Naval aviation
Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC), explained
What the Navy's Cooperative Engagement Capability is, how it shares radar measurements among ships and aircraft, which variant flies on the E-2D, and what DOT&E reported about it from 2013 to 2024.
Oct 22, 20264 min read6 sources
Why it matters
The Navy fact file lists CEC on 111 platforms, and DOT&E reported in FY2020 that the Navy had not yet shown the E-2D's CEC variant supporting two of the aircraft's missions.
The short version
- 1CEC has two main parts: a Cooperative Engagement Processor that fuses sensor data and a line-of-sight Data Distribution System that exchanges it.
- 2The E-2D carries the AN/USG-3B; DOT&E judged it suitable but not effective in 2013, and its 2019 retest inadequate.
- 3APL dates CEC from an early-1970s concept, a 1990 at-sea prototype, and a 1992 acquisition program; DOT&E gives full operational capability in 2005.
The Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) is a Navy sensor-netting system that combines radar data from ships, aircraft and Marine Corps ground units into one shared air picture. The Navy's CEC fact file, last updated October 14, 2021, calls it a real-time system for situational awareness and integrated fire control, and lists 111 platforms. The E-2D Advanced Hawkeye carries its own variant, the AN/USG-3B. The Director, Operational Test and Evaluation (DOT&E) judged that variant not operationally effective in 2013 and called a 2019 retest inadequate.
How CEC shares sensor data
The fact file names two main functions. The Cooperative Engagement Processor (CEP) handles sensor networking. The Data Distribution System (DDS) carries real-time communications among cooperating units over a line-of-sight, anti-jam link. CEC shares radar and Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) data on air targets. Every unit runs identical processing algorithms in its CEP, so every unit shows the same air tracks.
A 1995 article in the Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, written by staff of the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL), explains the method. Units share unfiltered measurements, such as range, bearing, elevation and, where available, Doppler. Each unit combines them into composite tracks, weighting every input by the measurement accuracy of its sensor. If one unit's radar loses a target for a time, the track continues on other units' data. A sensor-alignment process the article calls "gridlock" keeps the remote data accurate.
The fact file adds that CEC lets a ship launch anti-air weapons at targets within its engagement envelope based on remote sensor data from the network. The APL article says the DDS is several orders of magnitude more capable than conventional tactical data links in nearly every category, including capacity, cycle time and update rate.
Variants and platforms
The fact file gives three designations: AN/USG-2 for Navy surface ships, AN/USG-3 for Navy E-2 aircraft, and AN/USG-4 for the Marine Corps Composite Tracking Network (CTN). The CTN puts CEC on a High Mobility Multi-purpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV) with an elevated antenna.
DOT&E's FY2024 report uses later designators: AN/USG-2/2B for surface ships, AN/USG-3/3B for the E-2C Hawkeye 2000 and E-2D, and AN/USG-4B for the CTN. A "B" marks a capability upgrade within the legacy program. The FY2020 report says the AN/USG-3 is being retired as the E-2C retires, and that the AN/USG-3B is installed on the E-2D.
The FY2024 report describes the CEP as fusing the host platform's own sensor data with remote data to build target tracks, and the DDS as exchanging radar and IFF measurements within line of sight. A separate CEC Increment II program is intended to add surface and electronic warfare support and more network participants. Block II is its first phase.
What DOT&E reported on the E-2D variant
- 2013. The FY2013 report says DOT&E sent Congress a classified report on September 16, 2013, judging the USG-3B operationally suitable but not operationally effective. The USG-3B performed worse than the USG-3 on the E-2C. It missed its reliability requirement, though the E-2D would finish a typical 5-hour mission without a mission-ending CEC hardware failure 94 percent of the time. Listed deficiencies included sensor alignment errors, excessive dual tracks, interoperability errors with the E-2D mission computer, and interference with the radar altimeter.
- 2019 retest. The FY2020 report says a June 2019 follow-on test was inadequate because it did not follow the approved test plan, and four planned events were not completed. Results suggested some earlier deficiencies may have been corrected. The system was available and maintainable but not reliable, and the Navy had not shown it supporting the E-2D's theater air and missile defense and battle management command and control missions.
- 2024. The FY2024 report says the Navy took no action in FY2024 on the FY2020 recommendation to test the USG-3B.
Program history and dates
The 1995 APL article dates the concept to the early 1970s at APL, the first at-sea experiment with a prototype to 1990, and the acquisition program to 1992. A trial deployment ran from October 1994 through March 1995 with a Sixth Fleet battle group. Initial operational capability was then scheduled for 1996, and the article projected the E-2C would carry CEC by 1999.
A 2005 APL Technical Digest article by Bath and coauthors repeats the early dates and says CEC was fielded in 1998. The FY2024 DOT&E report says the program reached full operational capability in 2005. The three dates name three different milestones.
The FY2013 report also differs with itself: its summary dates the E-2D test from September 2012 to May 2013, and its activity section says through June 2013.
What to check
- Which variant is meant: AN/USG-3 on the E-2C, or AN/USG-3B on the E-2D?
- Does a date for CEC name its milestone: 1996 planned initial operational capability, 1998 fielding, or 2005 full operational capability?
- Does a claim about the E-2D's CEC cite DOT&E's 2013 finding, the inadequate 2019 retest, or later data?
- Does a description of CEC keep the CEP and the DDS distinct, and note that the DDS is line of sight?
- Does a document separate legacy CEC from the CEC Increment II and Block II program?
Azcuna's ELLMENT, the E-2D Large Language Model Entity, was proposed to NAVAIR PMA-231 under Navy SBIR Phase I topic DON26BZ01-NV010. The prototype, built at private expense on publicly available doctrine, answers with a page-level citation and refuses when the documents do not support an answer. The proposal has been submitted.
Sources
- 1CEC - Cooperative Engagement Capability · U.S. Navy fact file, last updated October 14, 2021
- 2The Cooperative Engagement Capability · Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 16, Number 4 (1995)
- 3Detection Systems Information Fusion · Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 26, Number 4 (2005)
- 4Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) (FY2013 Annual Report) · Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
- 5Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) (FY2020 Annual Report) · Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
- 6Cooperative Engagement Capability (CEC) (FY2024 Annual Report) · Director, Operational Test and Evaluation
Where this shows up in our work
- ELLMENT, the offline LLM for E-2D crews answers a crew's question from the aircraft's own manuals and cites the page, with no network.
- TRACE, the offline S1000D and IETM viewer opens S1000D, MIL-STD-3001 and PDF technical manuals on a tablet with every marking intact.
