Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Aegis Combat System

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Aegis Combat System Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Aegis Combat System - 2/28/2018 11:18:36 PM   
DWReese

 

Posts: 1824
Joined: 3/21/2014
From: Miami, Florida
Status: offline
Just for info, I've played around quite a bit using the S-300s. That system is a medium/long range shooter. The default is set to maximum distance. If the system shoots at long range, the target a/c often dive down,breaking the missile lock, and the gargoyle is wasted.

So, I decided to try a different tactic and not fire until the incoming strikers were about at the halfway point of the S-300's range. Success. There was no place to dive to, and many of the strikers were knocked out of the sky. The S-300 still managed to fire off all of its missiles, and the kill-rate went way up.

The bottom line, at least as far as I am concerned, is that it isn't always BEST to shoot at the longest distance (or down the street). Sometimes it's better to shoot them as they entered your yard, and then again as the rest try to get into your door. I really think that systems like the SA-15 and SA-22 (short-ranged, but deadly accurate) kind of work in tandem with the S-300.

So, by waiting the missile kill rate goes up, and the waste goes down.

JMO.....Doug

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 31
RE: Aegis Combat System - 2/28/2018 11:51:45 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Did you post in the right thread. That looks like it was for the WRA thread.

(in reply to DWReese)
Post #: 32
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/1/2018 1:31:57 AM   
mavfin

 

Posts: 274
Joined: 6/22/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ExMachina

quote:

ORIGINAL: mavfin
256 is not a number you're going to find for range, except by complete accident


Or because it is a conversion from a metric spec...

For whatever reason, 475km comes up more than once.


475 is not a power of 2, either. I'd figure that for a range. You're missing the point on this one, imo. If it was 512, I'd wonder about that, too, or 768, etc.

(in reply to ExMachina)
Post #: 33
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/1/2018 1:56:08 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I was discussing the 256 in the programming guide. It was 256 because it was a table 16 x 16.

Again, your link is to the wrong radar also.

(in reply to mavfin)
Post #: 34
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/1/2018 8:10:58 AM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

Depends on the class and production batch.


You´re right, the Tico would detect the 747... but not with her SPY-1 radar, that´s my point. And I´m talking specifically about ships equipped only with the SPY-1 (as the Burkes, for example).

On the other hand... I have to recognize that thewood1 is probably right with his questioning of the "256" that appears on the PDF, and I was wrong: it could easily be a coincidence (moreover, is a 1983 doc... so it is probably talking about the SPY-1A, the one that possibly has the 175 nm range). Notwithstanding this, the other online source that I linked states clearly a 475 km range for a SPY-1D on a Spanish F-100-class frigate (without a SPS-49, like the Burkes).

PS: I´ve send you a pm... or so I think, since it doesn´t appear in my "sent" folder

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/1/2018 8:50:12 AM >

(in reply to Dimitris)
Post #: 35
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 9:15:06 AM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
Another source that quotes a range of "250+ nm": https://www.forecastinternational.com/archive/disp_old_pdf.cfm?ARC_ID=1812

The AEGIS system can track over a hundred targets simultaneously (ranging from surface to subsurface to airborne) at ranges of over 250 nautical miles. This range limit is specifically set, with the radar receiver unable to accept returns from outside this range limitation since the radar is only able to generate a set number of beams or dwells per second. The AEGIS computer assigns high rates of dwell coverage to new targets until tracks are established. There is immediate digitization of any signal sent out and returned so it can be identified.

I was told the same thing by a guy who actually works with the system: that the range could be even greater, but that it was limited by software at 256 nm (and to 100,000 ft in altitude, if I recall well).

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/2/2018 10:33:42 AM >

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 36
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 11:58:04 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Again, that is Aegis, not just SPY-1. There are multiple radars on most of the platforms at that time. The 48 does have the longer range as a more traditional mechanical scan radar.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 37
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 1:31:53 PM   
ExNusquam

 

Posts: 513
Joined: 3/4/2014
From: Washington, D.C.
Status: offline
WRT to SPY-1 detection, it also depends on what search mode the radar is using. If the radar is using a simple velocity (Doppler) search (which is great for BMD), you'll get much greater detection ranges than modes optimized for detection of air threats.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 38
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 3:25:33 PM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1

Again, that is Aegis, not just SPY-1. There are multiple radars on most of the platforms at that time. The 48 does have the longer range as a more traditional mechanical scan radar.


The article talks specifically about SPY-1 (read the Technical Data section)... and don´t forget that I know for sure that the range is 256 nm.

I´d being only looking for online sources to support my claim, but in the end I´m not really worried about this. I´ve been playing CMANO for more than 2 years knowing that the SPY-1´s detection range is wrong, and I will continue to play entirely happy even if it shrinks 10 nm more

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/2/2018 3:27:02 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 39
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 3:33:58 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
I am not saying its right or wrong, but there are online sources stating 175nm also. You don't know. You think you know.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 40
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 3:46:21 PM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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

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).

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/2/2018 3:49:34 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 41
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 3:56:44 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.



< Message edited by thewood1 -- 3/2/2018 3:58:41 PM >

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 42
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 4:09:26 PM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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/2012/08/03/ballistic-missile-defense-the-aegis-spy-1-radar-august-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".


< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/2/2018 4:20:04 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 43
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 7:19:48 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
OK, so my point again is...nothing definitive. We can match sources all day.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 44
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 8:19:03 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 45
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/2/2018 8:22:45 PM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
Of course in the same article...

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

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 46
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/3/2018 8:55:19 AM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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..."

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/3/2018 8:57:27 AM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 47
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/3/2018 10:57:37 AM   
thewood1

 

Posts: 6529
Joined: 11/27/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to sergiopl)
Post #: 48
RE: Aegis Combat System - 3/3/2018 4:47:11 PM   
sergiopl

 

Posts: 39
Joined: 2/10/2016
Status: offline
quote:

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.

< Message edited by sergiopl -- 3/3/2018 4:49:34 PM >

(in reply to thewood1)
Post #: 49
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> RE: Aegis Combat System Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.063