Ok, several points to make. First there is still a misunderstanding about the difference between the data link used for TVM and how Aegis communicates mid course guidance. TVM uses a discrete channel for each missile. To guide S-300 to it's target, the missile senses the reflected energy off the target and relays this information to the fire control unit via a data link. The fire control unit takes this data and data on target course and speed from the fire control radar and computes the intercept solution, then relays steering commands back to the missile. Aegis does do this. Each SM-2 flies to coordinates loaded into it's INS by the Aegis system. It is not receiving continuous communication. Also you have to remember that each AN/SPY-1 panel scans at very close to the speed of light, allowing each panel to accomplish literally thousands of tasks per second. Each scan used can be shaped differently to accomplish different things, such as an air scan for the anti-air engagement, sensing both the incoming aircraft and the outgoing missiles followed by a differently shaped scan to find sea skimming missiles. All of this data is sensed and correlated into an integrated battle space picture. If the Aegis decides the outgoing SM-2 needs some mid course guidance correction the AN/SPY-1 antenna, not a data link, but the actual radar antenna, accomplishes the communication to the missile of the mid course correction mentioned in the Navy Factfile. This is not a data link in the traditional sense, it is a discrete burst of data sent to one missile, not a two way communication as in a TVM scheme or CLOS like HQ-7, Crotale or Barak. Since the AN/SPY-1 is so fast, it can perform many different scans and communicate mid course guidance commands to hundreds of outgoing missiles at one time, literally doing a thousand tasks each second. It is an amazing system that even after thirty years of service has no close analog anywhere else.
Whew, ok now on to SEAD missions. SEAD, now renamed DEAD for Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses does not go after the fire control radars. DEAD attacks the area search radars. Consider this, a fire control radar cannot find it's own target. If the search radar is take out, the missile battery is blind, it cannot find a target to illuminate. DEAD missions destroy search radars. Ergo, the comment that by the time the HARM senses the enemy radar the missile is on the way is invalid. The fire control radar is never in play. A DEAD mission with Wild Weasel strike aircraft and EW aircraft like the EA-6B will sense the emissions of an enemy search radar at some distance before the enemy radar senses the incoming strike. This is an unaviodable consequence of physics. The energy reaching the aircraft is always greater than the energy reflected back to the radar. A rough rule of thumb is that an aircraft will sense a radar with it's RWR at about a 50% greater range than the radar will detect the incoming aircraft. A DEAD mission exploits this. Once a radar is located we jam the crap out of it while the Wild Weasel aircraft goes in for the kill. By then it is too late for the radar because even if the radar operator senses the jamming and shuts down ( a common tactic as far back as the Vietnam war and used routinely by the Serbs ) the HARM already knows the location of the site and flies there. It is accurate enough that the big warhead on HARM does disabling damage to the search radar. Now, with the seach radar down other aircraft take out the missile battery and fire control system with more conventional oridinance. The EW aircraft is more than capable of dealing with any of the forms of frequency agility and spread spectrum schemes used by threat radars.
This brings up my last point. Our Elint and intel is so good we have for many decades built duplicates of threat systems and used these both for very high fidelity training and to test new systems and tactics out by our R&D people. I am going to show you a couple of web pages that describe Echo Range out a China Lake. Out here we have installed exact copies we built of the many threat systems we have faced over the decades. This is accomplished using high quality photos of threat systems, careful analysis of the emissions profiles of these systems from data obtained by careful Elint using the Rivet Joint, EP-3, submarines, satellites and some ground monitoring. Scientists can correlate this data and knowing the physics and engineering of radars can basically reverse engineer a copy of an enemy system. As far back as the early 1980's there was a ridge out at China Lake were we had exact duplicates of Soviet naval radars. This was not equipment stolen from the Egyptians as with SA-6, but our own back engineered copies. If you look closely at this photo, now in the public domain, you can see from right to left a Peel Group SA-N-1 fire control radar, a Head Lights ( facing away, you are seeing the back side ) SA-N-3 fire control radar , Bass Tilt fire control radar on a tall pedestal, and a Head Net C air search radar on the tripod. A little later we added a Top Steer to the collection, and you know we didn't swipe one from a Soviet cruiser, it is our own copy.
Next up is a little early history of Echo Range just to give you a flavor of how we accomplish these things.
You have no idea just how good we are at this. Oh, btw, since the Greek Army, a Nato allie own about two dozen Tor-1M batteries and the Cypriot Army has S-300 both of these systems must be considered thoroughly compromised. We know all of their properties by now.
