Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 28 of 28

Thread: USN CG(X) Guided Missile Cruiser (Ticonderoga-class Replacement)

  1. #16
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    The dual radar setup was eliminated due to cost. I believe the FORD has something like this, but it's considered a one-off and the follow-on carriers will not have this radar.
    It's my impression that:

    -The Ford has both SPY-3 (s-band) and SPY-4 (x-band) radars.
    -I had not heard that follow on Ford-class may not get both radars.
    -The SPY-3 was eliminated from the Zumwalt-class, leaving just the SPY-4 installed.
    -Flight III Arleigh Burke-class ships will have SPY-6 installed, which is the AMDR (air/missile defense radar) which is essentially SPY-3/4 combined into a single system, although the s-band and x-band retain separate radar panels.

    The Type 346 radar installed on the Type 055-class would be analogous to the SPY-6.

  2. #17
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    It's my impression that:

    -The Ford has both SPY-3 (s-band) and SPY-4 (x-band) radars.
    -I had not heard that follow on Ford-class may not get both radars.
    -The SPY-3 was eliminated from the Zumwalt-class, leaving just the SPY-4 installed.
    -Flight III Arleigh Burke-class ships will have SPY-6 installed, which is the AMDR (air/missile defense radar) which is essentially SPY-3/4 combined into a single system, although the s-band and x-band retain separate radar panels.

    The Type 346 radar installed on the Type 055-class would be analogous to the SPY-6.
    Very nice summary, thank you!

  3. #18
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,795
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    It's my impression that:

    -The Ford has both SPY-3 (s-band) and SPY-4 (x-band) radars.
    -I had not heard that follow on Ford-class may not get both radars.
    -The SPY-3 was eliminated from the Zumwalt-class, leaving just the SPY-4 installed.
    -Flight III Arleigh Burke-class ships will have SPY-6 installed, which is the AMDR (air/missile defense radar) which is essentially SPY-3/4 combined into a single system, although the s-band and x-band retain separate radar panels.

    The Type 346 radar installed on the Type 055-class would be analogous to the SPY-6.
    Can you explain to me in very simple terms what s-band and x-band are used for? Why use one over the other? Why not always have both?
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

  4. #19
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Can you explain to me in very simple terms what s-band and x-band are used for? Why use one over the other? Why not always have both?
    As best I can.

    My previous post mixed up SPY-3 and SPY-4, should be:

    -The Ford has both SPY-3 (x-band) and SPY-4 (s-band) radars.
    -I was not aware follow-on Ford-class carriers may not get both radars.
    -The SPY-4 was eliminated from the Zumwalt-class, leaving just the SPY-3 installed.
    -Flight III Arleigh Burke-class ships will have SPY-6 installed, which is the AMDR (air/missile defense radar) which is essentially SPY-3/4 combined into a single system, although the s-band and x-band retain separate radar panels.

    The Type 346 radar installed on the Type 055-class would be analogous to the SPY-6.

    The SPY-4 s-band radar is used for high volume search of the airspace and tracking of targets, the SPY-1 on the existing Ticonderoga-class and Arleigh Burke-class ships are also s-band.

    The SPY-3 x-band radar is shorter range but more precise, it has better horizon detection capability as well as missile illumination capability (potentially replacing the AN/SPG-62 fire control radar).

    From wiki on the SPY-6:

    The AMDR system consists of two primary radars and a radar suite controller (RSC) to coordinate the sensors. An S-band radar is to provide volume search, tracking, ballistic missile defense discrimination and missile communications while the X-band radar is to provide horizon search, precision tracking, missile communication and terminal illumination of targets. The S-band and X-band sensors will also share functionality including radar navigation, periscope detection, as well as missile guidance and communication. AMDR is intended as a scalable system; the Burke deckhouse can only accommodate a 14-foot version but the USN claim they need a radar of 20 foot or more to meet future ballistic missile threats. This would require a new ship design. To cut costs the first twelve AMDR sets will have an X-band component based on the existing SPQ-9B rotating radar, to be replaced by a new X-band radar in set 13 that will be more capable against future threats.

    Although it was not an initial requirement, the AMDR may be capable of performing electronic attacks using its AESA antenna.

    The radar is 30 times more sensitive and can simultaneously handle over 30 times the targets of the existing AN/SPY-1D(V) in order to counter large and complex raids.
    The Flight III Arleigh Burke-class may eventually have four enlarged s-band arrays and three smaller x-band arrays.


  5. #20
    Contributor
    Join Date
    14 Apr 09
    Posts
    725
    I would have liked to have read Mike's (desertswo) thoughts on the subject of a new cruiser. His post quoted below regarding propulsion (not Zumwalt hull form) is very interesting.

