Naval missile guidance thread - SAM systems

[Brumby]

An S band only MFR on a ship without other means to illuminate targets (whether they are dedicated illuminators like AN/SPG-62s or Orekhs -- or Thales APAR type radars or other X band phased array radars which can provide illumination -- or in the case of the 052C's type 346 having a C band component for illumination or control of its missiles), means the guidance of the missiles would likely have to be some form of active radar homing instead.


That's assuming you're aware of the general engagement cycle that most modern naval SAM systems have; from detection/tracking+ launch --> midcourse guidance --> terminal engagement.
Basically, for the last part of "terminal engagement," S band radars are not enough and you either need a dedicated illuminator on a ship (for SARH missiles) or your missile has its own seeker (for ARH missiles).
Other things like datalink channels and combinations of the above for TVM guidance also are additional factors but the above is a rough back of the napkin kind of explanation.

The problem is you are overlaying an unknown over another unknown i.e. you don't know the technical capabilities of the Type 055 radar and yet you are using that as a base to speculate on another unknown - the missile

S band as adopted in SPY-1 has the discrimination capability to guide its missiles to terminal engagement. It can use Doppler measurement technique to form 2 D images and possibly 3D. The illuminators are meant to relieve guidance workload against saturation missile attacks. The new technology adopted in AMDR and in particular using true digital beamforming can handle multiple tracks and engage multiple target simultaneously due to its adoption at sub element level. This in conjunction with its greater sensitivity effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant. If the Type 055's radar tech adoption is as advanced as the AMDR, the idea of just having S band can mean many more things. Since you have practically zero facts on the type 055 radar capabilities, you have nothing to work on to speculate on the missile. .

 

[Tam]

The problem is you are overlaying an unknown over another unknown i.e. you don't know the technical capabilities of the Type 055 radar and yet you are using that as a base to speculate on another unknown - the missile

S band as adopted in SPY-1 has the discrimination capability to guide its missiles to terminal engagement. It can use Doppler measurement technique to form 2 D images and possibly 3D. The illuminators are meant to relieve guidance workload against saturation missile attacks. The new technology adopted in AMDR and in particular using true digital beamforming can handle multiple tracks and engage multiple target simultaneously due to its adoption at sub element level. This in conjunction with its greater sensitivity effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant. If the Type 055's radar tech adoption is as advanced as the AMDR, the idea of just having S band can mean many more things. Since you have practically zero facts on the type 055 radar capabilities, you have nothing to work on to speculate on the missile. .

Doppler measurement is far more precise with X-band. S-band radars use MTI (Moving Target Indicator) to track moving objects. MTI (or AMTI or Adaptive MTI) works better with longer frequencies.

SPY-1 is accurate to aim the illuminator at the target, but the missile itself requires the X-band emitted by the SPG-62 and reflecting off the target, to guide the SM-2 or ESSM towards it.

AMDR does not eliminate the requirement of a CWI (Continuous Wave Illuminator) like the SPG-62. Flight III Burke will still have SPG-62 for legacy missiles. X-band component of AMDR is supplied by SPQ-9B, which is an X-band PESA and is an effective fire control radar for gunnery and spotting and differentiate sea skimmers of the high clutter environment of the sea. However, as a high PRF radar, it is not spec'ed or intended to be a CWI. Its job remains to keep spotting for sea skimmers from its high point in the mast, which gives it extended radar horizon, and guide the guns at them. Keeping the SPG-62 to do the CWI job frees the SPQ-9B free to work as spotting for sea skimmers.



For missile guidance, you not only require the higher frequency such as X-band, but also require it to be in a Continuous Wave (CW) form. You cannot use Pulse radar modes on this. Its important for people to know this but just because you have an X-band radar does not mean its capable of CWI for missile targeting, the radar needs to be built with the circuit for it. Missile seekers all work in X-band CWI.

Blitzo is correct. Ships that have only S-band radars can sufficiently provide the mid course guidance needed for ARH missiles used as SAMs. These ships don't need X-band CWI systems and typically don't have them. Good examples are ships that use the ARH guided Aster missiles, including FREMM and Type 45. It doesn't mean they won't have X-band radars, you still need the X-band radar for gun and antiship missile targeting, but at least you only need one X-band radar for that purpose as FCR and you don't have to burden putting three or four, or even as far as six CWI devices like on the Sovremenny. Well at least for Western systems, they typically only use one X-band FCR for gun and antiship targeting, while the Chinese and the Russians tend to use two, one gun FCR and one antiship missile FCR.

