Re: How Do You Sink A Carrier?
TWT is nothing more than an RF source (like the earlier magnetrons and klystrons) which is then amplied and channeled into the next step in the radar emissions process. A TWT can be used to supply either pulse OR CW emissions. Hence, the AWG-9 has two TWT's, one for illumination, one for pulse emission. Note that the AWG-9 is still one radar, the same radar that emits either pulse or CW, the same radar that has TWS capability even as it guides Sparrows with its CW function. Your futile and illogical attempt to equate TWT with CW illuminator utterly fails. Your futile and illogical attempt to claim that pulse and CW cannot be emitted from the same radar utterly fails because only in some queer other reality does TWT = CW illuminator. Here, educate yourself:
Here is Ambie's source again, this time in reference to pulse (TWS) + CW (semi-active illumination) in the same radar. Man, the evidence against your queer claims sure do add up, don't they?
This is the same principle that all aircraft-mounted planar array radars used prior to the advent of ESA's.
Second, there is no such thing as an SPG-69.
Third, "backending" an SPG-62 to "interrupt" a CW illuminator makes it a pulsing illuminator, not an ICW illuminator.
Oh, and by the way, I just looked up the credentials for the author of Introduction to Electronic Defense Systems, on page 599. You can view it through the same link I provided earlier. Just scroll down. You are ABSOLUTELY finished, as he represents the highest and most relevant knowledge bank for this discussion. PhD in electronics engineering from Rome University, became head of the Tracking Radar Department of Marconi Systems, then Electronic Warfare systems manager, written many technical articles, holds many international patents, bla bla bla. Hardly an internet fanboy like yourself, wouldn't you say? This guy could take a warm dump on all those IEEE websites. Just scroll through his book, and you'll see for yourself.
You have a habit of brushing off people who wrote books that flatly contradict your claims as idiots and as people who don't know what you know. What the hell do you know anyway? And who the hell are you compared to people who write books on the subject? A self-styled internet expert who can't tell the difference between a TWT and an illuminator (which completely destroys any remaining credibility you may have had), who has no idea what PRF or FMCW really means, and who who doesn't have the first clue what ICWI is especially when five different sources say the same thing, oh, which happens to DIRECTLY contradict your claims about ICWI.
Have you become so clueless as to now try and equate a TWT as an CW illuminator? Do you even have the first clue what a TWT is? Or is this the extent to which you must now spindoctor your egregiously and ridiculously erroneous claim that pulse and CW can't happen in the same radar, in order to have your fantasies be shoehorned into any semblance of reality? You actually didn't even have to know that a TWT is not an illuminator just by simply reading the description of TWT in the AWG-9 page, or even just by reading the description of a TWT in Wiki or by Google. But you didn't even bother to do that before you mindlessly shot off yet another bizarrely surreal post making yet another brand new foray into Lala-land. How can you reconcile your claim that TWT = CW illuminator when the AWG-9 also devotes a TWT to pulse? How can you reconcile your claim to the fact that the SPY-1 and other radars use TWT's? SPY-1 has NO illumination function at all. NONE. Your posts are getting more and more surreal as you depart further and further from reality because each pseudofact that you put out has to be covered in the next post by an even more surreal pseudofact. It's a house built on sand.
TWT is nothing more than an RF source (like the earlier magnetrons and klystrons) which is then amplied and channeled into the next step in the radar emissions process. A TWT can be used to supply either pulse OR CW emissions. Hence, the AWG-9 has two TWT's, one for illumination, one for pulse emission. Note that the AWG-9 is still one radar, the same radar that emits either pulse or CW, the same radar that has TWS capability even as it guides Sparrows with its CW function. Your futile and illogical attempt to equate TWT with CW illuminator utterly fails. Your futile and illogical attempt to claim that pulse and CW cannot be emitted from the same radar utterly fails because only in some queer other reality does TWT = CW illuminator. Here, educate yourself:
So are you saying that the Naval Institute Guide claims that APAR has an infinite PRF? What a joke. What a hideous spindoctoring of reality. Once again, PRF is only a factor in pulse radars. Like the APAR. Which is why the book talks about PRF in the APAR section. The logic is clear to the average person. The reason it's not clear to you is simply because you refuse to acknowledge truth staring you in the face, all for the sake of pride, all for the sake of not wanting to admit you're wrong, and wrong about so many of these things.