    Quote Originally Posted by desertswo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 85 gt kid View Post
    Hey desert this isn't a BB question but it fits, in your opinion what is a better alternative to steam plants now? Obviously GTs are great but I seem to recall a certain convo we had before and you weren't very impressed today's "engineers" on GTs :D. Just curious, if only they could make a big naval version of a new LT1!
    Let's hold off on the answer until Zumwalt is "under way, making way" for the first time. I believe in my heart that variations of her all electric propulsion and electrical power distribution plant fed by some combination of LM2500, MT30 and/or diesel generation, driving either jet pumps a la the LCS or AZIPODs like HMS Queen Elizabeth is the wave of the future, but until I see "Agent Orange" on the move I'll withhold comment.

    I will say this though; give me USS Gerald R. Ford's reactors, steam generators, SSTGs, and electrical distribution system, coupled with either LCS jet pumps or QE's, AZIPODs and you'll catch me with a raging engineering hard on!


    I was very upset when GRF's designers didn't take that leap of faith and give her electric drive like QE. No balls, no blue chips. :(
    .
    .
    .

  6. #21
    Regular
    Join Date
    11 Jun 09
    Posts
    49
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    It's my impression that:

    -The Ford has both SPY-3 (s-band) and SPY-4 (x-band) radars.
    -I had not heard that follow on Ford-class may not get both radars.
    Follow on Fords are getting the EASR (Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar) which is made of the same modules as the AMDR, just in a smaller array. Cost savings is one consideration, the other is not wanting to operate an unique radar installation on the Ford. EASR is planned amphibs and the FFG(X), so it should be very common. The first iterations won't be dual band and will use a SPQ-9B to make up for that.

    https://www.defensenews.com/naval/20...s-the-picture/

  7. #22
    Regular
    Join Date
    07 Jan 18
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by JRT View Post
    I would have liked to have read Mike's (desertswo) thoughts on the subject of a new cruiser. His post quoted below regarding propulsion (not Zumwalt hull form) is very interesting.
    Don't think Zumwalt has been to sea much (once?) since she "steamed" into San Diego. It appears like lots of work going on.

  8. #23
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by gunnut View Post
    Can you explain to me in very simple terms what s-band and x-band are used for? Why use one over the other? Why not always have both?
    S-band has a longer wavelength (2-4 GHz), good for detection at longer ranges. X-band has a shorter wavelength (7-11.2 GHz), bettor for discrimanting targets, but it's range is not as long. Atmospheric conditions (rain, heavy clouds, etc) can can reduce its range. S-band cuts through this better. So both have advantages and disadvantages.

    An example would be like HF vs UHF radios. HF is good for long range comms. UHF is better for short range line of sight comms.

    Bringing up x-band fire control radar is considered an unfriendly (not necessarily hostile) act. S-band search radar is just normal business. While the s-band radar probably could be used to cue missiles, it would have to focus on this and thus lose sight of the bigger picture. Like closing your non-dominant eye when aiming in a pistol. Good to aim, but you can't see what else is going on around you.

  9. #24
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by FlankDestroyer View Post
    Don't think Zumwalt has been to sea much (once?) since she "steamed" into San Diego. It appears like lots of work going on.
    It looks like she has been out at least once this year, I remember seeing her at sea while I was driving some point in the last year. She has been in and out of the shipyard a couple of times.

    It looks like the Michael Mansour passed her initial mechanical insurv inspection. Always good news.

  10. #25
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    S-band has a longer wavelength (2-4 GHz), good for detection at longer ranges. X-band has a shorter wavelength (7-11.2 GHz), bettor for discrimanting targets, but it's range is not as long. Atmospheric conditions (rain, heavy clouds, etc) can can reduce its range. S-band cuts through this better. So both have advantages and disadvantages.

    An example would be like HF vs UHF radios. HF is good for long range comms. UHF is better for short range line of sight comms.

    Bringing up x-band fire control radar is considered an unfriendly (not necessarily hostile) act. S-band search radar is just normal business. While the s-band radar probably could be used to cue missiles, it would have to focus on this and thus lose sight of the bigger picture. Like closing your non-dominant eye when aiming in a pistol. Good to aim, but you can't see what else is going on around you.
    So what I always wonder, if you have SPY-6 installed (dual-band AMDR), do you still need individual radar sets installed such as long-range surface search, regular surface search, periscope detection surface search, navigation surface search, gun fire control, and missile fire control? Can SPY-6 replace these completely? Can SPY-6 replace most of their capabilities but it's still better to retain them for secondary/specific purposes? Can these type of secondary radars be integrated with SPY-6 and AEGIS to form a more complete battle-space picture?

  11. #26
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    So what I always wonder, if you have SPY-6 installed (dual-band AMDR), do you still need individual radar sets installed such as long-range surface search, regular surface search, periscope detection surface search, navigation surface search, gun fire control, and missile fire control? Can SPY-6 replace these completely? Can SPY-6 replace most of their capabilities but it's still better to retain them for secondary/specific purposes? Can these type of secondary radars be integrated with SPY-6 and AEGIS to form a more complete battle-space picture?
    All good questions and hopefully someone can answer definitively. I believe the SPY-1 performs the long range surface search. It looks like the DDGs have some sort of small surface search radar and I've even seen them with (unauthorized) civilian grade surface search radars installed. But you cannot use the SPY-1 in enclosed waters - it's too powerful. Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel for SPY-1D (taken from UNCLASS message) is 300+ feet in high power mode and 200+ feet in low power mode. Now this is while doing certain maintenance procedures in port. HERP at sea is 500+ feet at high power. Fire control radar HERP is 1000++ feet.

