Royal Navy AAW system question

[KDR]

I'm writing a history of RN AAW system developments for a military
magazine in South Korea - pity there isn't a comprehensive history in
English spanning 1940s through 2005 - and looking for information not
available in open literature.

1. Scan rate of Type 1022 - how many times does it rotate in a minute?
Signaal LW08, which Type 1022's transceiver is derived from, rotates at
7.5 to 15 rpm.

2. Was ADT (Automatic Detection and Tracking) function implemented on
the carrier Invincible and Type 42 Batch II Exeter's Type 1022 radars
during the Falklands? If so, what was the name of Type 1022's track
extractor?

3. Norman Friedman wrote in his World Naval Weapons Systems 1991-1992
that GWS-31 Sea Dart Mk2 was ordered in November 1977 after the
existing GWS-30 Sea Dart system failed to perform against saturation
attack in a test off Australia. What ship was involved in this test?

Thanks in advance

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR
I'm writing a history of RN AAW system developments for a military
magazine in South Korea - pity there isn't a comprehensive history in
English spanning 1940s through 2005 - and looking for information not
available in open literature.
1. Scan rate of Type 1022 - how many times does it rotate in a minute?
Signaal LW08, which Type 1022's transceiver is derived from, rotates at
7.5 to 15 rpm.

Still Classified data, however I think you may be able to safely read the
figures quoted across!

Post by KDR
2. Was ADT (Automatic Detection and Tracking) function implemented on
the carrier Invincible and Type 42 Batch II Exeter's Type 1022 radars
during the Falklands? If so, what was the name of Type 1022's track
extractor?

Yes AFAIK, was it not called LFX in ADAWS MOD 0 Ships (Limited area Full
auto eXtraction)? I am sure I have some course notes at home which will
cover that period.

Regards,

Tom

[KDR]

Thanks a lot for the reply.

According to Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems 1991-1992, LFX was
a plot extraction process, which is not quite ADT, and first
implemented on the ADAWS-2 combat system of Type 82 Bristol. It was
semiautomatic and he wrote "Only in the upgraded system (particularly
those involving Sea Wolf) is there anything comparable to full ADT, as
in US systems." It implies the first British ADT radar was Type 967/968
Sea Wolf target acquisition radar on Type 22 frigates.

Track extractors were called RATEs (Radar Automatic Track Extractors)
and the first experimental RATE was developed by Thorn EMI and ARE
Portsdown in the late 1970's, again according to Friedman. The RATE for
Type 1022 was Outfit LFB, but Friedman commented that a contract was
not yet awarded at the time of writing. If true, Type 1022 in 1982
couldn't possibly have ADT function?

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR
Thanks a lot for the reply.
According to Friedman's World Naval Weapons Systems 1991-1992, LFX was
a plot extraction process, which is not quite ADT, and first
implemented on the ADAWS-2 combat system of Type 82 Bristol. It was
semiautomatic and he wrote "Only in the upgraded system (particularly
those involving Sea Wolf) is there anything comparable to full ADT, as
in US systems." It implies the first British ADT radar was Type 967/968
Sea Wolf target acquisition radar on Type 22 frigates.
Track extractors were called RATEs (Radar Automatic Track Extractors)
and the first experimental RATE was developed by Thorn EMI and ARE
Portsdown in the late 1970's, again according to Friedman. The RATE for
Type 1022 was Outfit LFB, but Friedman commented that a contract was
not yet awarded at the time of writing. If true, Type 1022 in 1982
couldn't possibly have ADT function?

I would say you are correct in your assumptions above - AFAIK Outfit LFB
(1022) did not come into service until the advent of ADAWS MOD 1, Unsure of
the exact dates but definitely post Falklands conflict though - more nearer
the 90's actually.

From memory - the old set-up in MOD 0 ships was 1 auto extractor worked 2
radars - this was LFX, this normally covered TI radars 992/996 and LRAW 1022
with LAX (Limited area Auto eXtraction) working the Nav radar 1006/1007.
Both were as you say semi-automated.

The system was changed in ADAWS MOD 1 whereby all radars had individual
Extractor's as follows with a processor to combine/fuse the output prior to
display:

LFA 996 TI
LFB 1022 LRAW
LFC1 1007 Fwd
LFC2 1007Aft
LFD Radar Track Combiner

Tom

[KDR]

Post by Tom Vart
From memory - the old set-up in MOD 0 ships was 1 auto extractor worked 2
radars - this was LFX, this normally covered TI radars 992/996 and LRAW 1022
with LAX (Limited area Auto eXtraction) working the Nav radar 1006/1007.
Both were as you say semi-automated.

Friedman described about how LAX works but not about LFX. Can you
please explain the difference between LFX and LAX?

[Brian Sharrock]

Post by KDR

Post by Tom Vart
From memory - the old set-up in MOD 0 ships was 1 auto extractor worked 2
radars - this was LFX, this normally covered TI radars 992/996 and LRAW 1022
with LAX (Limited area Auto eXtraction) working the Nav radar 1006/1007.
Both were as you say semi-automated.

