Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: thewood1

I am not saying its right or wrong, but there are online sources stating 175nm also. You don't know. You think you know.

I know, unless the guy who told it to me had tried to impress me... and I doubt it: I´m not a girl... not even a particularly good looking man [:D]

Sources that talk about the 175 nm range date back from the late 80s, when the SPY-1B was brand new and SPY-1D wasn´t even operational. I guess that the 175 nm could be either a downgraded figure (as it happens with lots of military hardware) or the actual range of the SPY-1A (SPY-1B reportedly had more power and improved performance with respect to the previous version).

Note that all the sources that discuss the series of upgrades say nothing about increasing radar power, but on computing and signal processing. Do you have sources on increasing power of the radar itself.

From wiki so take it for what it is...

SPY-1A upgrade is a development of SPY-1, resulting from the deployment of SPY-1 equipped USS Ticonderoga off the Lebanese coast. It was discovered that the false alarm rate was high because the radar would pick up swarms of insects and clutter from mountainous terrain. The solution is to allow the operator to change the sensitivity profile of radar by periodically reducing attenuation, and to set threat and non threat sectors according to changing environment.[5] The result is more efficient utilization of resources. About 10% of the software totaling thirty thousand lines had to be rewritten to accommodate the necessary upgrade.[5] In 2003, the U.S. Navy donated a SPY-1A antenna to the National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma, making it one of the first stationary Phased Arrays used in weather forecasting.

SPY-1B is the model adopts VLSI resulting in increased performance and reduced size and weight. For example, the electronic cabinets area reduced from 11 to 5, with corresponding weight reduced from 14700 lb to 10800 lb, and separate digital modules are reduced from 3806 to 1606.[5] 7-bit phase shifter replaced the 4-bit phase shifter in earlier models, with corresponding weight of phase shifters in face of the antenna reduced from 12000 lb to 7900 lb, and a reduction of side lobe by 15 dB.[5] There are 4350 radiators with two side lobe cancellation antenna, each with two elements, and the radar uses eleven 16-bit microprocessors.[5] Ability to counter steep diving missiles are improved with more energy at higher elevation or longer pulse.[5]

SPY-1B(V) is development of earlier SPY-1B with moving target indication capability incorporated in 1997.[5]

SPY-1D was first installed on Arleigh Burke in 1991, with all antenna in a single deckhouse. It is a variant of the -1B to fit the Arleigh Burke class using UYK-43 computer, with the main antenna also used as missile uplinks, thus eliminate the need of separate missile uplink in earlier models, and the UYA-4 display in earlier models is replaced by UKQ-21 display.[5]

SPY-1D(V), the Littoral Warfare Radar, was an upgrade introduced in 1998 with new track initiation processor for high clutter near-coast operations, where the earlier "blue water" systems were especially weak. The wave form is coded and signal processing is improved.[5]

end quote

The B upgrade mentions energy, but is vague about the amount, but also very specific to certain types of missiles. Note the the same article is very specific that the range spec of 175nm is for A/B/D.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Note that all the sources that discuss the series of upgrades say nothing about increasing radar power, but on computing and signal processing. Do you have sources on increasing power of the radar itself.

From a previous post in this thread (by OldSarge): https://mostlymissiledefense.com/2012/0 ... st-3-2012/

The SPY-1B also has about twice the average power of the 1A version and other improvements. The power increase was achieved by increasing the radar’s duty factor (the percentage of the time the radar is emitting) without changing its peak power.

What is more important in terms of range? Average power or peak power?

About the Wikipedia article: it quotes the 2006 edition of The Naval Institute Guide to Naval Weapons Systems... that gives the same info than the 1989 edition that I have on my hardrive: "SPY-1 reportedly scans a hemisphere of 175-nm radius while using a single beam to search the horizon out to 45 nm for sea-skimmers".

OK, so my point again is...nothing definitive. We can match sources all day.

Just posted in the db3000 thread...

https://ko.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPY-1

Not the comments about the SPY-1F stating range of 200nm. It is noted as an exception to the normal range of the SPY-1 of 175nm.

Of course in the same article...

USA - AN / SPY-1 450Km ~ 1,000Km Concurrent Tracking Target 1,000

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Of course in the same article...

USA - AN / SPY-1 450Km ~ 1,000Km Concurrent Tracking Target 1,000

That´s what I said from starters: 450 km. against air targets (in fact 475 km./256 nm [;)]) and more against the ballistic ones (but I cannot say how much more with the same confidence, because I was told only about the range of a SPY-1D without the BMD upgrade).

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a 100% reliable source, so I´m still at the same level regarding credibility.

To be fair, as I said days ago, I totally understand your reluctance to accept the word of a guy who comes up on an Internet forum and says: "Hey! I know a guy who told me..." [:D]

Again, my point is that the wiki article says 450 to 1000 km at the same time it says 175 nm. Please don't denigrate wiki when you put flash cards and a program's table range as sources. Wki has issues, but is a better source than those.

You seem to be missing the point that there are just as many sources stating that the range is 175nm as not.

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, my point is that the wiki article says 450 to 1000 km at the same time it says 175 nm. Please don't denigrate wiki when you put flash cards and a program's table range as sources. Wki has issues, but is a better source than those.

As I said before, the several sources that gives the 175 nm range all are quoting a source that dates back from the late 80s. I´ve provided a source that explains that the SPY-1B has twice the average power and other improvements which at least could suggest the possibility of an increased range, and I´ve put several apparently reliable and more modern sources with the 250+ nm figure.

Furthermore, I´ve clearly stated the low reliability of some of the other sources when I put them (specifically the flash cards, that otherwise provide very detailed information about the engagement process, among other things...) and I give up with the PDF with the formulas because your objections where well fundamented. Wikipedia is also a none 100% reliable source (even if it is giving me the reason). I could have edited all the articles with the 256 nm figure, what would have meant that? That I´m right? Certainly not.

I´m not in a personal crusade to have the DB changed, and I will not continue the discussion. I will not say who told me about the 256 nm in the thread, but if you empty your inbox I will tell you via mp, if you want it.