- Defence policy
- Equipment and support
- Modernising defence
- Aviation
- Marine
- Land vehicles
- Security
- HR and training
- Defence estates (DIO)
News updates
Twitter updates
Facebook
Email
Print
Royal Navy: CEC a 'lesser priority'
11 June 2012
The US-developed CEC system would have pooled data from radar and sensors on a variety of Royal Navy and RAF assets to provide a more detailed picture of the surrounding area and threats to all ships and aircraft involved.
The system theoretically allows an incoming enemy aircraft or missile to be detected by any CEC-equipped destroyer or surveillance aircraft, with details relayed to a targeted ship before its own sensors are aware of the threat.
The decision not to commit to purchasing CEC was made during the MoD's Planning Round '12, the nine-month planning process which allowed the ministry to announce it had balanced its budget.
Speaking during defence questions in the House of Commons, Defence Secretary Philip Hammond said the Royal Navy had identified CEC as a "lesser priority" during the PR12 process. In January ministers announced that the 'main gate' approval for the programme was due to have taken place in mid-2012, with the system expected to enter service on Type 45 destroyers in 2018.
A Ministry of Defence spokesperson said: "Cooperative Engagement Capability has not been cut; it was never in the committed core equipment programme.
"The MoD's comprehensive assessment of CEC informed the decision made during PR12 that it was not necessary to commit to purchasing the capability at this stage. As the Defence Secretary made clear last month, the MoD budget has headroom of £8bn over the next 10 years for potential new programmes. The Armed Forces Committee will prioritise which projects to commit to when necessary, and not before.
"The T45 Destroyer provides a world leading, state-of-the-art anti-air warfare platform with a range of capabilities for defeating complex threats."
HAVE YOUR SAY
11 June 2012
At a cost of £24m per ship this would have been a bargain; a very short sighted decision
Ian Skinner - Enfield
11 June 2012
I seem to remember that T45 numbers 7 and 8 were scrapped in order to pay for CEC incorporation then CEC was scrapped!
I can't believe that CEC is not a priority, this smacks of desperation to balance the books for PR12 and and nothing more. To say sensor fusion is not a priority is laughable it should be core to our capabilities.
This is such a typically British - MoD fudge, get rid of some of the almost 900 accountants and consultants at the MoD to pay for it!
Graham - High Wycombe
11 June 2012
One more bonkers decision in a list that is embarrassingly long now.
Chris - London
11 June 2012
For-over-a-decade UKCEC has been required by the RN's surface combatants to fill an unequivocally acknowledged very serious- and widening- gap in Air Warfare capabilities*...
On their own, Type-45 Destroyers' and other RN surface combatants' radars can not 'see' objects that are "over the horizon" (20-miles) and below 50-feet above sea-level...
In terminal mode, widely internationally marketed, up-to-date Anti-ship Cruise Missiles (ASCMs) cover 20-miles in less than 40-seconds!!
http://www.ausairpower.net/Analysis-Cruise-Missiles.html
To be able to detect and engage incoming low-flying threats such cruise missiles at distances farther than 20-miles- allowing for more than one shot at an incoming threat, Type-45s' AAW systems need to be networked with Airborne Early Warning And Control (AWACS) radar aircraft**- and other surface vessels- that are equipped for Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC***)...
Since the UK's chaotically planned aircraft carriers are not designed to be fitted with an appropriately capable radar set and since the carriers won't be fitted with missile-based airborne threat defences and- like the Type-45s and Type-26s- are not planned be fitted with 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC): their abilities to defend against airborne threats will be negligible....
What kind of Commanders and what kind of elected officials let a decision like the one effectively cancelling the UK's CEC programme occur without publicly stating the grievous risks that it exposes ship board personnel and expeditionary forces to??
----------------------
* NAO's 2005 Major Projects Report:
http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0506/hc05/0595/0595_ii.pdf
Page # 135 (140 in Acrobat Reader):
"... UKCEC is a Network Enabled Capability (NEC) project which will deliver improved situational awareness, interoperability and integration...
" It will fill the capability gap identified in the Commander In Chief, Fleet's (CICFLEET)' Military Capability (MILCAP) reports regarding the ability to detect, monitor and counter Air Warfare threats...