Friedman described about how LAX works but not about LFX. Can you
please explain the difference between LFX and LAX?

before this thread develops too far ... ;
as a supplier/contractor to then Mod(PE)
I understood that the RN allocates 'Outfit'
three letter codes to kit; fr'instance
the submarine data processing systems were
respectively DCA, DCB, DCC, ... DCH, DCJ.
In other words the three letter Outfit descriptors
did not 'mean' anything but were an incrementing
sequence. I don't know where the expansion of
LAX to the rather contrived eXtr... came from,
but that might only be a mnemonic .

YMMV

[KDR]

Post by Brian Sharrock
In other words the three letter Outfit descriptors
did not 'mean' anything but were an incrementing
sequence.

Then SAMPSON and S1850M for Type 45 shall have Outfits LFF and LFG
track extractors or 'embedded' track extractors without
'Outfit' codes?

Outfit LFA - Type 996
Outfit LFB - Type 1022
Outfit LFC - Type 1007
Outfit LFD - Radar Track Combiner (comparable to American SYS-2
IADT/TMS and Australian CEA-MAST on upgraded FFG-7s)
Outfit LFE - Type 996
Outfit LFF - SAMPSON?
Outfit LFG - S1850M?

[Brian Sharrock]

Post by KDR

Post by Brian Sharrock
In other words the three letter Outfit descriptors
did not 'mean' anything but were an incrementing
sequence.

Then SAMPSON and S1850M for Type 45 shall have Outfits LFF and LFG
track extractors or 'embedded' track extractors without
'Outfit' codes?
Outfit LFA - Type 996
Outfit LFB - Type 1022
Outfit LFC - Type 1007
Outfit LFD - Radar Track Combiner (comparable to American SYS-2
IADT/TMS and Australian CEA-MAST on upgraded FFG-7s)
Outfit LFE - Type 996
Outfit LFF - SAMPSON?
Outfit LFG - S1850M?

I haven't any experience of the Naval Radar sets that you list
so I can't confirm any of the Outfit -> Type -> function
relationships ... is it a statement or a question?

You need to ask somebody working on these systems to give a
definite/authoritive answer. Often, the nomenclature 'jumps'
for reasons known only to the procurers.

In my experience the Navy has a haphazard (or pragmatic) approach
to what constitutes _an Outfit_ ; some kit I've worked on had
multiple consoles and processing racks forming an Outfit whilst
some Outfits consisted solely of an equipment drawer . The system
boundary might include/exclude a plot-extractor.

It's not really my field ... you need to ask a man who does.

[KDR]

Part statement and part question.

<statement>
Outfit LFA - Type 996
Outfit LFB - Type 1022
Outfit LFC - Type 1007
Outfit LFD - Radar Track Combiner (comparable to American SYS-2
IADT/TMS and Australian CEA-MAST on upgraded FFG-7s)
Outfit LFE - Type 996
</statement>

<question>
Outfit LFF - SAMPSON?
Outfit LFG - S1850M?
</question>

Thanks anyway I'll post something when I get a chance to write about
submarines.

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR

Post by Brian Sharrock
In other words the three letter Outfit descriptors
did not 'mean' anything but were an incrementing
sequence.

Then SAMPSON and S1850M for Type 45 shall have Outfits LFF and LFG
track extractors or 'embedded' track extractors without
'Outfit' codes?
Outfit LFA - Type 996
Outfit LFB - Type 1022
Outfit LFC - Type 1007
Outfit LFD - Radar Track Combiner (comparable to American SYS-2
IADT/TMS and Australian CEA-MAST on upgraded FFG-7s)
Outfit LFE - Type 996

<SNIP> all correct so far, LFE was being tested as I left the RN and was an
upgrade to LFA to rectify several defects in maintenance of autotracking
(that we shouldn't be discussing here!)although I can't vouch for Sampson
and the LRR of the T45's system but it would seem feasable, I will see if I
can glean some further info on this.........

Post by KDR
Outfit LFF - SAMPSON?
Outfit LFG - S1850M?

[Tom Vart]

Post by Brian Sharrock

Post by KDR

Post by Tom Vart
From memory - the old set-up in MOD 0 ships was 1 auto extractor worked 2
radars - this was LFX, this normally covered TI radars 992/996 and LRAW 1022
with LAX (Limited area Auto eXtraction) working the Nav radar 1006/1007.
Both were as you say semi-automated.

Friedman described about how LAX works but not about LFX. Can you
please explain the difference between LFX and LAX?

before this thread develops too far ... ;
as a supplier/contractor to then Mod(PE)
I understood that the RN allocates 'Outfit'
three letter codes to kit; fr'instance
the submarine data processing systems were
respectively DCA, DCB, DCC, ... DCH, DCJ.
In other words the three letter Outfit descriptors
did not 'mean' anything but were an incrementing
sequence. I don't know where the expansion of
LAX to the rather contrived eXtr... came from,
but that might only be a mnemonic .
YMMV
--
Brian

I have no idea what the logic is behind the three letter code for Naval
outfits are, although what you mention above does make sense as the new
Track Extractor on Type 42's is Outfit LFE, The LFX and LAX descriptors and
the meanings were taken directly from my Course notebooks from the early
1980's (Professional Radar Qualifying course), as instructed in the Royal
Navy School of Maritime Operations (SMOPS). I suppose with hindsight it may
have been a mnemonic that the Instructors used to make us youngsters
remember the plethora of MOD Navy 3 letter descriptors in a Carriers combat
system! Strangely enough I called an old colleague yesterday and asked him
if he still had his notes - he remembered as I did the Mnemonic from 20
years ago without needing to look in his books.