Oh really? So according to this definition, what's the difference between "pulse" and "ICW"? Thrill me with your acumen.
It really doesn't matter what you say about this issue at this point. It's clear that radars can integrate the hardware and software of pulse and CW into a single radar system. The problem in understanding lies with you.
Here is Ambie's source again, this time in reference to pulse (TWS) + CW (semi-active illumination) in the same radar. Man, the evidence against your queer claims sure do add up, don't they?
This is the same principle that all aircraft-mounted planar array radars used prior to the advent of ESA's.
Get a clue. The same array can shift from CW to pulse back to CW nearly instantaneously, depending on what target it's shining on. It can do CW for a few microseconds on an incoming missile, then shift to tracking a friendly AWACS in the next few microseconds, then shift to CW on a second incoming missile for the next few microseconds, and so on and so on. And that's just for a PESA. It's actually very similar for a planar array. An AESA like APAR can do the same task simultaneously by subgrouping different T/R elements into tracking (pulse) or illuminating (CW) subgroups. The tracking elements which need to receive can still receive, and the illuminating elements which don't need to receive, won't. I believe I have already mentioned this exact capability in an earlier post. It seems you don't understand the basic principles of ESA's, or you have a poor memory.
What a ludicrous statement coming from you. The two books I quoted that flatly contradicted you are BOOKS, not some non-technical internet fanboy sources: "Introduction to Electronic Defense Systems" and "Radar Handbook". And frankly, compared to you (or I), any book is a technical source. Just leafing through these books it's obvious they know more about radar systems now than you personally will ever learn in your lifetime. And make no mistake they directly and blatantly contradict your claims about what ICWI really means. You don't have the right to unceremoniously brush off these authors just because they happen to completely trash your surreal claims and expose them for what they are. That's pride talking. That's ego in the face of cold hard reality smashing down your house of sand.
I just did. You don't emit CW and expect a receive cycle at the same time. You don't have to. Understand?
First, typical planar array radars on fighters emit in a much wider potential cone than the pencil-beam emitting radars on surface ships, ala SPG-62. What an AWG-9 can cover is probably orders of magnitude more than what an SPG-62 can do. Planar array beams are also electronically steered to an extent. An SPG-62 has no dimension which is electronically steered. There is not even a comparison to be made here. But all this does absolutely NOTHING to mitigate the fact that the source directly states mechanically steered illuminators (like those used on SHIPS) cannot do ICWI because of inertia, and why ESA's CAN do ICWI because they're electronically scanned. We both know exactly what the author means by this. ICWI is a means of multitarget illumination, not a certain type of RF emission. My other two book sources confirm exactly this. Thales itself confirms this. Your misunderstanding and/or misrepresentation of your own sources can do absolutely nothing to cover this up.
Second, there is no such thing as an SPG-69.
Third, "backending" an SPG-62 to "interrupt" a CW illuminator makes it a pulsing illuminator, not an ICW illuminator.
Laugh all you want, you're the one who thinks that a TWT is an illuminator.
All this is your grand attempt to equate ICWI with FMCW and now FMICW because it contains the word "interrupted". Fact is, FMCW does not equal ICWI and FMICW does not equal ICWI no matter how you spin these sources. They are completely different concepts. Just the name themselves testify against you. Why call something FMICW when you can just call it ICW? Why call something FMCW when you can call it ICW? And neither of these concepts and neither of your sources refer to their application in illumination of multiple targets, as is Thales claim for what ICWI does. Clearly until these latest posts you didn't think they were the same thing. Or at least you didn't try to front like they were the same thing. Here is what you said before:
Clearly you believed that FMCW and ICW were distinct entities until you decided you had to try and fudge them into the same thing.
