FREGAT and Type 382 are capable of 360 coverage, and tracking. The Type 051C is capable of tracking all three missiles at different directions, and can engage any of the two that are within the engagement radar's hemisphere.
In that case, if the rotating version is able to spin at 60rpm then we can consider it to be Aegis type, but if it's meaningfully below that then probably not.
Rate of spin should not be a necessary quantifiable to being an Aegis like. As I said before, the rate of spin is also a function to the range of the targets being tracked. A longer ranged target requires that the radar stays longer on it for a longer dwell time and should not spin away. Another thing is that you are only considering one axis in the scan, which is the horizontal. On the vertical, used for 3D, even a FRESCAN can do as many times as it needs.
I mean, I haven't explicitly described it as a requirement in my definition of "Aegis type," but based on the characteristics I've laid out, one of the capabilities those characteristics will enable is being able to take out multiple targets simultaneously or near simultaneously from multiple directions.
Except that is way too broad.
I think we're aware of the difference in methods in which those different ships engage targets. That doesn't change the fact that those three ships are able to do what jobjed described and 051C cannot.
No. The 051C can simultaneously take out multiple targets --- 6 engaged, and 12 missiles sent at them --- within the hemisphere of the engagement radar, which can also quickly turn to a new hemisphere to take out the rest in a jiffy. It does not need to be pointed directly, only that the face needs to be in the general direction of the attack, while multiple beams can be steered electronically towards the targets. At no time the ship will ever be blind, given the three radars (Fregat, Type 364 and 366) scanning in all hemispheres.
Its the Burke that has the most doubt when you are facing a saturation attack. One thing to realize that these parabolic antennas would need to follow a widely maneuvering target, keep the dish directly pointed at the target, and keep those targets within its beam. Which is a lot easier to do if you are using electronic scanning for target illumination, and totally moot with an active guided missile.
The Burke has three of these, two over the aft hanger and one over the bridge.
Of late, the Burkes now have active homing missiles through the SM-6. But with these missiles costing 4 to 6 million a piece, which is a heck of a lot more than the antiship missiles they are supposed to be shooting down, you don't expect a lot of these missiles to be bought.
In paper, if you want to go with theory, if you match Asters with their active homing, with SPY-1 radar, you won't need illuminators at all, and just fire as many missiles at will as many targets the radar can track most accurately.
Btw, as far as 052D using SARH HHQ-9 go, I would be surprised if current variant HHQ-9s are still SARH. We know that Type 346/A is a dual band S/C AESA, where the C band does the illumination for HHQ-9, but considering the land based export HQ-9 (aka FD-2000) is listed as being active radar guided I would be surprised if recent variants of HHQ-9 (and indeed the land based HQ-9 as well) still uses SARH and has not adopted ARH.
With the 052D, with the absence of any physical illuminators, you only have two options. Either the illuminators are in the main panel faces, sort of like the Patriot's MPQ-53 unit, or there is no need for illuminators at all, and that the missiles are active homing. If HHQ-9 is active homing, there are two options on the main radar faces. Type 364A/B can still be dual band S/C, with the S band used for search and the C-band for fast and more precise tracking of targets, minus target illumination. Or the C-band array completely eliminated, you increase the surface area and number of elements of the S-band array to cover the eliminated array, increasing the range and power of the S-band array.
