Read the forum code of contact
By: - 5th May 2017 at 13:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Radar horizon affected by both target height and radar height, since targets of TPY-2 are ICBM , its line of sight against them could be thousands of km
There are some specific atmospheric condition such as ducting that can extend radar horizon of any radar greatly but in turn will reduce accuracy significantly
By: - 5th May 2017 at 13:55 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean ?
By: - 5th May 2017 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This is some basic stuff. Horizon is impacted by target altitude. If you are trying to see a target that is operating at an altitude of 300 km, your horizon will be considerably longer than if the target were at 15 km altitude for example. Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km. It will continue to grow with the increase in target altitude. The AN/TPY-2 is a BMD sensor and such is looking for targets very very high up.
By: - 5th May 2017 at 14:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I mean your calculation is wrong because you only consider one out of three variable
a- radar height
b- target altitude
c- atmosphere refractive index ( generally depending on humidity and temperature )
By: - 5th May 2017 at 14:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Will the AN/TPY-2 put it on a high mountain like Everst, it could become an OTH radar?
Higher altitude placement extends the Horizon for a given target altitude. It does not make a non OTH radar OTH capable.
This is some basic stuff. Horizon is impacted by target altitude. If you are trying to see a target that is operating at an altitude of 300 km, your horizon will be considerably longer than if the target were at 15 km altitude for example. Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km. It (Horizon) will continue to grow with the increase in target altitude.
The AN/TPY-2 is a BMD sensor and such is looking for low RCS targets (warheads) very very high up. In TBM it has an interceptor with an envelope that extends from (roughly) 50-150km (altitude) while in FBM it is tasked at providing Early Warning and discrimination data for Sea Based BMD and can therefore see further depending the mode and the task requirement.
By: - 5th May 2017 at 14:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Higher altitude placement extends the Horizon for a given target altitude. It does not make a non OTH radar OTH capable
True that, most OTH radar use skywave propagation, but their resolution is only good for early warning
By: - 5th May 2017 at 15:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
What do you mean ?
http://www.ringbell.co.uk/info/hdist.htm
For an ICBM at say 2,000km altitude, the distance to horizon is 5,432.5km.
Using the 300 km as a baseline target altitude, the radar Horizon (assuming that the radar is at sea level) extends to well over 2000 km.
Nearly - 1979.1km.:)
By: - 6th May 2017 at 05:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So when placing TPY-2 on mountain Everest, it will detect the ground targets in China at range 1000km ?
By: - 6th May 2017 at 05:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
TPY-2 is not a ground to ground radar and no one is going to put such a thing on Everest
By: - 6th May 2017 at 09:05 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
what about this picture ? It shows that TPY-2 is completely capable of scanning surface targets in China. South Korea has a lot of high mountains that can do it
By: - 6th May 2017 at 11:25 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The picture is inaccurate... simple. Tpy-2 is an extremely powerful x-band. X-band does not provide oth ability, hence why oth radars have arrays that are literally 100's of m across is size to support such low frequency with any sort of useful directivity.
Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news. The tpy handles both early warning and engagement for all aerial and space targets and at closer ranges has the raw power and gain to function as a directed energy weapon (52,000trm AESA with >16w peak output per module)
A lot of Sukhoi fankiddies cry like babies over my criticism of the the t-50's half baked effort at LO and state that attention to detail and low compromise in regards to stealth is just a gimic, but the TPY-2 is the reason I'm correct. With the ability to detect a 0.01msq target from over a thousand km away, the T-50's tennis ball frontal RCS would render it as detectable as a legacy fighter the moment it popped over the horizon against a deployed TPY (tpy can guide forward deployed patriot shots against aircraft, and in future whatever fills the slamram's role which should be even more concerning... think front line fighting vehicles with a few anti air missiles, launched and guided by the TPY-2 hundreds of km behind the front)
Will be interesting if the lbx gets developed. 2 TPY-2s stacked on top of each other on a truck mounted turntable.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 11:37 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You clearly read wrong. The TRM count is half of what you mentioned, and the TPY-2 looks at purely ballistic missile targets and does operates in two modes (FBM and TBM) but requires hardware changes to support those missions with a few hours required to re-configure it to support each distinct mission. It does not aid in air breathing target early warning, detection, tracking or neutralization. It is used purely as an BMD sensor either supporting a deployed THAAD battery or providing early warning and discrimination for the sea based BMD mission.
It is a however a highly capable sensor designed with high frequency modules providing maximum discrimination. The third generation GaAs TRIMMs present in the last iteration of the radar have now been replaced with GaN and the first GaN TPY-2 is currently in production and will be delivered in the fall. All subsequent TPY-2's including those for export, will from now include GaN TRIMMs.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 12:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah maybe the trm count was from an article I read years ago on lbx... but there is no technical reason whatsoever for a theatre early warning/engagement radar with its capability to be limited to missile altitude targets on the horizon vs immensely easier to detect aircraft.
