Worlds Most Advance War Ship

**Dago** · 06 May 06,, 02:31

Originally Posted by highsea

Dago, to answer your question, that would be a passive array since the transmitters are not integrated at the element level.

Ok.

What was the first active array application as far as ground installations go? Would that be Pave Paws?

Each of the PAVE PAWS radars is housed in a 32-meter (105-foot) high building with three sides. Two flat arrays of individual radiating elements transmit and receive RF signals generated by the radar. The equipment that generates the RF signals and then analyzes the reflected signals is housed inside the radar building. The two array faces are 31 meters (102 feet) wide and are tilted back 20 degrees to allow for an elevation deflection from three to 85 degrees above the horizon. The lower limit provides receiver isolation from signals returned from ground clutter and for environmental microwave radiation hazard protection of the local area.

The active portion of the array resides in a circle 22.1 meters (72.5 feet) wide in the center of the array. Each radiating element is connected to a solid-state transmit/receive module that provides 325 watts of power and a low-noise receiver to amplify the returning radar signals. The RF signals transmitted from each array face form one narrow main beam with a width of 2.2 degrees.

Also, if you have any good material as far has the historical development of phassed array, discrete and solid-state componets, and t/r modules it would be well apprecieated.

Everything I have came across requires a subscription to either IEEE or other higher educational institution.

Primarily, Phased-array development at DARPA
Corey, L. Jaska, E. Guerci, J.
DARPA/SPO; and http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/tocre...r=28113&page=2.

**hello** · 09 May 06,, 15:38

Originally Posted by BenRoethig

The T45 is an area air defense destroyer. DDX is strike/ASW like the sprucans.

That's true. But about the Type 45, it's a revolutionary air defense destroyer? Not if the enemy has JSOWs, JASSMs, Storm Shadows or stealth.

Originally Posted by canoe
Going to have to go with the Amercians on this one, I did a little reading and near as I've been able to gather Sampson is a line of site radar. Which makes it physically impossible for it to monitor all the aircraft in western europe.

Unless of course you guys mounted the ship on a giant balloon a lifted it to about 10k feet.

The likely limiting factor for the radars range is the height the radar is mounted at and the curvature of the earth.

That's what AWACS is for! This is a limitation to all land/sea based radars. All SAMs are limited due to this, no matter how long their missile and radar ranges are.

**PubFather** · 09 May 06,, 16:29

That's true. But about the Type 45, it's a revolutionary air defense destroyer? Not if the enemy has JSOWs, JASSMs, Storm Shadows or stealth.

I doubt JSOWs would be too much of a problem for the missile system to track and destroy well out of harms way. A JSOW is over a meter long and not exactly stealthy.

Against Stormshadow and JASSM? Stealthy cruise missiles are obviously going to be a major problem for any warship but the Type 45 + Sampson and Aster were specifically desgined to deal with supersonic (admittedly not stealthy) sea skimmers (which neither the Stormshadow or JASSM are). I suspect that it would be an equally, if not more capable system against them than Aegis is.

As for stealth, Sampson is an extremely capable, powerful radar and will eventually be coupled with AEW. If Aegis has capabilities against stealth - as claimed - I suspect Sampson will have too. Again, I'll probably get shoot down (if you pardon the pun) but Sampson is a very up-to-date, recently designed system. (Even if it cant track all the planes in Western Europe, lol...)

Besides, it depends what you mean by "revolutionary", it has a revolutionary extra level of ability over the Type 42 and thats more than good enough for me.

**Dago** · 09 May 06,, 23:52

Originally Posted by PubFather

I doubt JSOWs would be too much of a problem for the missile system to track and destroy well out of harms way. A JSOW is over a meter long and not exactly stealthy.

Against Stormshadow and JASSM? Stealthy cruise missiles are obviously going to be a major problem for any warship but the Type 45 + Sampson and Aster were specifically desgined to deal with supersonic (admittedly not stealthy) sea skimmers (which neither the Stormshadow or JASSM are). I suspect that it would be an equally, if not more capable system against them than Aegis is.

As for stealth, Sampson is an extremely capable, powerful radar and will eventually be coupled with AEW. If Aegis has capabilities against stealth - as claimed - I suspect Sampson will have too. Again, I'll probably get shoot down (if you pardon the pun) but Sampson is a very up-to-date, recently designed system. (Even if it cant track all the planes in Western Europe, lol...)

Besides, it depends what you mean by "revolutionary", it has a revolutionary extra level of ability over the Type 42 and thats more than good enough for me.

True.

The Type 45 would be by far better in defending against a saturation attack then the Burkes as the Aster doesn't require active illumination. However, with a reduced engagment range.

I wonder, though, how it will fare with future stealthy cruise missiles and what the engagment would be in such a scenero.

**PubFather** · 10 May 06,, 16:26

However, with a reduced engagment range.

Not necessarily against a sea-skimming missile. Sampson should be able to shoot "over the horizon" and hit the missile earlier than Aegis (using the active homing). The limitation with Aegis is the terminal illumination req to guide the missile home. So while the theoretical range of the SM2 is greater (100 k plus) this only counts against higher flying targets. Sea-skimming targets (no matter how powerful Aegis is) will stay below the radar horizon for longer, and this stops the ship illuminating the target. I think - could be wrong - that the horizon is about 30k. The limitation is there purely because ships dont fly.. lol

I have heard that later SM2's have a backup IR homing ability, so I suppose they could use this to shoot over the horizon.. not sure though

I wonder, though, how it will fare with future stealthy cruise missiles and what the engagment would be in such a scenero.

