Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Surface Forces Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Sampson or AN/SPY1
usajoe1    5/23/2009 5:10:37 AM
I think the the only real advantage for the AN/SPY1 on the Arleigh Burke DDG is that it has four fixed arays,that give it a continues coverage over the rotating arays of the T-45's Sampson radar. Which system do you guys think its better and which of these destroyers is a better Air Defense ship.
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT
benellim4       5/26/2009 7:04:42 PM
The T45 does have its advantages, mainly that its radar is very high giving it a better height of eye against incoming sea-skimming missiles. It's not really debatable, it's just science.
That said, when you compare the radars which version are you comparing. The SPY-1A is not the SPY-1B/D is not the SPY-1D(V). The D(V) is a very interesting radar. Yes SPY-1 is a PESA vice Sampson's AESA, but I'd put money on the SPY-1D(V) if for no other reason than it has build on 4 decades of experience. 
Now which is the better ship? IMO, DDG-51 beyond a shadow of a doubt. The T45 is reliant upon the Aster missile which hasn't been tested against supersonic threats, AFAIK. The DDG-51 uses the tried and true Standard Missile family. The DDG-51 carries more missiles, can use the ESSM and has Mk15. The T45 has Aster 30 and 15. It can carry the Mk15, but doesn't. DDG-51 can defend against ballistic missile threats; the T45 cannot.
If I'm going into battle, I'm taking the DDG-51-class. Then again, I am a bit biased towards it.
Quote    Reply

John G       5/28/2009 6:29:53 AM
Radar to radar in my opinion AN/SPY1 is better because its got 4 seperate arrays and full contious coverage. Sampson is higher than AN/SPY1 and therefore has an increased horizon but the lower amount of arrays is a cost cutting measure as the machinary to spin the the whole thing surely cannot be much less than the weight of another 1 (or 2) array needed for full coverage. However comparing the actual platform I'm not so sure the DDG-51's are not equipped with a secondary air search radar (as far as a I was aware) unlike the T 45 which has the Alenia Marconi Systems/Signaal S 1850M long-range 3D radar how much this impacts performance I dont know...
Quote    Reply

prometheus       5/28/2009 9:03:40 AM
One thing I would point out with regards to SAMPSON is that the publically released information states that the rotation is something like 30 revs per minute - such that no piece of sky is left for more than one second on average - albeit this can be shorter or longer depending on the electronic sweep of the AESA radar beam.
So I would contend that in that respect, the disadvantage of rotating two arrays is minimised if not totally negated.
Of course what we are discussing is merely the front end of a large integrated system.
Quote    Reply

perfectgeneral2       7/19/2009 8:19:53 PM
The Sampson arrays can be static if you use five sides of a cube. If it needed to be better, it could be. Either the requirement, the money or both aren't there to make that happen. Either there is some overspend going on (not something to be proud of) or the Spy and Sampson systems are about the same.
Quote    Reply

duplex       2/2/2010 2:50:17 AM
As for the superiority of the radar systems is hard to determine without  classified data. SPY-1D and SPQ-9B integrated radar system that is an equal and more probably superior to the Sampson / S1850M combination

In that the T 45 has rotating radars  rather than full sky phased arrays it makes sense that there will be a disadvantage against a fast sea skimmer.  Even a  1 second duration between scans can be the time needed to engage or not to engage a inbound sea skimmers.  The US  choice the phased arrays specifically because analysis showed that missiles can slip in between rotations. The enormously complicated programming of the Aegis system continues to be refined and the SPY radars continue to be improved. Once again the Royal Navy may find an unknown glitch in their system integration will result in a lost unit when the system will have to perform in a real life situation.

Quote    Reply

JFKY    To quote Herald   2/2/2010 1:10:00 PM
ASTER is a piece of junk, that doesn't work very this true, I don't know but IF it is...the Burkes are the better vessel, no matter what radar you compare.  And the ASTER has NOT been tested against sea-skimming super-sonics, but Standard has been, and I think ESSM.
Over-all I'd go the Burkes over the T-45's, as air defense vessels, and this ignores, as someone as said, system integration.  AEGIS has been around a while and the Brit's don't have a strong track record of radar, missile, command/control integration (sorry guys and I'm an Anglophile), but the RN has had problems making their missile systems work, certainly they did in the again history and the fact that AEGIS has been in existence longer tends me to support AEGIS, as a system, over the T-45 system, no matter what the technical characteristics of the Sampson...
Remember it's a SYSTEM it's not better or faster than its weakest link or the smallest bottleneck.....
Quote    Reply

duplex       2/3/2010 2:01:07 AM
Numerous other allied countries have evaluated and chose to use  the  US naval system  AN/SPY1  for the reasons that I have mentioned.  Sampson may  have been the worlds most advance rotating radar but it  has a serious deficiency which cant be omitted from connsideration.. The Burke is a considerably bigger ship with well placed steel and Kevlar armor. The location and extent of the protection of the Burke class has continued to be perfected on this large class of ships. It is doubtful the Daring is anywhere near as robust as the Burke.

