Unlike some people, I don't need to make up nonsense to sound like I didn't lose an argument. Look, here's how it works, and the difference between CWI and ICWI.
CWI, like what the US Aegis system uses, involves the SPY-1D providing midcourse updates for the missile all the way until the last few seconds of the engagement. The SPG-62 (the radar component of the Mk99) then lights up the target in the final moments of an engagement, and there is no question about the ability of the ESSM or SM-2's ability to pick up the illumination and ride the beam in all the way to impact.
That's actually questionable, because radar seekers have antennas that are so small, and size matters with radio antennas for picking up signals over distance.
Another thing is that the missiles can be potentially confused if you have multiple X-band CWI sources in the battle space, including friendlies emitting their own illumination.
Furthermore, ESSM and SM-2 are fired from a VLS. That means their seekers are inert at launch and the missile has to be directed towards the target after launch by a link. What you are describing if the missile has to ride all the way from its launch point to the target works only if the missile is on an external arm launcher, which pivots and elevates the missile to the direction of the target. The missile would have to lock before launch.
And once again, if you light up a target with CWI from a distant range, lets say 150km, their RWRs would detect it and the countermeasures would be enacted. One of those countermeasures could be a HARM missile towards you, or a straight up ASM fired because your CWI betrayed your location.
Any missile fired off from a VLS has to be data linked so it can be controlled and turned around.
The SPG-62 radar is a transmit-only mechanical radar that is slaved to the SPY-1D. Therefore there is none of this bullshit going on: "Continuous Wave means both receiver and transmitter are simultaneously receiving and transmitting at the same time, and you have an infinite wave form".
Shows you don't even read things properly. I am referring to SARH principle in general, such as those in aircraft, land based SAM units, and other naval fire control units, e..g. Thales STIR. You should know that Murasame and Takanami doesn't use SPG-62 and neither does the Perries. Very likely MR90 Orekh works the same way.
Nice try, though. Because of the fact that the SPG-62 only needs to light up a target for a few seconds at a time, it can fairly quickly slew from one target to another (in succession) as more outbound missiles are arriving at their designated targets, though it can't cycle between multiple targets at the same time due to obvious physical limitations. That is why I laughed when you talked about Aegis ships having so few illuminators.
Now you contradict your own point. You cannot do what you are describing above if the missile will beam ride from its launch to the target. It does not take a few seconds for a missile to reach its target; it takes many seconds. Mach 3 being a kilometer per second, it would take a hundred seconds to reach 100km.
Unlike the Mk99 CWI system which has no tracking functions (i.e. there is no simultaneous "receiving and transmitting" like you are trying to claim), an Orekh FCR DOES have tracking functions, and takes a missile all the way from launch to impact by providing target tracking, midcourse guidance, and at the end, illumination. That is why the 054A needs 4 illuminators where the Hobart only uses 2.
You got that correct. Do note that an Orekh can serve a missile from launch to target directly if the missile is on an arm launcher (Sov, 052B) that can point the missile to the target. Witin 40km that is doable. But if it is from a VLS (054A, Shtil VLS), the missile will have to be data linked and it can used to extend the range further.
And this is why the Hobart compensates with the SPY-1D tracking the targets and guiding missiles via data link on their initial and mid phase, and the SPG-62 is free to only attend to missiles on their terminal stage.
ICWI, like what APAR and likely what all other modern naval high-band ESAs use, does NOT necessarily involve dedicating a single beam to a single target all the way from launch to impact. The "interrupted" part comes in to play because an illumination beam is being time-shared amongst multiple targets, but it's being cycled between them so fast that a missile riding that beam in can't tell that it's not really a continuous beam, hence ICWI (in addition, newer ESAs don't necessarily even have to employ ICWI if their programming and their panel size allows them to dedicate a specific number of T/R modules to a specific target for the entire engagement).
That does not sound right since any AESA or phase array can digitally form separately beams, each of them can attend to a separate missile.
And no, a missile can tell when things are happening in electronic speeds, because the CW is interrupted, and there is still a gap between the first signal and the second, and that creates a data gap and a potential error or inaccuracy.
Furthermore, this isn't as accurate as pure CW, because pure CW is infinite update on range, velocity and heading measurement. The time gaps as the missile serves one missile after another is "lag".
So no, the way you describe it is not as accurate as pure CWI.
You don't really need to terminal illuminate for every missile when all you need to do is illuminate for the one that does, like I said, just keep the rest riding on a datalink until they are close enough to the target.
ICWI is a widely accepted and used term. It's not "marketing nonsense" just because you've (obviously) never heard of it before and were not able to correlate it with your original quip of "time-sharing", which you clearly didn't realize was in fact a description of ICWI. What followed was a literal barrage of verbal diarrhea attempting to cover up this lack of knowledge. Yet despite all the walls of text since then, you have never been able to specify what you thought "time-sharing" was if not ICWI, which I find to be quite humorous.
Lol you must have made that up completely did you?
This is the standard line of someone who doesn't have access to ANY textbooks and demands that the other person go find them. Sorry, but you claim it, you provide it; that or GTFO.
Please. As if these activities are internet worthy.
No, they won't. And the fact that you say "block" proves my point. Blocks invariably refer to new production missiles, not refitted old ones. Thank you for proving my point.
MRDA also intends to update earlier Exocets with the new radar update.
I applaud your attempt to move the goal posts YET AGAIN and try to get the conversation lost in the weeds. The subject at hand isn't quality of tracks vs quantity of tracks, but your original quip that humans wouldn't have enough time to intervene on all targets because they have less than "30 seconds" to do so (where did you get that particular number BTW?? ROFLMAO). The point is also that you completely failed to appreciate the main reason that Aegis was even developed in the first place, which was in fact to be able to remove humans from the equation altogether and automate the entire business of finding, tracking, prioritizing and attacking masses of incoming targets. And yes, this includes algorithms on determining what is clutter and removing them from the equation.
Sigh. The original reason why Aegis was made is to serve as a protective shield against Soviet bomber and missile attacks.