I suspect it would be somewhat f*cked really, the same as any ship currently operating. The only answer would be some form of IRST/EOTS (airborne) coupled with a very sensitive far spectrum ir seeker head on the missile. Nothing to prevent the Aster being redeveloped with this in mind (same as against stealthy aircraft maybe).

As to who might develope them... the Ruskies and Chinese seem happy with they super-sonic missiles, as does India with Brahmos so not really from there. I suspect in the foreseable future, the only threat would come from missiles we had sold to another country that were then used against us.

Unless the French get really cross about something...

**Shadowsided** · 11 May 06,, 15:18

The SM2 is being replaced by the SM 6 though and it's range is classified(uses active seekers).

**PubFather** · 11 May 06,, 16:42

Originally Posted by urmomma158

The SM2 is being replaced by the SM 6 though and it's range is classified(uses active seekers).

Good to hear it...

**Simullacrum** · 02 Jun 06,, 11:16

Originally Posted by urmomma158

yes it does it has digital beamforming thanks for asking. It's an X band targeting radar (fire control). It's already being developed. It's already been tested and shipped to the anvy 3 years ago.

Thought you were wrong with your answer in regards to my question... if its was in main stream production with the US navy.
Last I heard, was that it was built and was on Trials yet to be implemented on ships.
The AN SPY-3 Multifunction Radar has just only been tested as is not yet active in the US navy.!

Here you go:-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tewksbury MA (SPX) May 30, 200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Navy's first shipboard active phased array multifunction radar, Raytheon's AN/SPY-3, has successfully participated in a series of at-sea tests to confirm its unique capabilities -- including the first time the radar has acquired and tracked a live controlled aircraft while at sea.

"The multifunction SPY-3 is unprecedented in the field of naval radar technology," said Mike Hoeffler, Raytheon vice president, Future Naval Capabilities. "Here we have one exceedingly robust X-band system that can effectively meet the Navy's requirements for the 21st century fleet by simultaneously sustaining anti-air warfare, anti-surface warfare, anti-submarine warfare, land attack, naval gun fire support and navigation missions.

"Moreover, SPY-3 embraces new ship-design requirements for reduced radar cross-section, significantly reduced maintenance and manning requirements, and total-ownership cost reduction. No other naval radar delivers such an astounding array of capabilities and benefits in a single package."

Raytheon will integrate the SPY-3 radar with S-band volume search radar arrays to comprise a unique dual band radar system that will be employed on the Navy's new Zumwalt-class (DDG-1000) multi-mission destroyers and the transformational CVN-21 aircraft carrier.

Under the DDG-1000 detail design and integration contract awarded by the U.S. Navy in May 2005, Raytheon Integrated Defense Systems continues its role as the prime mission systems equipment integrator for all electronic and combat systems.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know the yanks and limies have been working on and sharing information on phassaed array radars for years now.....
Rehtoric aside, 'my c*o*c*k is bigger the yours'.......Would be intrigued, to see how the US SPY-3 and UK Sampson stack up versus each other.

Any views..??

**merlin2** · 20 Mar 12,, 13:42

Originally Posted by Simullacrum

lol.......not all your systems are wholy built by the USA...there is a lot of input from the UK into most of your projects......from weapon defnece system, Radar, Hud displays example Raptor HUD is built by BAe systems, misiles.....Arty guns..... list goes on.!!! Now even your Bradlys and some subduries of lockhead martin are under BAE systems..!! :P

Not only BAE systems...but also QinetiQ also has its fingers diped into American pies..!!

lol..What an inferiority complex..You Brits wouldnt even be able transport your troops from one place to the other without US made C-130's, Boeing Globemasters. Your entire nuclear submarine technology comes from the US. Apache helicopters for the Army , AWACS for early warning, Tomahawks cruise missiles, Trident 2 SLBM, Predetors,Reapars for battlefield informations ..The list is soo long its not worth wasting one's time..In short, Britain would be defenceless without US weapons.You guys buy US defence technology 10 times more than you sell there.

**bigross86** · 20 Mar 12,, 13:47

Damn, dude! Necro much?!

**USSWisconsin** · 20 Mar 12,, 14:13

6 years dead - very decayed... The kittens and the zombie chicks have come - and a hide is being eyed for poncho duty

**Ytlas** · 20 Mar 12,, 15:44

I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

**USSWisconsin** · 20 Mar 12,, 16:25

Originally Posted by Ytlas

I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

We would probably value the information you would add, this necro was just a swat at the Brits (for example: BAE is all over the place in US defense systems) - nothing much added, and not much of a new asshole ripped either - its more of a traditional poke than a reaming. BTW, I got my first necro lesson from doing just that - posting on the naval books thread that had been inactive for some time.

**TopHatter** · 20 Mar 12,, 16:57

Originally Posted by Ytlas

I never understood why people got all "Necro" when on old thread was opened. How much do warships really change in six years?

If I were to dig up "Favorite Naval Books" would you guy rip me a "New One?"

It's not that warships change. It's the extreme age of the thread and as USS Wisky mentioned, nothing much added to the subject.