Please just stop this farce already. You have dragged this down to such a ludicrous level that it literally sickens me to have to read any more of this, much less respond to it.
Really how? All I can see is a personal attack once you cannot respond to it.
JFC what are you even talking about here? Having obviously lost this debate, you are now muttering all kinds of nonsensical gibberish to try and cloud the waters of a subject which is very easy to understand. The fact that you make totally hilarious claims like "INTERRUPTED CONTINUOUS Wave Illumination sounds like an oxymoron" and "Continuous Wave means both receiver and transmitter are simultaneously receiving and transmitting at the same time, and you have an infinite wave form" unambiguously demonstrates that you have absolutely ZERO idea what you are talking about here. The fact that a simple Google search would have been sufficient for you learn what ICWI is and how it time-shares targets leads me to believe that you have indeed done this, but having found that you were so badly wrong, think now that somehow doubling down on your ignorance and going way off the deep end by literally mumbling gibberish, is somehow going to mask the fact that you don't even know what you are saying.
You are the one who don't know what you are talking about and can't separate marketing from the textual. If you do a Google Search on Interrupted Continuous Wave Illumination this is what comes up.
You should just read some of it.
CWI illuminators refer to illuminators like the Mk 99, which have to light up a single target all the way until the ESSM or the SM-2 strikes the lit-up target. They have to do this because they are mechanical illuminators and lack the physical agility to time-share their beams between multiple targets. ICWI refers to the capability of ESAs like APAR and later ESAs to rapidly (electronically) cycle illumination beams between multiple targets nearly simultaneously so that to the ESSM or SM-2 riding the beam in towards the target it appears that the beam is continuous, or at least continuous enough to hit a target with high precision. This isn't rocket science. And it has nothing to do with "leakage from transmitters", "infinite wave forms", "interruption circuits", or "windows for reception". This is LITERALLY gibberish that you are just throwing out there for the purpose of obfuscation. You're not fooling anyone at this point, so cut it out.
You made that up do you?
An illuminator does not light up a target all the way and missile seekers don't have the sheer range for that. If you are targeting SARH within 30 to 40 kilometers, you can do a direct illumination of the target because the range is close enough for the seeker to catch. But if its over 50 to 100km and over, you would need a datalink to sent the missile towards the target, then light up the target when the missile reaches its terminal seeker range. This is also true of aircraft on long range engagement.
ESSM and SM-2 doesn't ride the beam. The US hasn't built a beam rider for decades since Talos. A beam rider has radar receivers on the tail of the missile, and a radar beam is used to direct the missile towards the target.
If you light up an aerial target from a great distance with your target illumination, then expect the missile to fly all the way there, guess what will happen. The aircraft's own RWRs would warn the aircraft that you are being already being targeted by a fire control radar and CWI is a good indication a missile is on its way. A missile having a long time to reach the target, the target would already have enacted various countermeasures, that is going to end up defeating the missile.
If you have your search and tracking radar on the target, the target also knows this, but does not know a missile is on the way, until the target is within the missile seeker basket, and then you light up. The aircraft would still receive and respond to the threat, but it has a much shorter response window.
Another thing is that CWI itself doesn't have much range compared to pulse radar. Energy is sent continuously, unless pulse radar, where it is stopped, built up, then released as a pulse with a high peak power. Since receiving has its own dedicated phase --- it is not interfered by the transmission and has higher receptive power. This is why long range radars are all pulse radars. Note its easy for RWRs to identify CW vs. PRF, and with that, the stage of missile prosecution.
In the case of APAR, where the radar is both search, track and engage, the radars need to switch between Pulse or PRF modes and CWI modes, the PRF you need for search, scan and track, the CWI you need for target engagement. Why not make a continuous wave that acts more like a pulse radar?
Ahh yes, and an internet professor like you has read the "proper textbooks", which are as yet totally uncited, by the way. Sorry, but ICWI is so easy to find and corroborate with multiple sources that it literally swamps your humorous attempt to sound technical here.
Why don't you actually read the text books? If you are good in Googling, why don't you try?
Really? Which missiles have had older missile bodies retrofitted with newer sensor packages? If it's "not an unusual procedure", surely you can name some missiles and the seeker upgrade packages they have received. Go ahead.
Recently the latest block of Exocets with the French Navy. Older ones will be updated to the same standard. Harpoons and Standards are also subjected to upgrades, although Harpoons have been lapsed for the last decade or so.
As for access to Exocet technology, that's possibly true. Or it's possibly nonsense. Even if it were true, Chinese tech base of the 1990's certainly would not have been able to advance any foreign technology as fast as foreign countries were capable of. China has only been catching up rapidly in the last 10 years (or even less) in this regard.
It does not really matter what happened thirty years ago. Last ten years? More like nearly twenty now. You cannot expect their know how to stay the same after they figured out the Moskit.
Who said anything about seeing hundreds or thousands of targets on a screen? NOBODY. Stop making up things to attack; it's dishonest. Aegis can track thousands of targets, but this capability has nothing to do with anything showing up on any screen. YOU are the only one talking about screens.
How will you know which of these targets are bad or good? Who will determine it? Tracking hundreds of signals includes tracking false ones.
Also, you are arguing for nothing here, as usual. While number of targets tracked is quantifiable and is typically used as a surrogate for how advanced a particular combat data system is, even if just in a general sense, there is no easy way to quantify accuracy of target tracks, which nobody here is arguing is somehow less important than the number of targets trackable. Regardless, you are also now trying (once again) to move the goal posts. Your original quip was in reference to the large numbers of targets tracked and how a human would be overwhelmed by having to decide on hundreds to thousands of targets in less than "30 seconds" when in reality in such circumstances human would be mostly or completely removed from the decision-making process altogether, which is in fact the raison d'etre of Aegis, a fact that went right over you. Having missed (and realized) this, you are now trying to talk about quality of tracks vs quantity of tracks. Sure we can talk about that, or we can stick to the point, something which you seem to frequently not like to do once it's not going well for you.
Accuracy of track and the number of targets track is inverse of each other.
The higher the track quality, the lower the number of targets being tracked, and furthermore, the range starts to shorten. A radar searching for targets and a radar tracking targets don't work the same way. A radar on a search mode, or surveying more targets over a larger 3D volume has a slower rotational sweep and scan rate to allow for a longer dwell time; PRF is longer, with a higher peak power and a longer duty cycle since the radar has to wait for the echoes. The frequency is also longer for lower atmospheric attenuation that lets it travel greater distance but offers lower discrimination.
But when threats are found, the radar moves to the next stage. Sweep and scan rates increase. If the radar is mechanical it is turning faster. PRF becomes much shorter, with short duty cycles and the radar may also move to a higher frequency which shortens range but increases discrimination. The target's range and speed becomes more precise, but with more radio energy directed at the threat targets, there is less radar to search around, and the number of targets being tracked decreases. This is another point why many ships have secondary search radars.
