Bro,
I see you in positive light so I will respond, and I expect you to understand.
As a researcher, I specialize in scrutinizing a piece of information, and discern reliability of information and sources. Wikipedia (articles) are created by its members (public domain) and each article is essentially a collection of "different views" about a subject from different sources - hardly a reliable source of information therefore [I am also a member of Wikipedia and I am privy to what happens beneath and its policies]. Yes, we can find useful information in its articles but we cannot take an entire article from this source at face value. That statement is from a journalist piece [LA times] and it is complete source of disinformation (might be deliberate). Military professionals do not address such garbage because they are under oath and sworn to secrecy.
Nobody has a clear idea about the capabilities of SBX-1 system [outside its operators]; it is absolutely off-limits to reporters and public in reality. So you can take that journalist piece with a grain of salt. Perhaps, those reporters were refused access to SBX-1 and were butt-hurt.
It is breaking news when FOX NEWS is acting more responsibly than LA TIMES in matters of journalism. FYI:
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/06/0...ccessful-missile-intercept-military-says.html
---
Nothing is invincible but we cannot take scientific advancements for granted either. So many ideas, concepts, experiments and inventions are taking place that it is impossible for a single person to keep track of them.
Those collisions occurred due to lapses in professionalism of the crew and culprits have been awarded exemplary punishments since. So much so that the entire USN is under probe and scrutiny from the high command, and new SOPs are likely. In-fact, mischief on the part of commercial tankers cannot be ruled out either because sailors do not normally expect a commercial tanker to ram into a warship.
Lapses and issues are a worldwide problem because human beings are not infallible themselves. An average joe has no idea of the proportion of Pakistani equipment that is ready for combat operations - never 100% (anywhere). In case of Pakistan, even if 70% of total equipment is ready for combat operations - this would be really good. Keeping in mind numerous mishaps and incidents that are not publicized.
---
Look at this information:
http://www.aewa.org/Library/rf_bands.html
Information in public domain does not accurately reflect on the actual capabilities of radar systems in service in USN because they tend to be
multi-purpose and based on incredibly complex algorithms (not in public domain). Bands and similar jargons are for public consumption.
For example, Aegis combat system employs SPY-1 AESA [C-band] radar system for its missions. Now, if you focus on the band, you will get the impression that C-band is not a good choice for military-oriented missions due to its frequency related shortcomings but an average joe has no idea about the design and sophistication of this radar system because its algorithms and design principles are not in public domain.
This video will give you an idea:
SPY-1 AESA [C-band] radar system is so powerful and sophisticated that it provides a 360 degree field of view of various threats to its vessel and is capable of detecting and tracking 100 objects [simultaneously] in real-time, ranging from
subsonic sea-skimming to
hyper-sonic airborne. The latest (and soon-to-be-commissioned) SPY-6 AESA [C-band] radar system is even more powerful and sophisticated.
NOW;
"The x-band radar, or XBR, was designed, built and tested by Raytheon for Boeing, the prime contractor of the SBX-1 development. It is the most advanced electro-mechanically steered phased array x-band radar derived from the radar of the Aegis combat system.
The radar beam is formed by the 45,000 transmit / receive modules, mounted on an octagonal flat base. It can see an object similar to the size of a baseball at a range of 2,500 miles. About 69,632 multisectional circuits are used in the radar for transmitting, receiving and amplifying signals.
The 18,000lbs radome measures 103ft in height and 120ft in diameter. It is built with high-tech synthetic fabric material to withstand wind speeds of more than 130mph. Air pressure supports the flexible cover which surrounds the radar.
The vessel is also installed with small rigid radomes. Onboard equipment is powered by six 3.6MW generators."
Source:
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/sea-based-x-band-radar-1-sbx-1/
Emphasis mine. SBX-1 is essentially an extension of Aegis SPY-1 radar system in virtually every respect [algorithms and design principles] and the most powerful AESA radar system in the world. It enables incredibly sophisticated mission profiles accordingly.
AND;
"The radar on the SBX is housed under the large, white radome and is considered the largest and most sophisticated phased array electro-mechanically steered X-band radar in the world, with approximately 45,000 transmit/receive modules forming the radar beam. The radar beam is capable of detecting an object the size of a baseball at up to 2,500 miles away. [1] The radar also uses 69,632 multi-sectional circuits to transmit, receive, and amplify signals, and the elevation at which the radar is positioned abroad the platform allows it to track objects as they fly toward, over, and away from the vessel."