HMS Daring would not have survived the terrorist attack in Yemen that severly crippled the USS Cole. 

As an anti-submarine warfare platform the Burke is supreme. It product improved Lamps III Helicopter, ASROC, MK-32 torpedo launchers keyed by is integrated sonar and sensor suite makes it a highly affective submarine hunter.

The Burke is a extraordinary ship that computer integrates to fleets sensors and flights as a computer locked integrated unit. In all areas from cost to system performance the Burke is levels superior to the Daring class.
HMS Daring is a single mission destroyer,optimized for Air Defence .. Arleigh Burke is a multi-mission destroyer.
The Type 45 is indeed one of the best AAW in the world but BURKE is still the best multi role destroyer in the world the missile magazine of the Burke can hold many more missiles of a greater variety than the Daring. You can do things with Burke you cant do with Daring .Burke reigns supreme with 65+ vessels
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Daring versus Arleigh.   2/3/2010 4:31:53 AM
Its an apples and oranges argument. The ships are similar as to intent, fleet area air defense, wiith a secondary antisubmarine role.
The US does have an air search component BUILT into the SPY-1. That is its primary function.  for the STANDARDS and the ESSMs it will switch to track, and time share track updates to the flocks in flight. The SAMPSON rotater will be out of FoV for the missiles it controls for about 3/4 seconds. This is entirely acceptable until you are down to the last thirty seconds of inbound flight, and if you use something like Goalkeeper or SEARAM to cover that interval.
Thirty seconds at Mach 2? 19,800  meters (horizon). Now half of that interval you have no updates. The last ten seconds which are life and death if you face a four missile swarm? Odds are that two will make it to the ten seconds interval. You will be hit since ASTER cannot stop a KLUB that close.   
The problem is the crappy PAAMS missile.
ESSM is just so superior to that piece of hideous junk....slap an AMRAAM seeker on it and let it work its miracle as a last ditch missile.
The Daring is competitive everywhere else with superior ASW gear, and as fine a countermeasures defense as any Burke.
One more thing....who said the British were defective in radar tech? The RN  shortfall has always been the 1970s  procurement gap and their hideously defective early [and current ASTER] missiles. Some of their early missiles (Sea Slug) were simply AWFUL. The surface ship radars and optical trackers such as they had, until they went ASW happy in the 1970s were much better than the USN kit comtemporary with them. It wasn't until the Falklands that the "lost decade" caught up with them.
Once again, when the British had a missile that matched their radars (Sea Dart, a TALOS style missile and a GOOD one) their radar/missile integration proved just excellent. USS Missouri is lucky that it did, or we would have seen a naval tragedy in the First Iraq War. Well done, HMS Gloucester.
Quote    Reply

JFKY    I said Systems Integration has been a British Problem...   2/3/2010 2:11:17 PM
ADAWS and the like, plus some radar problems plagued the British fleet in 1982.  The SYSTEM of Command and Control, to be distinguished from the missile or radar were problematic.  Yeah that was 28 years ago, but one missile catch in 1991, doesn't make up for some sustained, revealed problems...
I'm an Anglophile, I like the RN, but it has had more than it's fair share of ill-thought out computer and man-machine interfaces, summed up by this joke:
-"Why do the English like warm beer?"
-"Lucas refrigerators."
Mayhap the RN has moved past problems with things like ADAWS, and the Nimrod procurement disaster....I don't know, but the fact that the AEGIS has been around now 28 years, just says more bugs have been worked out of the system than have been worked out in the Daring Class...
I see, Hamilcar, believes ASTER/PAAMS is a disaster, too.  IF that's true, who cares about the Sampson radar, sure the Daring may see it coming, but if you don't have an effective SAM, all you have is a nerve-wracking last 30 seconds of your life to show for it.
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       2/5/2010 5:39:17 AM
Well, the AB's have their arrays much lower to the waterline than the Sampson as the five arrays are pretty heavy and using two in a rotating scanner allows the radar on the 45's to be mounted much higher, giving it a deeper look over the horizon. I *think* it was a technical decision. The Horizon Frigates I believe use a single array, wheras the Sampson mounted on the 45's are a pair, back to back.

As to the Aster reliability, we don't have enough trials to say either way. The seeker is active and will take mid course updates from Sampson which should mean technically it can do the job. 

There have been multiple firings by several countries to date which have been successful and two fails from the ship that I know of, which could be anywhere in the firing chain. So, for me, the jury is out on Aster - technically it looks to have some interesting features and may be a very good missile but it's relatively new in service and I'd like to see more qualification firings and particularly firings against super sonic targets. It's worth stressing that the two fails haven't been explained - we don't know anything about them as to whether the missile failed to pick up where the radar left off or if the radar didn't track or what. Best hold off speculation til then.


The Sampson arrays can be static if you use five sides of a cube. If it needed to be better, it could be. Either the requirement, the money or both aren't there to make that happen. Either there is some overspend going on (not something to be proud of) or the Spy and Sampson systems are about the same.

Quote    Reply
1 2 3 4 5 6   NEXT