The same SWORD engine, fielded your way.

Yes. The platform does not change between tiers. What changes is who supplies the hardware and who puts it in the ground, so your configuration, your libraries and your operational data move with you. Changing tier is a commercial and logistical exercise, not a migration.

Yes. That is the brownfield path, and it is the reason the software is kept separable from the hardware. SWORD integrates and orchestrates sensors and SDRs you already operate and brings them under one picture, rather than replacing an estate that works. Where a mission needs coverage your existing sensors cannot reach, ours join the same picture instead of becoming a second system to watch. Fit is confirmed sensor by sensor before anything is committed.

An analyzer shows you energy. Reading it still depends on an operator looking at the right frequency, at the right moment, with the right settings, and knowing what the shape means. Thresholds punish you either way: set them high and weak signals disappear into the noise floor, set them low and the operator drowns in false alarms. SWORD reads the spectrum continuously and turns activity into classified events with a confidence attached. The question on the operator's screen stops being what am I looking at, and becomes what should I do about it.

It is still detected. A signal that matches nothing is grouped as unknown, tracked and kept, rather than discarded for failing a library lookup. That matters because the emitters worth worrying about are usually the ones nobody has catalogued yet: software-defined radios running unfamiliar waveforms, ordinary commercial links repurposed for hostile use, or short bursts that never sit still long enough to be recognized. Unknowns pass to the research layer, where your analysts can work on them and bring them into your own library.

Not to operate it. A modern sensor produces far more spectral observation than any operator can inspect in real time, and legacy workflows cope by narrowing what is watched and hoping the important thing falls inside it. SWORD inverts that: it examines everything and hands back a much smaller set of events that deserve attention, so the people on watch do not have to be signals specialists. You do want specialists for the research layer, where new emitters are studied and libraries extended. That work is deliberately kept off the operational picture, and RF Studio is built for it.

Yes. Signals your analysts collect, label and validate stay yours. They are not pooled across customers, not shared, and not a condition of the license. Your operating environment is not the same as anyone else's, so the library that reflects it is an asset you build rather than one you rent.

Because the cost follows the deployment, not the tier name. How many sensors, where they sit, who installs and maintains them, and how much your organization needs to own are what move the figure. A published list would either be wrong for most missions or so wide that it tells you nothing. Tell us the mission and you get a number built on it.