Thales STIR. This unit is licensed for use on the OHP frigates' FCS, on Korean and Japanese destroyers, and on many European ships. This radar combines gun fire control, antiship missile fire control and SARH illumination for Standards and ESSM if you order this on the options sheet. A true MF FCR all rolled into one.

 

[Blitzo]

The problem is you are overlaying an unknown over another unknown i.e. you don't know the technical capabilities of the Type 055 radar and yet you are using that as a base to speculate on another unknown - the missile

S band as adopted in SPY-1 has the discrimination capability to guide its missiles to terminal engagement. It can use Doppler measurement technique to form 2 D images and possibly 3D. The illuminators are meant to relieve guidance workload against saturation missile attacks. The new technology adopted in AMDR and in particular using true digital beamforming can handle multiple tracks and engage multiple target simultaneously due to its adoption at sub element level. This in conjunction with its greater sensitivity effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant. If the Type 055's radar tech adoption is as advanced as the AMDR, the idea of just having S band can mean many more things. Since you have practically zero facts on the type 055 radar capabilities, you have nothing to work on to speculate on the missile. .

The AMDR-S aka the SPY-6 is also an S band AESA (albeit of course it uses GaN elements which allows for greater power among other things), however the initial starting Flight III Burke hulls which will be equipped with SPY-6 will also retain the AN/SPG-62 illuminators to guide SARH guided missiles. Of course, they will not need the AN/SPG-62 illuminators to guide ARH missiles such as SM-6 or ESSM block ii (among others).

You seem to be under the assumption that AMDR aka SPY-6 somehow makes illuminators "redundant" which is not how it works. An S band AESA is not enough to provide terminal engagement guidance for SARH missiles and you either need dedicated illuminator mounts like AN/SGP-62, or you need an AESA operating on a different band like X band to provide that capability.

The "capability" of type 346 which we "assume" is that it has similar general capability to most other S band AESAs that exist in the world whether it's SAMPSON or EMPAR or MF STAR, which I think is a very reasonable assumption given what little we are able to confidently ascertain about the type 346 and its fire control system (i.e.: it is definitely an S band AESA, that the 052C itself doesn't have dedicated illuminator mounts, that it is used to guide HHQ-9 missiles which the earliest variant had ranges well exceeding 100km etc).



Your completely incorrect description of the AMDR's fire control concept makes me question just how much you know about the fire control mechanism of various other naval ships in the world and your fundamental understanding of modern naval SAM fire control in general.
I don't call myself an expert, but I know that saying "AMDR effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant" is completely ridiculous, and I have a working understanding of the various major modern ship types and their SAM fire control mechanisms.
E.g.: do you understand the primary differences between a SPY-6 equipped Flight III Burke vs a Burke equipped with SPY-1?
Or for that matter, the primary differences between a SPY-1 equipped Burke and a Type 45 destroyer which features SAMPSON?
Or the difference between any two of the above and a Sachsen frigate which has SMART-L and Thales' APAR?
Or say, the differences between a Grigorovich frigate's fire control system versus a SPY-1 equipped Burke?

 

[by78]

The problem is you are overlaying an unknown over another unknown i.e. you don't know the technical capabilities of the Type 055 radar and yet you are using that as a base to speculate on another unknown - the missile

S band as adopted in SPY-1 has the discrimination capability to guide its missiles to terminal engagement. It can use Doppler measurement technique to form 2 D images and possibly 3D. The illuminators are meant to relieve guidance workload against saturation missile attacks. The new technology adopted in AMDR and in particular using true digital beamforming can handle multiple tracks and engage multiple target simultaneously due to its adoption at sub element level. This in conjunction with its greater sensitivity effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant. If the Type 055's radar tech adoption is as advanced as the AMDR, the idea of just having S band can mean many more things. Since you have practically zero facts on the type 055 radar capabilities, you have nothing to work on to speculate on the missile. .

