Naval missile guidance thread - SAM systems
- Thread starter Iron Man
- Start date
Jura The idiot
General
Last edited:
These are directly relevant industry sources which directly address the term ICWI, compared to your irrelevant "academic" sources which do not even address illumination.
Cutting down on beam requirement by half does not even remotely address how ICWI allows multi-target illumination where CWI does not. This is all just a useless wall of text from you attempting to obfuscate this painfully obvious fact.
As for "3424 X-band elements on a single target isn't illuminating a target", this is yet another pathetic lie that you made up in your desperate attempt at covering up your inability to directly respond to my points. Nobody including me EVER stated that an entire facing panel's T/R modules would be used on a single target, whether for illumination or for detection, though this is certainly not out of the realm of possibility. And you literally have no idea what the radiated energy on a target is when 3,424 APAR elements are focused upon it, so don't even try this stupid "cooking" and "microwave oven" drivel on me. It's getting tiring reading this kind of unsupported crap coming out of you.
Who cares what you personally feel is "braintarded"?
I don't care what you "see" or "don't see" about the CMS of the 056. I honestly don't. Again, I asked you to provide evidence that the 056's CMS is scalable in this exact fashion, and I predicted that you would utterly fail to deliver. Thank you for confirming exactly this and nothing less than this. You don't know WTF you are talking about here, and you have no evidence whatsoever to back up this ludicrously speculative paragraph.
I don't need to ask myself anything at all. The fact remains that Atago and Kongou don't carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi carry ESSMs. The fact remains that Akizuki and Asahi are built with Atago/Kongou defense in mind. The fact remains that you are absolutely, unambiguously wrong on every, single, last, point here. Problem?
You have absolutely no idea what is cheaper and not cheaper with regard to either USN or JMSDF acquisitions. Both the USN and the JMSDF have Aegis ships that require help with defense when executing BMD missions. The USN uses other Aegis destroyers not deployed on BMD missions. The JMSDF uses Akizukis and Asahis. All your whining and posturing about how much smarter you are compared to people who actually do this stuff for a living is not going to change the facts of the matter.
From Seaforth World Naval Review 2017 (p. 108):
Last edited:
These are simply not. They don't even explain it.
Furthermore those industry sources, when it comes to detail, don't describe the scheme the way you wanted to.
Here is one that is a bit more detailed.
"the capability to simultaneously generate multiple beams on a given antenna face;"
Sorry but you don't get it do you?
Your single CWI beam will not provide any ranging information at all. You have no idea that pure CWI beams do not provide range information. The CWI beam does not know where to aim itself. Something else has to tell them.
For your scheme to work, with a single CWI beam and my example of 8 targets, it still has to track 8 targets using 8 separate PRF beams, It never really eliminates the need for multiple tracking beams. The information from the PRF beams is used to guide the CWI beam.
Tracking beam is not the same as the illuminating beam.
Continuous Wave cannot produce range information but pulse produces range information. A continuous wave has no end and no beginning, which does not have a marker to produce range. That is the nature of being continuous. To get range, you need a pulse, you measure the time at the end when the pulse is sent out, and then the time when the pulse is received back as an echo. Pulse like characteristics can be modulated into continuous wave via frequency modulation, or interruption, or a combination of both.
See the SPY-1D. That produces the multiple PRF beams. The SPG-69 produces the CWI beam.
What kind of CWI beam that can produce both range information and do target illumination? Either an FMCW or ICW.
Your pathetic point isn't even worth discussing. What's the point of not having multiple TR modules when you only have one beam going merry go around against X number of targets? Which in the first place you have to prove that's how its done when its note. So what does the rest of the radar do?
Speak for yourself.
I don't know enough of the 056's CMS, but the current trends in CMS is now towards architecture that can scale upwards and downwards, which is all much cheaper and faster to implement, as you constantly reuse proven code, proven hardware, and you don't have to constantly rewrite a brand new CMS for every new vessel. Likewise, there is no evidence that the 056' CMS is brand new or isn't using common and reusable libraries, which by the way, happens to be the norm for software development.
Yes, still a dumb idea. You have not explained how being wholly ESSM is such a great idea.
Still does not explain why the Akizukis and Asahis need to be ESSM only for this purpose, and why they don't have SM-2s. Or why its not a better idea to just simply assign another Kongo class that is fitted with ESSMs.
Furthermore the upcoming ESSM Block II, with its ARH guidance, that allows for multiple simultaneous engagement past the limitations of the SPG-62, makes the Akizuki a completely moot point,
Jura The idiot
General
I'm not
Tam
so don't shoot LOL but am not sure about your USN using other destroyers in this context:
you may want to check this older quote inside Friday at 8:20 AM
:
the recent stuff
The US Navy is fed up with ballistic missile defense patrols
not mentioning any other destroyers covering those deployed to Rota, Spain or elsewhere on ABM missions;
from what I figured, a SeaRAM put on them was all they got
Tam
so don't shoot LOL but am not sure about your USN using other destroyers in this context:
you may want to check this older quote inside Friday at 8:20 AM
:
AND
the recent stuff
The US Navy is fed up with ballistic missile defense patrols
not mentioning any other destroyers covering those deployed to Rota, Spain or elsewhere on ABM missions;
from what I figured, a SeaRAM put on them was all they got
Last edited:
No, YOU don't get it. The industry sources while not detailing the exact mechanisms for their statements do not make sense except for the mechanism which I have proposed; meanwhile I will point out ONCE AGAIN that your explanation STILL fails to explain how ICWI allows multi-target illumination but CWI does not. Here you are just repeating the same drivel that you repeated in the last post. It doesn't matter that the tracking beam is not the same as the illumination beam for CW while it is for ICW. This does NOTHING to explain how "ICWI" allows multi-target illumination while "CWI" does not. You repeating yourself like a nervous tic a million times won't turn make this any more true the millionth time you spew it.
Yeah, basically all of this bitching here about how you are allegedly (and humorously) so much more awesome than actual industry professionals UTTERLY and COMPLETELY fails to conceal the fact that you were dead wrong about the Atagos/Kongous, dead wrong about the Akizukis/Asahis, and lack evidence for your totally baseless claim about the 056's CMS. In other words, you know nothing, and you have nothing. Do you actually even dispute any of this? LOL
Jura The idiot
General
no problem I'll get ignored, but repeat what I asked 'in the initial round' of this discussion in
PLAN Type 054 FFG Thread II Sep 3, 2018
and what interests me:
Do you honestly expect to get an informed answer to a question that is one of the most closely guarded secrets of the USN?
That said, the radar system on the latest E-2Cs can allegedly track 2,000+ targets. If the Aegis system cannot manage this many targets as well then it seems like a wasted capability on the part of the E-2C, which by implication suggests to me that Aegis can in fact handle this many targets, especially since the E-2C is equipped with CEC.