With the US push for a distributed network of multispectral, multi role sensor nodes and launch platforms it would be horribly naive to think the TPY-2s software has not been developed over the past few years to allow it to interleaved between numerous new modes not mentioned on the publicly available Raytheon home page.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 12:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Yeah maybe the trm count was from an article I read years ago on lbx... but there is no technical reason whatsoever for a theatre early warning/engagement radar with its capability to be limited to missile altitude targets on the horizon vs immensely easier to detect aircraft.
Not Maybe, the TRIMM count on the TPY-2 is public knowledge and your figure misrepresents it by a factor of 2. Secondly, i was not speaking of technical reasons but actual real world performance where this sensor exclusively operates as a BMD system and had no requirements, nor did it test out other target sets during either its developmental or operational testing. Lets stay fact based and speak of real world deployed performance for the benefit of accuracy.
With the US push for a distributed network of multispectral, multi role sensor nodes and launch platforms it would be horribly naive to think the TPY-2s software has not been developed over the past few years to allow it to interleaved between numerous new modes not mentioned on the publicly available Raytheon home page.
Again, if you (I or anyone else) claims that it is an air-and missile defense sensor as opposed to purely an BMD sensor the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim to prove it. At the very least show that they went back and preformed developmental and operational testing on those modes, and present data and the financial/contract trail of new software modes being sought, being developed, being tested and being approved as an upgrade.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 12:44 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its a neat and quite compact radar array i must say.
Is this system modular(modular as in it can share battle picture with other systems if not provide any targeting data)?
The picture is inaccurate... simple. Tpy-2 is an extremely powerful x-band. X-band does not provide oth ability, hence why oth radars have arrays that are literally 100's of m across is size to support such low frequency with any sort of useful directivity.Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news. The tpy handles both early warning and engagement for all aerial and space targets and at closer ranges has the raw power and gain to function as a directed energy weapon (52,000trm AESA with >16w peak output per module)
Ouch.. crashed and burned again did we:rolleyes:
Why don't you just type in a search on its official site before posting nonsens..here, let me do it for you, it took me 5 sek:
http://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/antpy2/
And why would you need to put gimbals on that radar? It should have a sufficient coverage sector as it is. You just hook up another unit one if you require more coverage.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 12:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Its a neat and quite compact radar array i must say.
Is this system modular for Patriot systems etc?
Modular in the opposite direction, as in Raytheon had a stacked TPY-2 proposal with between 2-2.5 the TRIMM volume as an LRDR alternative at one point. The Patriot radar Analysis of Alternative eliminated an X-band radar option for now as unaffordable given US Army budgets and for now they are sticking at the C-Band GaN upgrade but things could change in the next budget. Certainly Lockheed wants an open competition with a clean sheet radar being allowed but it remains to be seen whether the US Army wants to go down that road.
The X Band companion to the AMDR is going to be a modular sensor so if an X-band GaN IAMD lower tier sensor is eventually pursued by the US Army it will probably borrow technology from it much the same way EASR borrows its MRAs from the AMDR. RFI was also issued for an X-Band GaN AESA upgrade to the AN/MPQ-64 and Raytheon will likely be the sole source here since it now has a fairly substantial X-band GaN component facility supporting the TPY-2 program (1 25,000 TRIMM radar a year production). These two are likely to contribute more towards an X-Band Patriot sensor (potential) since these are IAMD sensors and are newer programs of record.
Both Raytheon and Lockheed are working on prototype GaN X-Band radars for yet to be disclosed applications. My guess is that Lockheed is working on its proposal for the X-AMDR, while Raytheon is prototyping the Sentinel A4 since export pressure probably warrants earlier development than US Army upgrade cycle, much the same way they are forced to stay ahead of US Army timelines on Patriot AESA given export requirements and competitiveness. Raytheon's last remaining foothold on the Patriot program remains the radar..Lockheed has sort of taken over the interceptors, while Northrop Grumman has taken over the Command and Control..so I don't expect Lockheed to successfully mount a challenge here. IBCS is the critical piece in patriot relative to the primary sensor..It is my opinion that multiple GaN AESA bumped Sentinels are far more important in the long term capability than a new lower tier sensor given the diverse threat..Between an AESA AN/MPQ-65 upgrade and the THAAD (through a future dual C/X band missile data link) TPY-2 there is enough growth opportunity. What they need is distributed coverage which these upgraded, compact and mobile MPQ-64s are going to deliver particularly now that they will be able to assist in bringing down targets using PAC3 and future patriot missiles.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 12:58 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not Maybe, the TRIMM count on the TPY-2 is public knowledge and your figure misrepresents it by a factor of 2. Secondly, i was not speaking of technical reasons but actual real world performance where this sensor exclusively operates as a BMD system and had no requirements, nor did it test out other target sets during either its developmental or operational testing. Lets stay fact based and speak of real world deployed performance for the benefit of accuracy.Again, if you (I or anyone else) claims that it is an air-and missile defense sensor as opposed to purely an BMD sensor the burden of proof would be on the person making the claim to prove it. At the very least show that they went back and preformed developmental and operational testing on those modes, and present data and the financial/contract trail of new software modes being sought, being developed, being tested and being approved as an upgrade.