AMDR (aka AN/SPY-6) operates in the S-band, which doesn't give enough resolution for terminal guidance. No way around that. It needs to operate in conjunction with an X-band radar to achieve a firing solution, sort of like a sniper team, with AMDR being the spotting scope and the X-band radar being the sniping scope. As Bltizo pointed out, initially AMDR will be paired with AN/SPG-62, which might eventually be replaced by a rotating AN/SPQ-9B on some Burkes. The end goal is to have the AMDR paired with four fixed X-band arrays to achieve continuous 360-degree coverage, but the Burke hulls are too obsolete for that, which is why the US navy is urgently designing a Burke replacement.

In other words, the Burke replacement will have the same radar arrangement as the 055: four S-band arrays + four X-band arrays. And that's that.

P.S., I think there might be some confusion due to how protracted the AMDR program has been. AMDR was an umbrella term for the program to develop the next-generation shipborne radars. It was always meant to have both a S-band and an X-band component, with the former sometimes known as AMDR-S and the latter AMDR-X. The S-band development was assigned to Raytheon. The X-band radar was to be developed by a different company, but that appears to have bogged down badly. So now basically we have Raytheon almost ready with the S-band radar while the US navy is still hunting for that X-band sidekick. Meanwhile, Raytheon's marketing department has unhelpfully been calling the S-band component the AMDR, when in reality the S-band component is only one half of the overall AMDR program.

 

[Brumby]

The AMDR-S aka the SPY-6 is also an S band AESA (albeit of course it uses GaN elements which allows for greater power among other things), however the initial starting Flight III Burke hulls which will be equipped with SPY-6 will also retain the AN/SPG-62 illuminators to guide SARH guided missiles. Of course, they will not need the AN/SPG-62 illuminators to guide ARH missiles such as SM-6 or ESSM block ii (among others).

You seem to be under the assumption that AMDR aka SPY-6 somehow makes illuminators "redundant" which is not how it works. An S band AESA is not enough to provide terminal engagement guidance for SARH missiles and you either need dedicated illuminator mounts like AN/SGP-62, or you need an AESA operating on a different band like X band to provide that capability.

The "capability" of type 346 which we "assume" is that it has similar general capability to most other S band AESAs that exist in the world whether it's SAMPSON or EMPAR or MF STAR, which I think is a very reasonable assumption given what little we are able to confidently ascertain about the type 346 and its fire control system (i.e.: it is definitely an S band AESA, that the 052C itself doesn't have dedicated illuminator mounts, that it is used to guide HHQ-9 missiles which the earliest variant had ranges well exceeding 100km etc).



Your completely incorrect description of the AMDR's fire control concept makes me question just how much you know about the fire control mechanism of various other naval ships in the world and your fundamental understanding of modern naval SAM fire control in general.
I don't call myself an expert, but I know that saying "AMDR effectively makes dedicated illuminators redundant" is completely ridiculous, and I have a working understanding of the various major modern ship types and their SAM fire control mechanisms.
E.g.: do you understand the primary differences between a SPY-6 equipped Flight III Burke vs a Burke equipped with SPY-1?
Or for that matter, the primary differences between a SPY-1 equipped Burke and a Type 45 destroyer which features SAMPSON?
Or the difference between any two of the above and a Sachsen frigate which has SMART-L and Thales' APAR?
Or say, the differences between a Grigorovich frigate's fire control system versus a SPY-1 equipped Burke?

In order for a proper conversation on the subject of radar and the frequency of choice it is important to relate it to the context of the overall conversation. In this case we are discussing the Type 055 and correspondingly the Arleigh Burke (AB) as a reference point since very little is known of the Type 055 and its capabilities.

The role of the AB amongst many things include the provision of area air defense against ballistic missiles and other air threats. Needless to say, it includes provision for self-defense. The nature of the diversity of threats warrant a suite of capabilities rather than a one size fits all approach. The NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study and other studies established that X-band AESA-based radar was considered optimal for shipboard self-defense (horizon search). The choice of X-band frequency provided favourable low-altitude propagation characteristics, narrow beamwidth for track accuracy, wide operating bandwidth, and the ability to support target illumination for guided missile engagements. However for longer range engagements necessary for area air and missile defense lower frequencies such as S or C bands would be more optimal given the need to cover a much larger search area and engagement distance. It is not surprising that high end escort platforms like the AB have both S and X band radars.