According to my notes LAX worked in exactly the same manner as LFX only it
covered a smaller area (30dm) it carried out auto tracking for the 1006 I
band nav. radar, it had 8 Auto Initiation(AI) areas that could be manually
input, and a maximum Auto track capacity of 32 tracks!
LFX covered the E/F band TI radars 992/996 and the LRAW D band 1022, it had
4 AI areas for each radar each with a 'massive' autotrack capacity of 64!
range of AI out to 180dm.

Both were far from ideal and poor use of ones manually injected AI areas
(over land or in cloud/clutter) normally resulted in huge volumes of 'auto
eggs' speeding across the tactical picture in all directions!

Tom

[KDR]

Wow, thanks a million.

Am I correct if I say that there were only 3 ships - Broadsword,
Brilliant & Andromeda - capable of ADT in the entire British task force
during the Falklands?

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR
Wow, thanks a million.
Am I correct if I say that there were only 3 ships - Broadsword,
Brilliant & Andromeda - capable of ADT in the entire British task force
during the Falklands?

I would say in the context of a true ADT yes, although there was a
rudimentary Autotracker in the ADAWS 2 fitted DLG's (Glamorgan, Fife, etc),
Having not had the pleasure of serving in a County class I cannot back this
up, I am sure that the autotracker was for IFF, I can check with some of my
ex-shipmates on this and get back to you if you wish?

Tom

[KDR]

LFX covered the E/F band TI radars 992/996 and the LRAW D band 1022, it had 4 AI
areas for each radar each with a 'massive' autotrack capacity of 64! range of AI out to
180dm.

One more question - do you know if Type 965 radars on Type 42 Batch 1,
Type 82 Bristol and County class DDGs had LFX during the Falklands?

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR

LFX covered the E/F band TI radars 992/996 and the LRAW D band 1022, it had 4 AI
areas for each radar each with a 'massive' autotrack capacity of 64! range of AI out to
180dm.

One more question - do you know if Type 965 radars on Type 42 Batch 1,
Type 82 Bristol and County class DDGs had LFX during the Falklands?

Can't say to be perfectly honest, although I assumed that LFX was only
available to 1022. I know from my time in a Batch 3 Leander fitted with 965
pre Falklands, that we had no auto track capability for that radar.

[KDR]

May I ask a personal question - did you serve in the Falklands?

[Tom Vart]

Post by KDR

LFX covered the E/F band TI radars 992/996 and the LRAW D band 1022, it had 4 AI
areas for each radar each with a 'massive' autotrack capacity of 64! range of AI out to
180dm.

One more question - do you know if Type 965 radars on Type 42 Batch 1,
Type 82 Bristol and County class DDGs had LFX during the Falklands?

I have just had a response from one of my old instructors and mentors in the
RN:

............................................................................
.......................................
Question 1. All ADAWS ships had auto tracking capability, the big
difference was the sensors on the end of it were different and the fact
that automatic tracking was semi automatic (opposed to what it is now
fully automatic). During the Falkland crisis if ADAWS ships needed to
automatically track there were two ways to achieve it.

A. Manually initiate an automatic track
B. Set up an automatic initiation 'guardring or sector'

Ordinarily manual initiation was used as guardrings and sectors caused
spurious automatic detection's to clutter the operators screens, there
were no speed threshold or filter controls on these track extractors.

Question 2. 965 versions P/Q/R (double or single bedsteads) were all
capable of automatic tracking in ADAWS, unfortunately the tracking was not
reliable due to the size of the gate required for the size of the radar
target provided (It was calculated that for rain to appear as a radar
contact on 965 a raindrop would have to be 36 gallons in volume).


Often users would prefer to maintain the picture manually. Automatic
tracking was generally stable for contacts at 120 to 150 NM tracking
straight and true, if the target was manoeuvring you could forget it.
The radar video was often turned down in preference to IFF auxiliary
video upon which operators could achieve a more sustainable manually
tracked picture (1010/1011 IFF VCD out to 180NMs, gapless up to 80K
feet).

No IFF automatic trackers existed in RN ships after the last manual
operations rooms circa 1980 ish, until Intelligent Advisor Demonstrator
Capability (IACD) or (CMISE) came along, this was trialed in Exeter,
Illustrious and Ocean.

Hope this helps, could probably provide extractor requirements and more
if required

Regards
Andy
............................................................................
.......................................................

I have asked if he could provide more detail on the Auto extractors for 965,
hopefully I will have a response soon.

Tom

[KDR]

Thanks a lot for all the information. I really appreciate it.