You want to know what's a joke? Here, this one's the real joke:
I believe you could do well in Washington as a political pundit. Over there they all know how to spin like a friggin top. Fact is you still can't decide whether you want this hypothetical beam to be continuous, or interrupted, or frequency modulated, or pulsed, or whatever the hell you dream up next. You're trying desperately to conflate ALL of these together into the same thing in the vain hope that somehow some way people will get mixed up in all these terms and forget that you have no idea WTF you're talking about and that you're just throwing out terms there with no understanding of them at all.
"CW radar"? Didn't you get all arrogant about illuminators not "technically" being radars? Aren't we talking about the illumination capability on APAR and AWG-9 here? Didn't you specifically call AWG-9's a "CW illuminator"? So how the hell is it a radar all of a sudden? Try not to sound so uppity next time when you are guilty of the same thing you accuse someone else of. That's called hypocrisy.
For someone who has no idea WTF a TWT even is, I wouldn't be laughing. Actually the correct term on an AESA is "waveform generator" which I lazily called a TWT. They are not technically the same, but the principle of generating and amplifying a RF source is the same. And make no mistake, the APAR has separate waveform generators dedicated to tracking and illuminating. This is confirmed both by the Naval Institute Guide and this source:
Oh, so ICW is "similar" to FMCW or pulse? How similar? In all your spindoctoring you've tried separately to directly EQUATE ICW with either FMCW or pulse by alternately claiming that ICW is somehow "interrupted" in pulse fashion or "modulated" in FM fashion. Well why don't you finally make up your mind and spindoctor the final version for me?
And this means what? Nothing but another ham-handed attempt to seize upon FMICW in your attempt to cloud the fact that besides the common word "interrupted" there is nothing here for you to spin together to get from FMICW to ICWI. Your ramblings above clearly indicate you understand neither FMICW nor FMCW nor pulse nor, more importantly, how to best use them to make ICWI mean what you want it to mean.
LOL. I like the part where you try so hard to distinguish ICW from pulse here. A bucket eh? Actually, "bucketing" is not a necessary part of the definition of a pulsing radar. The only necessary defining aspect of a pulse radar is that the handle be turned on and off, so no matter how hard you try to spin this little "analogy", it's not going to work. If you are trying to spin that pulsed radars "need" stuff like pulse compression to be defined as pulsed radars, you're just wrong. Even if you were right, the lack of such augmentation on an alleged "ICW beam" just means it would be a substandard alternative to pulsed radars. You might as well use a straight up pulsed beam to both track and illuminate. Fact is, even after all this spinning you still can't make a case for the existence of an "ICW beam", or just as importantly, why it should even exist as a viable alternative to a pulse beam as a means of illumination. Fact is, there is no "ICW beam". ICWI is as ALL of my relevant sources describe, a means of using a single radar to illuminate multiple enemy targets by time-sharing a CW beam among them.
Hahahahahahahahaha
I see. An internet fanboy, someone like you, wrote an entire book called "Introduction to Electronic Defense Systems". If you were actually capable of writing such a book, I actually would give you some respect. But we both know better, don't we? No, the guy who wrote that book has more creds than you will ever have, you and all your egregrious misinterpretation/misrepresentation of those "IEEE" sources you posted.
OMG that's so pathetic. So you're claiming that Thales is somehow lying or exaggerating when it claims that ICWI is "a technology that enables a missile control system to guide several missiles simultaneously to various threats"? So, what exactly is it lying or exaggerating about here? That ICWI is NOT such a technology? That it is actually an in-between-pulse-and-CW-pseudo-pulsed-modulated-mumbo-jumbo beam that only you are aware of? Is it a conspiracy they are trying to cover up about the true nature of ICWI? What exactly are they not being entirely truthful about here in this statement? Please, do tell. Actually, don't bother. I have no need to read another hideous attempt to spindoctor away yet another source which flat out unambiguously contradicts your ideas of ICWI.
