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.
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.
More inane verbal judo. The SPG-62 has an advertised range of 200,000 yards, but this is how far IT can reach, not how far SARH missiles can pick up its radiation. Since the missiles only start riding the beam in the last few seconds of the engagement, they are already very close to the target and should easily be able to pick up the emissions that the SPG-62 is bouncing off the target. Not only that, the SPG-62 does not even have to radiate anything at all until the final few seconds of engagement, making your paranoia about early detection totally irrelevant.
Second, rail launchers have nothing to do with anything. Once again you betray your complete lack of understanding of missile guidance. SARH missiles NEVER have to "lock before launch". They are invariably guided prior to impact by primary radars (like the SPY-1D) or by dedicated FCRs (like the Orekh); only in the final seconds of the engagement do they actually start homing in on radiated illumination signals. So whether they launch via rail or launch via VLS, it doesn't matter.
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.
Were you saying something about not reading things properly? Nobody said anything about riding a beam from launch to target. Please link and quote where you think I said that. Be sure to quote literally and not sneakily try to paraphrase what I said. I did not claim that SPG-62 does that, nor did I claim that Orekh does that. What I did claim was that Orekh is responsible for guiding the missile from launch to target. When I say "riding a beam" I'm talking about the final seconds of the engagement where there is an illumination signal bouncing off the target, which is what the missile "rides" on its way in. Neither the SPG-62 nor the Orekh actually illuminates the target until the final moments so there is no "riding a beam from launch to target".
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.
No, this is just wrong. Again, you don't ever need to point the ESSM, SM-2, or HHQ-16 at a target for them to lock on to prior to launch. The SARH missile is almost invariably data linked on launch and only begins to home in on a signal at the very end of its flight. Data links do not "extend the range" when they are actually the norm of operation. You are obviously mistaking SARH with IR-homing missiles like RAM and HHQ-10 which DO (typically) acquire the target prior to launch.
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.
You forget that many ESAs are quite small compared to the giant panels seen on the 052Ds and Arleigh Burkes. Especially mast-top radars like APAR, and probably EMPAR and Sampson. I have already mentioned that if you have a large enough panel with plenty of T/R modules to spare while allowing other functions to proceed with enough bandwidth, then ICWI becomes unnecessary, at least until such time that combat damage knocks out a large enough portion of your panel, whereupon ICWI would in fact become necessary again.
And no, you don't even nearly have the expertise to make judgments on whether a missile can or cannot tell when things are happening in electronic speeds. The fact is that ICWI exists and it works regardless of what any random internet professor claims.
Lol you must have made that up completely did you?
Oh, I made it up, like you make things up? No, son. I don't need to make it up. I replaced your failed google search for ICWI with one that is actually useful, and all you need to do is SCROLL and LEARN. There are MULTIPLE hits for ICWI that you can go on pretending that you didn't read, if you like.
Please. As if these activities are internet worthy.
Thank you for confirming that you have no "proper textbooks" to speak of and have been bullshitting this entire time.
MRDA also intends to update earlier Exocets with the new radar update.
Please provide evidence that MBDA actually intends to do this, via a link.
Sigh. The original reason why Aegis was made is to serve as a protective shield against Soviet bomber and missile attacks.
Hahahahaha like you somehow get to be the one to sigh. Yes, Aegis WAS designed to serve as a shield against Soviet bomber and missile attacks. MASSED saturation Soviet bomber and missile attacks where it would become impossible for humans to make individual decisions on each target. That you continue to deny this blatantly obvious fact is another example of your lack of intellectual honesty during this conversation.
