Moderator: Community Manager
[Post Reply] [*]  Page 3 of 3  [ 27 posts ]  Go to page « 1 2 3
Author Message
heuhen
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 25th, 2017, 9:00 am
Offline
User avatar
Posts: 9050
Joined: December 15th, 2010, 10:13 pm
Location: Behind you, looking at you with my mustache!
Point noted and I'm sorry for pulling the string



The tone inthe "discussion" and how suddenly it come... I had to react and that I am sorry for, but hey I am just a North-Norwegian.


What I do not understand, is that there are almost no one in the Navy's that use SPY-1 series complaining on the range compared to the range of ESSM. They would have fixed that for long ago, if that is an problem. But if they increase the range on the radar... Someone will develope new missile that operate within that range.

It's almost like saying that all radars in the world is bad, due they can see as far as an intercontinental ballistic missile can fly.


I'M out, I have far better thing to do, than having an unnecessary discussion.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Judah14
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 25th, 2017, 2:48 pm
Offline
Posts: 752
Joined: March 5th, 2013, 11:18 am
The reason why SPY-1F is bulky for the performance it has is that it uses older technology. Newer AESA radars like the radars used in the Japanese FCS-3 system used for the ESSM missile use gallium nitride electronics technology to allow better performance from a compact system than contemporary AESA radars using gallium arsenide electronics technology.
[ img ]
The SPY-6 AMDR, another AESA radar, also uses gallium nitride electronics technology and a SPY-6 radar array with the same size as a SPY-1D array has superior performance to the SPY-1D.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
RegiaMarina1939
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 25th, 2017, 6:39 pm
Offline
Posts: 423
Joined: January 12th, 2016, 8:57 pm
Location: Wilmington, North Carolina
That's great and all but it's written in Chinese.

_________________
Best regards,

RegiaMarina1939


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
HyperHiggsHelix
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 27th, 2017, 3:18 am
Offline
Posts: 72
Joined: October 28th, 2016, 8:31 pm
Location: Connecticut
Contact: Website
RegiaMarina1939 wrote: *
That's great and all but it's written in Chinese.
And Japanese.

_________________
A signature is just for people who say, "I didn't put enough words in my post."
Oh, wait.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 27th, 2017, 5:11 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Judah14 wrote: *
The reason why SPY-1F is bulky for the performance it has is that it uses older technology. Newer AESA radars like the radars used in the Japanese FCS-3 system used for the ESSM missile use gallium nitride electronics technology to allow better performance from a compact system than contemporary AESA radars using gallium arsenide electronics technology.
[ img ]
The SPY-6 AMDR, another AESA radar, also uses gallium nitride electronics technology and a SPY-6 radar array with the same size as a SPY-1D array has superior performance to the SPY-1D.
http://breakingdefense.com/2012/10/navy ... rs-afloat/
Quote:
“We’re going to be delivering over 30 times the radar capability in the same space,” Capt. Doug Small, program manager for AMDR, told Breaking Defense. That’s essential to track large numbers of incoming enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles at the same time, something current destroyers have only limited ability to do.

To run the new radar, however, Small went on, “it’s going to take roughly double the power [and] maybe a little more than double the cooling” so it doesn’t overheat. “We fit — easily might be a little overstated — but we fit within the DDG-51 footprint,” he said. The Navy is just completing a two-year study of all the modifications required.

So while Arleigh Burkes are upgraded with other new equipment all the time, AMDR cannot be affordably retrofitted to existing ships. The changes to accommodate it are so extensive that the Navy considers them a new iteration of the class, “Flight III.” The USS Murphy and the next few destroyers planned are all Flight IIAs, which have the passive SPY-1 radar as earlier Arleigh Burkes. They are distinguished by the addition of a helicopter hanger. The Navy plans to start building the AMDR-equipped Flight IIIs in FY 2016.
The weight and volume does not go away. You can't fight physics.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Judah14
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 27th, 2017, 5:34 am
Offline
Posts: 752
Joined: March 5th, 2013, 11:18 am
Tobius wrote: *

http://breakingdefense.com/2012/10/navy ... rs-afloat/
Quote:
“We’re going to be delivering over 30 times the radar capability in the same space,” Capt. Doug Small, program manager for AMDR, told Breaking Defense. That’s essential to track large numbers of incoming enemy aircraft and ballistic missiles at the same time, something current destroyers have only limited ability to do.

To run the new radar, however, Small went on, “it’s going to take roughly double the power [and] maybe a little more than double the cooling” so it doesn’t overheat. “We fit — easily might be a little overstated — but we fit within the DDG-51 footprint,” he said. The Navy is just completing a two-year study of all the modifications required.

So while Arleigh Burkes are upgraded with other new equipment all the time, AMDR cannot be affordably retrofitted to existing ships. The changes to accommodate it are so extensive that the Navy considers them a new iteration of the class, “Flight III.” The USS Murphy and the next few destroyers planned are all Flight IIAs, which have the passive SPY-1 radar as earlier Arleigh Burkes. They are distinguished by the addition of a helicopter hanger. The Navy plans to start building the AMDR-equipped Flight IIIs in FY 2016.
The weight and volume does not go away. You can't fight physics.
I am aware of that and the high power and cooling requirements are expected for a high performance radar.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Tobius
Post subject: Re: SPY-1 discussionPosted: March 27th, 2017, 6:10 am
Offline
Posts: 545
Joined: July 21st, 2015, 2:10 pm
Some people may forget about heat dissipation and the refrigeration involved. That is a lot of the electrical power requirement right there. And the weight does not change that significantly when half the radar requires twice the air conditioning.


Top
[Profile] [Quote]
Display: Sort by: Direction:
[Post Reply]  Page 3 of 3  [ 27 posts ]  Return to “Off Topic” | Go to page « 1 2 3

Jump to: 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests


The team | Delete all board cookies | All times are UTC


cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
[ GZIP: Off ]