    In addition, if you are using the Aegis radar for simple surface search, you're letting everyone know that a DDG-51 class is in the area. Using the standard USN small surface search just means that there is a USN ship in the area and not specifically what type. (Now I'm just talking out my butt here, so do not take any of this as gospel.)

    The newer Aegis suites that are being installed do a better job of fusing the many sensors available, but I wouldn't know what that includes.

  12. #27
    Senior Contributor JA Boomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    10 Jul 07
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta
    Posts
    1,014
    Quote Originally Posted by JCT View Post
    All good questions and hopefully someone can answer definitively. I believe the SPY-1 performs the long range surface search. It looks like the DDGs have some sort of small surface search radar and I've even seen them with (unauthorized) civilian grade surface search radars installed. But you cannot use the SPY-1 in enclosed waters - it's too powerful. Hazardous Electromagnetic Radiation to Personnel for SPY-1D (taken from UNCLASS message) is 300+ feet in high power mode and 200+ feet in low power mode. Now this is while doing certain maintenance procedures in port. HERP at sea is 500+ feet at high power. Fire control radar HERP is 1000++ feet.

    In addition, if you are using the Aegis radar for simple surface search, you're letting everyone know that a DDG-51 class is in the area. Using the standard USN small surface search just means that there is a USN ship in the area and not specifically what type. (Now I'm just talking out my butt here, so do not take any of this as gospel.)

    The newer Aegis suites that are being installed do a better job of fusing the many sensors available, but I wouldn't know what that includes.
    Very interesting! I was curious because the Type 052D destroyer has a multi-function active phased array radar, anti-stealth air search radar, surface search radar, long range surface search radar, CIWS fire control radar, and gun fire control radar yet the new Type 055 Destroyer has only the s and x-band phased arrays.

    Yes, I believe the Arleigh Burke-class has the AN/SPS-67(V)2 surface-search radar, the AN/SPS-73(V)12 navigation radar, and three AN/SPG-62 fire-control radars in addition to the SPY-1.

    I always wondered why the Ticongeroga-class had a AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar but the Alreigh Burke-class does not. Not knowing how the fire control system works on a Burke and whether it controls the gun with the AN/SPS-67 or the SPY-1, yet for some reason the SeaRAM launcher with the integrated radar was installed on the Burkes as opposed to the 21 missile launcher that cues from the ships' own sensors.

  13. #28
    Military Professional JCT's Avatar
    Join Date
    07 Apr 05
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    380
    Quote Originally Posted by JA Boomer View Post
    Very interesting! I was curious because the Type 052D destroyer has a multi-function active phased array radar, anti-stealth air search radar, surface search radar, long range surface search radar, CIWS fire control radar, and gun fire control radar yet the new Type 055 Destroyer has only the s and x-band phased arrays.

    Yes, I believe the Arleigh Burke-class has the AN/SPS-67(V)2 surface-search radar, the AN/SPS-73(V)12 navigation radar, and three AN/SPG-62 fire-control radars in addition to the SPY-1.

    I always wondered why the Ticongeroga-class had a AN/SPQ-9 gun fire control radar but the Alreigh Burke-class does not. Not knowing how the fire control system works on a Burke and whether it controls the gun with the AN/SPS-67 or the SPY-1, yet for some reason the SeaRAM launcher with the integrated radar was installed on the Burkes as opposed to the 21 missile launcher that cues from the ships' own sensors.
    Integration is hard, particularly when all the different components were developed by different companies, or even different divisions within the same company. Getting them all to talk to each other and properly pass data is very difficult. Have something off just a little and the whole thing doesn't work. Witness one of the Mars probes kamikazing into the planet when integrating portions of the lander designed in the US and the UK didn't take into account that they were using different measuring systems.

    They write integration specification, but they can be obtuse and difficult to interpret. A clear and well established standard is needed. You can do amazing things with Google Earth using georectified imagery and video, but it took their KMZ/KML standards to make it easy to integrate multiple systems.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. RAN's Collins class replacement
    By JRT in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 15 Sep 14,, 04:44
  2. Russian missile cruiser arrives in San Francisco
    By xinhui in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 08 Jul 10,, 05:06
  3. USA - Van Valkenburgh Class Cruiser
    By Hoss in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 23 Apr 09,, 04:40
  4. CG-47 Flight I Ticonderoga's
    By ND1980LS in forum Naval Warfare
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 29 Sep 06,, 07:09
  5. The new face of wire guided missile
    By shakari in forum Ground Warfare
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14 Sep 05,, 17:20

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •