This is for the experts.
is this possibly:
![[ img ]](http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h370/heuhen/spy-3.png)
| Shipbucket http://67.205.157.234/forums/ |
|
| That SPY-3 http://67.205.157.234/forums/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=2528 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | heuhen [ January 26th, 2012, 9:17 pm ] |
| Post subject: | That SPY-3 |
This is for the experts. is this possibly:
|
|
| Author: | klagldsf [ January 27th, 2012, 1:21 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
If it doesn't have a range advantage it'd certainly have some insane resolution. |
|
| Author: | acelanceloet [ January 27th, 2012, 6:15 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
the only problem I can think of..... is that SPY-3 and VSR both cover 120 degrees against the SPY-1 90 degrees. you only need 3 of each instead of the 4 here. so, an hexagonal shape instead of an octagonal. other then that, I do not have the knowledge of these systems to say if they would work, I suppose they would but cannot say for certain. |
|
| Author: | jabba [ January 27th, 2012, 10:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
I only see three SPY-3 panels... |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ January 27th, 2012, 12:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
jabba is correct there are only three SPY-3 and three VSR |
|
| Author: | Thiel [ January 27th, 2012, 12:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
It can work, but you're going to have two 15 degree gaps in your radar coverage. The faces needs to be offset by 60 degrees rather than the 45 degrees they are now if you want complete coverage. |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ January 27th, 2012, 5:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
okay 60 degrees. but are the enough place inside it. ships that I'm thinking about that can carry it, is ships that are look a like the "Long Beach" (stealthy) |
|
| Author: | erik_t [ January 27th, 2012, 5:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
It's entirely acceptable to have four arrays of each sort, of course, if you're willing to pay for it! Two other things. First, you need a SATCOM array of each type pointing straight up. Second, you're still not super great on low-observable shape. The bottom (where the deckhouse gets wider as you go up) is bad. Bad bad bad. Bad! You want every surface tilted back from the vertical. Towards the top, it would be good if you could be tilted a bit further back from the vertical. That angle determines the range at which a MPA would get a strong radar return from your deckhouse. For example, a tilt-back of 30deg would mean that a hostile radar would need to be (for example) higher than 20km altitude to get a good radar return from further away than about 40km. 30deg might be a bit optimistic; I think DDG-1000 is more like 15deg. Of course as your ship rolls, you can 'roll into' a favorable angle for the hostile radar, so you'll never quite do as well as this. As we discussed in another thread of yours, you also want your shorter-range radar (SPY-3 in this case) to be tilted back a fair bit from the vertical. 15deg or so would be good here too. |
|
| Author: | heuhen [ January 27th, 2012, 8:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
The windows are there to illustrate a possible bridge solution. ![[ img ]](http://i1106.photobucket.com/albums/h370/heuhen/spy-3-1.png)
|
|
| Author: | erik_t [ January 27th, 2012, 8:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: That SPY-3 |
The angles in the top view are still incorrect, and blind fields will exist. If you want the three-faced solution, just make it a hexagon. And get rid of the rotating surface search set. Yuck. Go with MWVR or the Thales radar on the I-masts. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Limited https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|