I've always wondered just how many missiles the SPY-1 can guide in timeshare mode without a fatal degradation to terminal accuracy.
I actually have some questions regarding the Burke.
1) Burkes have illuminators, so can the PAR guide missiles in terminal phase (illuminating)?
2) If the answer to the above is "no", how many channels can AEGIS provide and how many channels can the illuminator provide?
All I can say is that the system provides 24 channels and 6 spare guidance channels. There is time-sharing process between the illuminators, and there are three phases in the missiles flight to intercept. There is also a built in capability to guide missiles from other ships maximizing the use of guidance channels. If totally saturated, it can maximize the uses of all channels. that means control of alot of missiles. That is all.
Americanoilman said:
All of you widely underestimate the harpoon as an ASM,
I don't think people here underestimate Harpoon's effectiveness. But the mistake is made that long-range is an end-all in missile performance. Sensor performance is missed, and also adequate C4I. I can tell you for sure that range considerations are not the end all. In naval warfare, you don't point a radar and fire. Radar performance degrades with distance and sea conditions. The ocean is a big place. And if you actually detect someone beyond 100 Km, you have to identify the target so you're not firing at a cruise ship, merchant, or even one of your own. And then you have to track it and develop a firing solution. I don't think alot of people understand how involved this process really is. And the further out you fire an ASM, the less likely it will actually hit it's target especially if that target has effective defenses and a challenging ECM environment and probably knows something is trying to target it.
Trust me when I say there is a reason the range requirements haven't changed for Harpoon. Harpoon has plenty of range to deal with current threats. If we ever needed a dedicated solution to confront another naval power with a 250-300 Km ranging capability, we could simply bring back the TASM in sufficient numbers at 470 Km. No problems. But trust me, this is not needed. There is simply no need for it at all. There currently is no naval power with a decent ability to detect, track, localize, and engage USN ships at that kind of distance. An Arleigh Burke can see and maneuver for the kill itself if part of a SAG. And because Surface Action is built on team tactics, this is where USN strength lies in it's Aegis offensive ASuW role. But let me tell you AOM, even though Aegis ships can go offensive and pretty much eliminate everyone else, they are there for one purpose.....defense. They are built to defend that carrier asset. That's how they'll be used primarily in any confrontation. Of course they'll do deep strike warfare in conjunction with this. But still, the carrier can do as much damage as a grouping of Aegis ships.