When we engage in a discussion about the type of sensors needed it is important to pair the conversation to the nature of the threat and the type of missile under consideration. In the case of ESSM, it is primarily short to medium range self defense and the missiles are guided by the X band radar. With Block 2 ESSM which is slotted to go IOC in 2020, X band guidance is no longer needed as it comes with a dual mode seeker. In the case of long range engagements such as with SM-6, the guidance is via S band with terminal homing due to the long range and the nature of the threat such as ballistic missiles. The argument seems to me is that S band is incapable of providing sufficient resolution to engage the long range target.

In the case of the AMDR (SPY-6), there are enough public information to establish its capability. Against warhead and missile targets the AMDR would likely see a somewhat larger (roughly a factor of three) target radar cross-section due to its lower operating frequency. The new AMDR-S antenna area is about 75% greater than the area of the current SPY-1 antenna. If it operates at the 3.3 GHz frequency, its gain will also increase by about 75%. The AMDR-S gains about a factor of three in S/N relative to the current Aegis radar simply due to its larger antenna. The remaining factor of ten to get a total factor of about 15 dB = 32 is from increased average power (GAN based) and decreasing the system temperature and system losses. In the John Hopkins publication, S-band was assessed to provide acceptable performance for much lower cost than an X-band (~10 GHz) system at the same sensitivity and field of view. Trade study analysis indicated that although discrimination performance at X-band would be superior, it was not sufficiently better than the performance at S-band to justify the cost differential. (source : Page 149 Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018)

 

[Tam]

In order for a proper conversation on the subject of radar and the frequency of choice it is important to relate it to the context of the overall conversation. In this case we are discussing the Type 055 and correspondingly the Arleigh Burke (AB) as a reference point since very little is known of the Type 055 and its capabilities.

The role of the AB amongst many things include the provision of area air defense against ballistic missiles and other air threats. Needless to say, it includes provision for self-defense. The nature of the diversity of threats warrant a suite of capabilities rather than a one size fits all approach. The NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study and other studies established that X-band AESA-based radar was considered optimal for shipboard self-defense (horizon search). The choice of X-band frequency provided favourable low-altitude propagation characteristics, narrow beamwidth for track accuracy, wide operating bandwidth, and the ability to support target illumination for guided missile engagements. However for longer range engagements necessary for area air and missile defense lower frequencies such as S or C bands would be more optimal given the need to cover a much larger search area and engagement distance. It is not surprising that high end escort platforms like the AB have both S and X band radars.

When we engage in a discussion about the type of sensors needed it is important to pair the conversation to the nature of the threat and the type of missile under consideration. In the case of ESSM, it is primarily short to medium range self defense and the missiles are guided by the X band radar. With Block 2 ESSM which is slotted to go IOC in 2020, X band guidance is no longer needed as it comes with a dual mode seeker. In the case of long range engagements such as with SM-6, the guidance is via S band with terminal homing due to the long range and the nature of the threat such as ballistic missiles. The argument seems to me is that S band is incapable of providing sufficient resolution to engage the long range target.

This is old news. SAMPSON, EMPAR and HERAKLES are S-band radars and they are capable of providing the necessary resolution for an ARH missile, this one being the Aster 15/30 missiles. This is already long understood. ARH missiles allow for a large error of margin equal to the range of their radar seekers.

Its not an issue with the SPY-1 family either, once you use ARH missiles like SM-6 and ESSM Block 2.

In the case of the AMDR (SPY-6), there are enough public information to establish its capability. Against warhead and missile targets the AMDR would likely see a somewhat larger (roughly a factor of three) target radar cross-section due to its lower operating frequency. The new AMDR-S antenna area is about 75% greater than the area of the current SPY-1 antenna. If it operates at the 3.3 GHz frequency, its gain will also increase by about 75%. The AMDR-S gains about a factor of three in S/N relative to the current Aegis radar simply due to its larger antenna. The remaining factor of ten to get a total factor of about 15 dB = 32 is from increased average power (GAN based) and decreasing the system temperature and system losses. In the John Hopkins publication, S-band was assessed to provide acceptable performance for much lower cost than an X-band (~10 GHz) system at the same sensitivity and field of view. Trade study analysis indicated that although discrimination performance at X-band would be superior, it was not sufficiently better than the performance at S-band to justify the cost differential. (source : Page 149 Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018)

S-band is cheaper because for a given square area, you need less elements and less modules. Remember that each element are arranged so that they need to be just a little over 1/2 the length of the frequency used by the array. An S-band for example, can be like 5 centimeters between each T/R, while X-band can be about 1.5 centimeters. Longer wavelengths have less attenuation over a medium than shorter wavelengths, which makes S-band power efficient over long distances. L-band and UHF are even more efficient for volume search but also results in lowering resolution.