OMFG please tell me you did NOT just sink to new desperate lows and link some post from another forum as a piece of evidence. That just takes the cake. I actually came across several forum sources which say the exact same thing I've been saying about ICWI but they were beneath my intellectual dignity to post as evidence here, as I see them as no better qualified than yourself. Or myself, for that matter. I guess you have no such qualms posting other internet fanboy's opinions here and treating them as gospel. Good for you. LOL
What the hell are you talking about? There is no separate ILLUMINATOR inside either the APAR or the AWG-9. The TWT is NOT an illuminator for cryin out loud. You know that I know that you know that you have to front that a TWT is an actual illuminator when it is in fact no such thing. And YOU were the one who so arrogantly acted all uppity when telling me I didn't know what a TWT was. We both know the reason that you have to claim that the TWT is an illuminator is to support your thesis that you can't have both pulse and CW in the same radar. Yet how can your queer thesis hold up if my source states that the AWG-9 has a separate TWT for pulse and one for CW? Why, easy! Claim that a TWT is somehow actually an "illuminator", and presto! Two distinct machines in the same nosecone. How pathetic. A TWT module lies on the back end of a radar set, like it does for an AWG-9. Like it does for a (non-illuminating) SPY-1 panel. Oops, forgot about the SPY-1? Need that source again that I posted above? How can TWT be an illuminator if SPY-1 doesn't illuminate? Why would a SPY-1 need a "TWT illuminator" (actually several of them behind each PAR face) if it's already got several SPG-62 slaves handy? A TWT is not a separate entity. It's an integral part of a radar system. No TWT, no emission of ANY kind, CW or pulse. So let's drop this idiotic pretense you're fronting here. It's just got too many holes for you to successfully spindoctor into a viable pseudofact.
Who cares what it seems like to you personally? With AESA's you can either 'permanently' assign a subgroup to either tracking or illumination, or to both by time-sharing. With a PESA like the PAC-2 radar (with only a single TWT), the entire panel does both, by time-sharing. Like I said before, the PAC-3 has two TWT's, which then allows the radar to start assigning different elements to different jobs. One to track (pulse), one to illuminate (CW), or both to track, etc.
Probably because SM-2 and ESSM can (so far) only handle CWI and ICWI. They would probably have to have additional hardware and/or software modification to learn how to read simultaneously interrupted AND pulsed illumination. At least with ICWI, when it's on target, it's on 100% of the time. Add a pulsed illumination to the time sharing and you will end up with even less illuminated time than a missile had to go by with CWI. Some day some missile may achieve this, but today is not that day.
Pffft.
That is so pathetic. So basically every source that disagrees with you is either unqualified compared to you or has some motive to hide a conspiracy about the ICWI. As far as I'm concerned you're utterly finished. I've got sources that would satisfy a man of honesty and unbiased neutrality. Two people who wrote books on radar, Thales itself, and two additional independent sources which totally corroborate the statements made by the books and by Thales. WTF do you have? Nothing that directly counters any of those sources. What you do have are a couple of websites the contents of which you don't even fully understand and which you have been completely unable to assemble into a coherent spindoctored version of what you would like ICWI to be. By any unbiased measure, you do not have the truth on your side.
Oh, and by the way, I just looked up the credentials for the author of Introduction to Electronic Defense Systems, on page 599. You can view it through the same link I provided earlier. Just scroll down. You are ABSOLUTELY finished, as he represents the highest and most relevant knowledge bank for this discussion. PhD in electronics engineering from Rome University, became head of the Tracking Radar Department of Marconi Systems, then Electronic Warfare systems manager, written many technical articles, holds many international patents, bla bla bla. Hardly an internet fanboy like yourself, wouldn't you say? This guy could take a warm dump on all those IEEE websites. Just scroll through his book, and you'll see for yourself.
Last edited:
