates. Working with Daimler Chrysler Aerospace AG (Munich, Germany), Racal has also been a long-term supplier of EW equipment to the German Navy.

Racal supplies naval EW equipment to almost 40 other navies and has developed an integrated EW suite out of Outfit UAT. Called Sabre, the system was chosen by the Royal Netherlands Navy for its de Zeven Provincien-class (LCF) air-defense and command frigates. The integrated Sabre suite includes a wideband ESM system with instantaneous interception, analysis and classification of surveillance, acquisition and targeting radars, and automatic identification and tracking of emitters. A compact six-port masthead antenna replaces the twelve-port antenna of the Outfit UAT. Signal deinterleaving and combined wideband- and narrowband-receiver architectures increase intercept probabilities in dense electronic environments.

Sabre’s ECM component includes the active phased-array steerable dish antenna from the Scorpion ECM system, in service on German S143/S148 patrol boats and Turkish Meko-class frigates. A digital RF Memory (DRFM)-based techniques generator provides a range of jamming modes, including cross- polarization (to counter monopulse seekers), range-gate pull-off/in, false target, scan-rate modulation and swept, cover, and pulsed noise. Sabre’s ECM covers the 7.5- to 18-GHz band, and the whole system is fully integrated with the ship’s command-and-control system.

Thomson-CSF/Racal will most likely offer an upgraded Sabre EW suite for the Horizon EWS, as well as the Type-45 EWS. The Horizon EWS is expected to be the most complex and advanced ever designed, with a reported bearing- accuracy requirement of 1°. Earlier EWS teams had consisted of Racal, Alenia Difesa (Rome, Italy) and CS Defense (Les Ulis Cedex, France), competing with Marconi Electronic Systems, Thomson-CSF, and Elettronica. With Marconi now acquired by BAE Systems, and Thomson flown to the Racal camp (and already owning 33 percent of Elettronica), Racal/Thomson should be a strong favorite for France’s and Italy’s Horizon. Although BAE Systems is now prime contractor for the Type 45, Sabre is the favorite here too. A PAAMS/Sabre fit for both Horizon and Type 45 would continue the increasing standardization of European naval EW.

THE REST OF THE WORLD


Germany's S143A patrol boats are receiving the FL 1800 S-II ESM system. (DaimlerChrysler photo)

For the near future, the rest of the world in naval EW largely means other European and Israeli manufacturers. Before its acquisition of Racal, Thomson-CSF was already a major supplier of naval EW to the French navy, as well as to many smaller navies. The DR3000S ESM system has been exported to Columbia, Indonesia, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Republic of China (Taiwan) and others, and serves in France as the ARBR 17 and ARBR 21, including aboard Lafayette-class frigates. With its acquisition of Racal, DR3000 efforts may be reduced somewhat. Thomson’s complementary Salamandre family of naval jammers is derived from the French navy’s Dassault ARBB 33 and has been sold to Qatar and Saudi Arabia. The French OP3A ship self-defense upgrade is replacing some ARBB 33s with the ARBB 36. Again, Salamandre has not been as successful as Racal’s Scorpion and may now see few future sales.

DaimlerChrysler (DASA) has produced most of the EW equipment for the German navy, often with Racal as a subcontractor (so now the French will supply the Germans too). DASA’s Sensor Systems division (Ulm, Germany) is completing the upgrade of eight F-122 frigates and ten S143A patrol boats with the FL 1800 S-II (Stage II) ESM system. The four F-123s have also received the FL 1800 S-II, as will the three new Sachsen-class F-124s. The FL 1800 S-II covers 0.5-18 GHz in five bands, with a single omni-antenna and four direction-finding (DF) antenna arrays. Some systems include an ECM component, with two TWT-driven high-power multibeam array transmitters (MBATs) with folded-pillbox-lens beamforming. DASA is also marketing the SPS-N-5000 modular ESM system for small ships. One magazine contains all PC boards as well as the main computer. No sales have been reported.

INDRA DTD (Madrid, Spain) has not sold EW systems widely, but the Spanish navy has chosen Aldebaran as the basis for a family of standardized scaleable modular ESM/ECM systems. Sea trials began in 1995, with three ESM systems delivered to date. Aldebaran, with a DRFM-based ECM system, has been chosen for Spain’s four new F-100 Aegis frigates, the third platform in the Trilateral Frigate Agreement LCF/F-124/F-100 program. All ESM and ECM functions can be controlled from a single-operator console. The Aldebaran-based SLQ-380 is being marketed internationally.

Israel is a major manufacturer of naval ESM and ECM, with Rafael’s (Haifa, Israel) C-Pearl perhaps the most successful system internationally. More than 20 systems have been sold. The C-Pearl ESM system has a sensitivity of 65 dbM from 1-18 GHz, with a single small antenna array for both instantaneous frequency measurement (IFM) and DF. In 1999, the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) chose C-Pearl for its frigate upgrade, to replace the AN/SLQ-32(V)2 on its six Adelaide-class FFG-7s. Despite Australia’a recently downscoped Anzac Warfighting Improvement Program (WIP), all eight of the new frigates may also have their Racal Sceptre-A ESM systems upgraded with C-Pearl. New Zealand currently has no plans to upgrade its Anzac Sceptre-A systems. Rafael’s integrated shipborne EW suite is the SEWS/RAN-1110, which combines C-Pearl with the Shark ECM system. Shark combines one or two MBATs (RAN-1020 or RAN-1010), capable of coincidence jamming, enabling immediate positioning of a transmitting beam with an effective radiated power of 100-500 kW.

Elisra Electronic Systems (Bene Beraq, Israel) built the NS 9003A/9005 Integrated Shipborne ESM/ECM Suite for Israeli Sa’ar 5 corvettes, and has also sold the system to Chile, Singapore, Venezuela and others. The new NS 9003A-V2/9005 provides a real-time electronic order of battle and IFM and DF on a per-pulse basis. The system can be fully integrated with command-and-control systems, decoys, hard-kill systems, radars and navigation systems. Frequency coverage is expandable from 2-18 GHz to 0.5-40 GHz, with a 2° bearing accuracy. The lightweight NS-210E is also being offered.

Finally, South Africa’s Avitronics Pty. Ltd. Maritime (Highveld Technopark, South Africa), a joint venture of Grintek and Sweden’s CelsiusTech Electronics AB (Jarfalla, Sweden), produces a small range of integrated naval EW systems, mostly for the South African Navy (SAN). As a result of the Caliban ESM upgrade of Warrior-class strike craft in the 1990s, Avitronics has been chosen by the SAN to build a Caliban-derived ESM system for future patrol corvettes. Included will be a new EW controller for integrated ESM, electronic intelligence, communications intelligence and Ultra-Barricade decoys. Avitronics has joined with Wallop Defense Systems (Stockbridge, Hampshire, UK) to produce and market Ultra-Barricade worldwide. A planned ECM system for the SAN corvettes will probably not be funded. Avitronics is also marketing its Shrike lightweight ESM for surface ships and submarines. Shrike, with an optional Flotilla Support System and Threat Data Management System, can interface directly into an associated combat-management system.


Dr. David L. Rockwell is senior electronics analyst at Teal Group Corp. (Fairfax, VA).

Copyright GED