Shipbucket
http://67.205.157.234/forums/

SPY-1 discussion
http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7597		 Page 3 of 3
Author:  heuhen [ March 25th, 2017, 9:00 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
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.
Author:  Judah14 [ March 25th, 2017, 2:48 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
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.
Author:  RegiaMarina1939 [ March 25th, 2017, 6:39 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
That's great and all but it's written in Chinese.
Author:  HyperHiggsHelix [ March 27th, 2017, 3:18 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
RegiaMarina1939 wrote: *March 25th, 2017, 6:39 pm
That's great and all but it's written in Chinese.
And Japanese.
Author:  Tobius [ March 27th, 2017, 5:11 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
Judah14 wrote: *March 25th, 2017, 2:48 pm
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.
Author:  Judah14 [ March 27th, 2017, 5:34 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
Tobius wrote: *March 27th, 2017, 5:11 am

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.
Author:  Tobius [ March 27th, 2017, 6:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: SPY-1 discussion
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.
Page 3 of 3 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited
https://www.phpbb.com/