GaN does not change the need for X-band. GaN addresses the issues of peak power and temperature, its a completely different plane from the need of different frequencies. You will see GaN powered X-band AESA soon enough. SPY-5 is the reserved designation for Raytheon's next generation X-band AESA after the SPY-3.

X-band isn't the best frequency for volume air search, so I wonder why that technical digest would compare the two. That's like comparing apples vs. oranges with the criteria being the taste of orange. Applications of SPY-6 itself is paired with SPQ-9B, which is a dual backed X-band PESA, to provide X-band fire control and surface search. Ideally, SPY-5 should be doing that job, but cost and development lag means SPQ-9B will fill that role for now. For some reason, SPY-3, the X-band on the Gerald Ford and the Zumwalt, isn't being used either, perhaps due to issues.

 

[Tam]

AMDR (aka AN/SPY-6) operates in the S-band, which doesn't give enough resolution for terminal guidance. No way around that. It needs to operate in conjunction with an X-band radar to achieve a firing solution, sort of like a sniper team, with AMDR being the spotting scope and the X-band radar being the sniping scope. As Bltizo pointed out, initially AMDR will be paired with AN/SPG-62, which might eventually be replaced by a rotating AN/SPQ-9B on some Burkes. The end goal is to have the AMDR paired with four fixed X-band arrays to achieve continuous 360-degree coverage, but the Burke hulls are too obsolete for that, which is why the US navy is urgently designing a Burke replacement.

In other words, the Burke replacement will have the same radar arrangement as the 055: four S-band arrays + four X-band arrays. And that's that.

P.S., I think there might be some confusion due to how protracted the AMDR program has been. AMDR was an umbrella term for the program to develop the next-generation shipborne radars. It was always meant to have both a S-band and an X-band component, with the former sometimes known as AMDR-S and the latter AMDR-X. The S-band development was assigned to Raytheon. The X-band radar was to be developed by a different company, but that appears to have bogged down badly. So now basically we have Raytheon almost ready with the S-band radar while the US navy is still hunting for that X-band sidekick. Meanwhile, Raytheon's marketing department has unhelpfully been calling the S-band component the AMDR, when in reality the S-band component is only one half of the overall AMDR program.

True. You can see AMDR-S here.



One important note however is that the purpose of SPG-62 vs. SPQ-9B should not be confused. SPG-62 are just illuminators. They have no capability to receive echoes and process it. They are glorified RF spotlights. SPQ-9B is both a gunnery fire control radar and a surface search radar. Its currently used with the latest AEGIS baseline 9 upgrade for the Tico class, where the SPQ-9A radar is replaced by it. SPQ-9B is also used with LPDs and LHDs, such as the USS Wasp. It is also used with USCG cutters, like the National Security Cutters. What the SPQ-9B isn't, is being a missile target illuminator. It doesn't replace the SPG-62, in fact, on the Burke Flight III, both are used simultaneously and each has their own separate mission. SPQ-9B does not replace SPG-62 either on the AEGIS Baseline 9 upgrade on the Ticonderoga class. Once again, both are used simultaneously. You can see both in the picture of the Burke Flight III above.

This square unit on top of the mast is SPQ-9B.


The unit on the bottom is SPG-62.

Note that the SPQ-9B is placed at a height in the mast. This gives the radar an extended radar horizon and it is the purpose of this radar to scan the radar horizon for incoming sea skimmers. It also doubles as gunnery fire control.

Sorry this sounds like its off topic, but it sheds some context on the use of the X-band radars on the Type 055.

 

[Max Demian]

X-band isn't the best frequency for volume air search, so I wonder why that technical digest would compare the two. That's like comparing apples vs. oranges with the criteria being the taste of orange.

I am curious, what makes X-band less than ideal for volume air search?

 

[Tam]

I am curious, what makes X-band less than ideal for volume air search?

High attenuation. The higher the frequency, the greater the energy loss as it goes through a medium.

