You repeating a lie over and over isn't going to make it any more true than before you started spewing it. By the way, you have never told us what you meant by "time-sharing". Myself and my dozens of sources have already told YOU, but you yourself have never told SDF. Go ahead and amuse us with your professorial acumen on the details of "time-sharing according to Tam".
LOL. I already explained to you what time sharing is right from the start.
I already explained this.
"Not true. ESSM and SM-2 can be datalinked during their midphase flight, and you only light the target during terminal phase. So while missiles 3 and 4 are on flight, missiles 1 and 2 are being served with a lighted target. When Missiles 1 and 2 are consumed, Missiles 3 and 4 are then served with a lighted target by the SPG-62, while Missiles 5 and 6 are now on flight and on their way, guided by datalink, the data coming from the SPY-1. That's Time sharing. Its not as cool as APAR though, since a PAR with digital forming beams can form any number of CWI beams to suit each missile in the air, allowing for more robust simultaneous engagement. "
Oh this is what you said:
"Wrong. First of all, there is no "time-sharing" with mechanical illuminators. None at all. The Aegis Mk 99 FCR is mechanical CWI (continuous wave illumination), which means the ESSM or SM-2 rides a continuous beam all the way in until impact. " Your Post 4040. My bold.
"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. " Your Post 4054. My Bold.
You also said this.
"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." Post 4064. My bold.
Even mechanical illuminators do not need to dedicate a single beam for a target from one to end. It only needs to light up on the final end.
You mean this?
"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). ICWI is a widely accepted and used term. " Your Post 4064.
And this is where you really fail.
There is no text to support that. With over 3,400 elements per face time four, there is no reason why you cannot use simultaneous beams instead.
Which means in my articles does not need to apply to ICW.
What you mean Thales decided to change the textual definition of ICW that has been in use for decades since the sixties?
Your sources only refer to the Thales brand name "ICWI", but none of them really explained how it operates.
This is what the Thales brochure says.
Using the same illumination that is being used to home a SARH missile, you can still track the target at the same time because the radar still echoes back to the original base radar. What it does is kill two birds in one stone. That's how illuminators that can self track work. That's also how fighter radars work. From then on, the tracking data can be used to help guide an ARH or SARH missile through the datalink.