Source:
http://missiledefenseadvocacy.org/m...ed-sensor-systems/sea-based-x-band-radar-sbx/
Emphasis mine. Only a sea-skimming cruise missile will [fly toward] SBX-1 platform, not over it. SBX-1 is absolutely capable of volume search, cued search and horizon search and is kept elevated above sea surface by a significant margin because this design philosophy extends its detection range [in azimuth] accordingly, and make it practical for the platform to scan the surface below for sea-skimming threats. Same principle for SPY-1 radar system but its range is relatively less.
In-fact, SBX-1 platform is known to affect functioning of aircraft and even automobiles on the ground. This is sufficient indication of 360 degree scanning capability [refer to aforementioned video]. People have experienced these effects unwittingly.
"The radar is so strong it can interfere with aircraft, automobiles and other devices that cross the beam's path. The military previously said the radar could cause "electro-explosive devices" to detonate, such as car airbags and military aircraft ejection seats." (William Cole, 2007)
Last time I checked,
automobiles don't fly.
SBX-1 is definitely multi-purpose sensor platform and its capabilities are largely classified due to security-related considerations. This is why technical information about this platform is scarce on the web. The primary dome is proficient in X-band frequencies per sources but you can see multiple domes on the platform.
HINT;
Boeing missile defense officials refuse to answer questions about whether they are developing techniques to produce high-energy weapon effects from the SBX sea-based radar. However, since large distributed-array devices [like the SBX] can be focused to deliver large spikes of energy, powerful enough to disable electronic equipment, the potential is known to exist and is being fielded on a range of U.S., British and Australian aircraft.
Some known mission profiles of SBX-1:-
In 2008, SBX-1 platform enabled an Arleigh Burke class destroyer to exterminate a defunct spy satellite (i.e. USA 193) in space [orbiting Earth at constant speed of 17000 mph, 180 miles above surface] with an SM-3 interceptor.
"It was an X-band radar which was used in Operation Burnt Frost when we shot down that satellite from an Aegis ship several years back that was in a low, decaying orbit. We didn't just hit a bullet with a bullet, we hit a spot on a bullet." Indeed, the
portable radar system is
so sensitive it can identify and track
a game of catch up to 2,900 miles away.
Raytheon press: The interceptor missile "was never designed to engage a satellite," according to Raytheon Missile Systems, adding that its success "demonstrates the capability of the SM-3 missile to meet a unique situation and perform beyond its intended purpose."
"The United States has got other better ways of shooting down satellites. This is not a very good ASAT interceptor" (Mr. Pike; Global Security.org)
In 2004, SBX-1 platform enabled intercept of an IRBM-class target with a GMD interceptor.
Boeing press: "impossible" problem solved.
(Of-course)
In 2007, SBX-1 platform enabled intercept of an ICBM-class target with a GMD interceptor. This target was carrying a warhead and some decoys. SBX-1 system distinguished decoys from the actual warhead and GMD EKV struck the warhead.
Countermeasures? shoo shoo.
For an asset of this class and significance, safety is paramount and sea-skimming cruise missiles are a major threat. Therefore, 360 degree scanning is a must.
Bro,
The world has not witnessed a network of this scale and capability before, and improvements are a given. There might be some gaps on the surface but SBIRS and DSP networks provide global coverage of various threats to the US in tandem. Nothing can stop them.
"Raytheon is the world leader in X-band radars and discrimination and develops and produces the world's largest and most comprehensive collection of proven sensors for missile defense. Its sensors operate effectively in all domains (air, land, sea and space) and for all phases of the missile defense engagement chain. Raytheon's space sensors have achieved a 100% successful turn-on rate after launch."
Indeed, threats have not diminished; arms-race is a given; and nobody is 100% secure in a war. However, vast resources and investments ensure capability over-match and superior probability of intercept and/or victory accordingly.
Sure, bro.
You know better because you designed it and operate it.
See my response above. I have nothing more to say about this matter, and not going to waste my time further.
monstrosity to search for cruise missiles....
) so you have only two options left either you have sat up there to cover whole your opponents or you have OTH RADARS to cover whole your opponent countries or best both think logically Mr @Mrc 