The 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad and aegis involved short and medium ranged ground and air launched ballistic missiles (both endo and exo-atmospheric) and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 13:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad, aegis and patriot platform involved short, medium range ground and air launched ballistic missiles and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
Any source of this would be fantastic.
Otherwise i will take this as the usual content coming from you..
And pls stop comparing it to a S-400 system. Its two different systems, designed to do different tasks.
The TPY-2 is better at some applications but far worse at other when you compare it to S-400.
The Russians are doing this at a different angle. They use humongous Voronezh stations to do the same applications as TPY-2.
Voronezh is part of the Russian Air & Space defence:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voronezh_radar
Again, pls do a readup on the different systems before you post crap like this:
Good to see the radar getting the respect it deserves from the Chinese and Russians at the moment, it is quite the world beater. TPY-2 makes the 3-4 piece combination of arrays used for the S-400 look like a toy. S-400's early warning and engagement radar systems have dozens of single points of failure to defeat the kill chain, it is yesterday's (decades?) news.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 13:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
he 2015 test where a pair of TPY-2s were use to control a network of thaad, aegis and patriot platform involved short, medium range ground and air launched ballistic missiles and a *cruise missile*. I would say a highly diverse target set, one in which a fighter would sit right in the middle of.
AN/TPY-2 radars operating in FBM pass on Ballistic Missile early warning and discrimination data to AEGIS operating out at sea. AEGIS Baseline 9 opens up concurrent IAMD capability using both onboard (AEGIS IAMD) and Offboard (TPY-2 BMD) sensors. TPY-2s role here is to look over the horizon and range limitations of the SPY-1. It is not picking up cruise missile threats headed towards an AEGIS defended area, that the AEGIS does using its own sensors, or other off board sensors such as those operating in the air (E-2D for example).
And pls stop comparing it to a S-400 system. Its two different systems, designed to do different tasks.
The TPY-2 is better at some applications but far worse at other when you compare it to S-400.
The comparison is redundant. TPY-2 is purely a BMD system and as part of a THAAD battery supports destruction of only Ballistic Missile targets while as an early warning set up is looking at completely different altitudes to provide EW and aiding in discrimination in the mid-course stage of ballistic missile flight.
By: - 6th May 2017 at 13:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
AN/TPY-2 radars operating in FBM pass on Ballistic Missile early warning and discrimination data to AEGIS operating out at sea. AEGIS Baseline 9 opens up concurrent IAMD capability using both onboard (AEGIS IAMD) and Offboard (TPY-2 BMD) sensors. TPY-2s role here is to look over the horizon and range limitations of the SPY-1. It is not picking up cruise missile threats headed towards an AEGIS defended area, that the AEGIS does using its own sensors, or other off board sensors such as those operating in the air (E-2D for example).The comparison is redundant. TPY-2 is purely a BMD system and as part of a THAAD battery supports destruction of only Ballistic Missile targets while as an early warning set up is looking at completely different altitudes to provide EW and aiding in discrimination in the mid-course stage of ballistic missile flight.
So you have proof that during that particular test, SPY-1 was the first to detect the cruise missile of course?
Posts: 194
By: blackadam - 5th May 2017 at 12:20
TPY-2 is a radar of the THAAD system, it has a range of 1000km, however to deal with the goal of ICBM at high-altitude
The AN/TPY-2 Surveillance Transportable Radar, also called the Forward Based X-Band Transportable (FBX-T) is a long-range, high-altitude surveillance radar designed to add a tier to existing missile and air defense systems.[1] Made by Raytheon, it is the primary radar for the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense missile system, but also cues the AN/MPQ-53 radar of the MIM-104 Patriot system. Patriot PAC-3 is a lower-altitude missile and aircraft defense system than THAAD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TPY-2
The high frequency radio waves used by most radars, called microwaves, travel in straight lines. This generally limits the detection range of radar systems to objects on their horizon (generally referred to as "line of sight" since the aircraft must be at least theoretically visible to a person at the location and elevation of the radar transmitter) due to the curvature of the Earth. For example, a radar mounted on top of a 10 m (33 ft) mast has a range to the horizon of about 13 kilometres (8.1 mi), taking into account atmospheric refraction effects. If the target is above the surface, this range will be increased accordingly, so a target 10 m (33 ft) high can be detected by the same radar at 26 km (16 mi). Siting the antenna on a high mountain can increase the range somewhat; but, in general, it is impractical to build radar systems with line-of-sight ranges beyond a few hundred kilometres
Will the AN/TPY-2 put it on a high mountain like Everst, it could become an OTH radar?