The other is the short wavelength. Imagine this. An X-band is like a 3" paint brush. S-band is like a 10" paint roller. Which is better for painting for painting a wall? Which is better for painting corners and tight spots? Volume air search is like painting the walls of a room. Fire control is like painting the tight spots. Do you want broad work? Do you want fine work? The range of radar bands from metric to K-band is like a set of painting tools that go from the very broad to the very fine.

 

[Blitzo]

In order for a proper conversation on the subject of radar and the frequency of choice it is important to relate it to the context of the overall conversation. In this case we are discussing the Type 055 and correspondingly the Arleigh Burke (AB) as a reference point since very little is known of the Type 055 and its capabilities.

The role of the AB amongst many things include the provision of area air defense against ballistic missiles and other air threats. Needless to say, it includes provision for self-defense. The nature of the diversity of threats warrant a suite of capabilities rather than a one size fits all approach. The NATO Anti-Air Warfare System (NAAWS) study and other studies established that X-band AESA-based radar was considered optimal for shipboard self-defense (horizon search). The choice of X-band frequency provided favourable low-altitude propagation characteristics, narrow beamwidth for track accuracy, wide operating bandwidth, and the ability to support target illumination for guided missile engagements. However for longer range engagements necessary for area air and missile defense lower frequencies such as S or C bands would be more optimal given the need to cover a much larger search area and engagement distance. It is not surprising that high end escort platforms like the AB have both S and X band radars.

When we engage in a discussion about the type of sensors needed it is important to pair the conversation to the nature of the threat and the type of missile under consideration. In the case of ESSM, it is primarily short to medium range self defense and the missiles are guided by the X band radar. With Block 2 ESSM which is slotted to go IOC in 2020, X band guidance is no longer needed as it comes with a dual mode seeker. In the case of long range engagements such as with SM-6, the guidance is via S band with terminal homing due to the long range and the nature of the threat such as ballistic missiles. The argument seems to me is that S band is incapable of providing sufficient resolution to engage the long range target.

In the case of the AMDR (SPY-6), there are enough public information to establish its capability. Against warhead and missile targets the AMDR would likely see a somewhat larger (roughly a factor of three) target radar cross-section due to its lower operating frequency. The new AMDR-S antenna area is about 75% greater than the area of the current SPY-1 antenna. If it operates at the 3.3 GHz frequency, its gain will also increase by about 75%. The AMDR-S gains about a factor of three in S/N relative to the current Aegis radar simply due to its larger antenna. The remaining factor of ten to get a total factor of about 15 dB = 32 is from increased average power (GAN based) and decreasing the system temperature and system losses. In the John Hopkins publication, S-band was assessed to provide acceptable performance for much lower cost than an X-band (~10 GHz) system at the same sensitivity and field of view. Trade study analysis indicated that although discrimination performance at X-band would be superior, it was not sufficiently better than the performance at S-band to justify the cost differential. (source : Page 149 Johns Hopkins APL Technical Digest, Volume 34, Number 2 (2018)

I don't know how it is possible to hold a conversation about this topic when you don't seem to have a working understanding of the various guidance and fire control concepts on other ships in the world.

It seems like you're doing some research around the topic as we're discussing it but only oriented towards the Burke class ships, the SPY-6 and SPY-1, and US missile systems used aboard those ships.

But if you're trying to have a discussion about what 052C's guidance and fire control concept is (and by extension, that of 052D, 055 etc), you need to have a working understanding of how the major other ship types operate as well. Type 45, Horizon, Grigorovich, FREMM, Kolkata, Sachsen/De Zeven class, all feature guidance concepts which require a working understanding. Those ships are all relevant reference points if we want to discuss what 052C's guidance and fire control concept is.

You're doing a great job quoting documents and articles that you've looked up, but it is completely irrelevant to the argument you're trying to make.
For example -- yes, it's basic knowledge that Block II ESSM and SM-6 do not need terminal illuminators (which, if I'm not sure I need to spell out for you -- operate in the X band) because they are ARH, and I've written statements to that extent in previous posts as well.
But there is a reason why the first batches of Flight III Burkes will retain their SPG-62 illuminators -- and that's because they'll still be using SARH guided missiles (like older SM-2 variants, and ESSM block I) which requires terminal illuminators that SPY-6 cannot provide.

The fact that you write about SPY-6's ability to provide guidance for ARH missiles as if it is "news" without knowing that there are multiple other guidance/radar systems in S band in the world which already offer it (SAMPSON, EMPAR, MF STAR) is rather revealing.