"... It will also reduce a gap in interoperability with the United States... "
** such as Northrop Grumman's E-2D:
http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065926691
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/e-2d-hawkeye-the-navys-new-awacs-03443/
http://www.as.northropgrumman.com/products/e2dhawkeye/index.html
*** http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/cec-coooperative-enagagement-for-fleet-defense-updated-03120/
http://articles.janes.com/articles/Janes-Naval-Weapon-Systems/Cooperative-Engagement-Capability-CEC-AN-USG-2--USG-3-United-States.html
"Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC)Transforming Naval Anti-air Warfare": http://www.ndu.edu/CTNSP/docUploaded/Case%2011%20%20CEC%20Transforming%20Naval%20Anti-Warfare.pdf
http://openscenarios.ida.org/scenarios/261-The_Cruise_Missile_Challenge.pdf
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/td/td1604/APLteam.pdf
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/533.pdf
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw091201_1_n.shtml :
"... The UK Ministry of Defence (MoD) will decide in 2010 whether to acquire the US Navy's 'Cooperative Engagement Capability' (CEC) for integration into selected Royal Navy (RN) surface ships after concluding a third tranche of Assessment Phase (AP3) studies... This comes five years after initial plans to integrate the UK CEC system into Type 23 frigates and Type 45 destroyers were brought to a sudden halt as a result of budget pressure...."
Roderick V. Louis - Vancouver, BC, Canada
11 June 2012
Er, isn't Hammond the DEFENCE secretary?
I really dislike the way the politicians spin these decisions as being nothing to do with them: "the Royal Navy had identified CEC as a lesser priority".
Surely this should read, "under pressure to cut costs and say which things they could do without if really, really, really pushed, the Royal Navy had been forced to identify CEC as a lesser priority".
More penny-pinching from the political classes with their lack of real-life experience and their obsession with political careers and the gravy train.
Michael - Hertfordshire
11 June 2012
So 6 not 12 T45, then no CEC, Harpoon, Tomahawk, torpedo launchers.
Lets hope they never have to fight.
John Hartley - Woking/Surrey/UK
11 June 2012
Here`s another MOD classic for you!
HMS York and Edinburgh have had their Sea Dart air defence system shut down until they are retired(Hope they not called into any high level conflict zone, because all they are now is "glorified" gun boats)
I wounder is this another shorted sighted MOD beancounter idea to get their bonus for the year.
This leaves the RN rather short on ships carrying dedicated long range air defence missile system if they are called upon.(Leaves only HMS Dauntlass,Daring and Dragon with fleet air defence)
Source RN website 13/04/2012
If the fan is hit!Plan B for MOD stick head in sand and cross fingers?!
Ian L - norwich
12 June 2012
A very questionable decision! I can only hope they will commit funding later however I fear they wont.
David - Durham
12 June 2012
"The T45 Destroyer provides a world leading, state-of-the-art anti-air warfare platform with a range of capabilities for defeating complex threats."
--
Correction, it should read as follows...
"The T45 Destroyer would provide a world leading, state-of-the-art anti-air warfare platform with a range of capabilities for defeating complex threats, if it was fully equipped"
... sadly it isn't & probably won't be due to budget restrictions & political stupidity.
Sad times for the RN.
PacificSentinel - Australia
12 June 2012
CEC is a loss, but are there not existing links integrated into the CDS which allowed sensor and weapons networking? CEC was initiated from the change from MIL-SPEC dedicated equipment to COTS sourced 'equivalents'. If not, then the CDS is a bit of a lemon in comparison to some of the systems from the 90's
CEC was talked as a multiplier for the reduced number of T45's in service; and I bet no politician will argue for additional hulls!
Ships 7 & 8 were supposedly cancelled in favour of advancing the GCS (T26) though having to wait to 2020 for the first ship in the water hardly seems like advancing to me; the GSC should have been advanced when the Type 22 Batch II vessels were decommissioned early.
Shaun - Ex_RNZN
12 June 2012
Since when does not telling your brothers in arms where the enemy is not a priority?
Not only a short sighted decision on Hammond's part, but a complete lack of understanding of modern warfare.
I agree with Graham, get rid of some of the 900 shiny arsed pen pushers to pay for it. Or is Hammond buying them all a pair of binoculars and some semaphore flags?
Tim Dainton - Romsey
12 June 2012
I would have thought with fewer RAF and RN assets available to detect possible threats, sensor linking would be more important, not less. Operating without it makes the loss of a platform even more likely in the event of conflict.
Brilliant piece of planning. Does this mean we will now get the 2 extra T45 hulls that were cancelled to pay for it?
AW Employee - Yeovil
12 June 2012
AW Employee - Yeovil
Shaun is right that T45 numbers 7 and 8 were cancelled to bring forward T26 GCS design however there was also a commitment made to incorporate CEC at the same time so it wasn't just GSC as the only reason they were cancelled.
Graham - High Wycombe
12 June 2012
For more years than many may care to acknowledge; the navy has been in the business of getting the hulls that are needed and 'hoping' to fit the systems, including weapons, at a later date. I suspect this is another of those occasions.
Norman - UK
06 August 2012
This is a major mistake. More so when you consider the New Carriers are reliant on escorts for defence. Rather like the RN failure to develop a proper gun control and rangefinding capability pre WW1. A similar error in fire control of AA guns pre WW2 cost us many ships and lives lost.
This should be a priority.
4th Watch - UK